Speaking from California, yes, 4-H has them and I was trained in them when I became a leader a decade ago.
FFA leaders are school employees - ie credentialed teachers - and every school district has a set of policies, procedures, and training that are constantly monitored and evaluated.
In both cases we work with livestock and overnight visits and car rides.
They’re all crashing into each other over at ISWG on FB.
Your liability insurance company is probably working on something. I’ve come across several that offer brochures and free training materials to anyone on their websites.
In a world where a lot of people might be reconsidering who they train with these days, it might be a good month to get to work on your farm website and put up some great new professional pictures and new copy about your program and what you offer to help people find you and decide to give you a try.
Yes, GM’s immediate option is to go through the Safesport process, which I believe provides for arbitration as the next step. However, my assumption is that some day he, or someone else, will challenge SafeSport in court-- say if the arbitration goes against them. As we all recall from high school, one of the functions of the judicial branch is to pass muster on laws passed by Congress. It’s not like laws are a done deal just because Congress passes them.
I did a quick Lexis search and turned up a few cases that mention SafeSport, but the few I found are in preliminary stages and/or not really on point, so as far as I could find, there are no substantive decisions. That’s not too surprising, because a case could easily take 2-5 years to reach the point where there is a published decision.
Good, but I don’t have the stomach to go there.
Think it’s a better topic for a law forum. I highly doubt the case would go as far as the SCOTUS. There, to my eye, is nothing that violates one constitutional rights when it comes to how Safe Sport operates and what kind of punishments it hands out. I also think you are posing these questions under the assumption that the ONLY evidence is from 50 years ago (per the accused and no one else) with people who may or may not have been legal under the law as far as NJ is concerned.
I believe there are some sample consent forms and the like on the USEF website under Safe Sport.
I don’t know the details, but a very prominent skating coach tried to sue Safesport in court and I believe the case was thrown out. Richard Callaghan. He’s back in the news now actually with more allegations of abuse.
For those who say “oh the victim should just speak up” need to realize its not so easy. There needs to be someone to tell, someone who will listen. And someone that the person who might want to tell feels like they can trust–at least enough to tell. And if the adults around you havve betrayed that trust, then finding someone that you dare trust is hard. Very very hard. I work in higher ed now. When a student is at my door, saying,“Can I speak with you…there is no one else to speak with…” you better believe I put aside what I am doing, and make time and room for that student. I listen. I try to connect them to the right services. And I always say that my door is always open to them. I am not a therapist, I am not the police, but I am someone who can listen, care, and support them to get their story to the right place. Their trust in me is a gift, even if sometimes the revelations can be overwhelming to listen to.
Its not that easy for the survivor of abuse or molestation to tell. There has to be someone to tell, and trust me, most people are too uncomfortable to want to hear it. Denial is a powerful thing-- that is partly what must fuel the ISWG folks.
If arbitration is involved does that mean there is even court appeal of the arbitration decision? Of course anyone can appeal anything but it might be limited to challenge to process only and there has to be court jurisdiction. Secondly in many adminstrative proceedings where a process is found to be flawed it does not mean anyone wins , it just means a do over using new procedures.
I don’t, but random posts are landing in my Groups newsfeed.
I said something in an early post on this thead. Day 1 or 2, to the gist that GHM has/had more power in our sport globally than any other single individual. EVER.
Anyone who thinks he didn’t have the power to ruin a career, scupper a deal, keep someone off the Olympic or Nations Cup teams, blackball their star hunter or Big Eq candidate? Think again.
It makes me think that not everyone in the ISWG groups actually SWG. They just have to appear to do so in case he walks.
And because SafeSport was only signed in and enacted in 2017.
Now, I find the keyword in your thinking…Assumption.
Are you indeed a lawyer ??
I still find you layering the Courts of Law with Safesports internal strictures.
Yes, I saw the Callaghan case. It wasn’t exactly “thrown out.” It was “dismissed without prejudice” for “failure to exhaust administrative remedies.” That means he was sent back to the Safesport forum to exhaust all procedures and appeals he has there. Once he has done that, he can return to court (that’s the “without prejudice” part) and the court will decide then if he can proceed.
I do agree with omare, above, that no court is going to reconsider the strength of the evidence and overturn the arbitrators’ decision on the facts–i.e., if the arbitrators say he’s guilty, a court won’t come along and say, gee we think he’s innocent. But what I think is possible is some kind of collateral attack that the law was improperly enacted, that it exceeds Congress’s jurisdiction, that it is unconstitutional etc. Again, I am throwing out POSSIBLE avenues of attack… it is not my area of the law and I really can’t evaluate how such arguments would go.
I posted this law review article on the Rob Gage thread but it didn’t get any attention. It explains how the federal Sherman Act is used to analyze complaints about being banned from an association or sports club, and emphasizes the need for a fair and nonarbitrary procedure. If a case is filed in court after the appeal, it will likely take this shape. There are many, many cases going for and against associations, based very specifically on the facts. This author believes SafeSport should be Ok, but much will also depend on how IN FACT the procedures were applied, and that we shall see.
i tried explaining in that thread how the argument that private clubs can do anything they want is wrong, and also that this involved a constitutional due process right is wrong. An actual challenge would likely involve neither.
to be clear, in such a case there are market impact questions at stake, and then 1. Are the procedures the association has in place fair and reasonable? And 2. If so, did the association actually follow those procedures in the case at hand to a reasonable degree?
Originally posted by Sswor View Post
On the flip side, I can’t say a damn word about this GM thing (other then here) because I work with these people. To speak up against GM would be career suicide or very near akin to it. These people rule the h/j world and that’s all there is to it. It’s like a snake pit and you have to be very careful how you navigate in it.
Many years ago now there was a wonderful older woman, I’ll call her XYZ, at my daughter’s barn who was one of the top amateur riders in the country and had the nicest, most expensive horses bought from top trainers/show barns. One horse was the national champion the year before. We would laugh at her audacity sometimes, she did exactly what she wanted and no one would dare cross her. One time I remember she flew in Friday morning for her class, stepped out of her limo into a mud puddle from a hard rain the night before, and promptly got back into the limo and left. Never showed. I often saw her pull up if she missed to a jump because if she wasn’t going to win, why make her horse jump any more jumps.
Anyway, there was a younger amateur in the barn who it was whispered was having an affair during the winter circuit with a 17-year-old boy who rode in the jumpers. When XYZ heard the rumor, she promptly went to our trainer and told her she would not tolerate that behavior and to kick the woman out of the barn immediately. I wasn’t sure whether XYZ was upset that the boy was underage or that the woman was married with children–possibly both. Either way, because she had the power the younger amateur went that same day.
At home we shared a facility with another trainer. There was talk that the trainer, a thirty-something man, was sleeping with his fourteen-year-old girl student, and, worse, her mother knew about it and was OK with it. One day XYZ was walking her horse out after a lesson and as she rode by the barn row of the other trainer, she saw the trainer and the girl doing something inappropriate (she never described exactly what) in one of the stalls. She promptly turned around, marched up to the property owner’s house, told him what she saw, and decreed that the trainer was to be kicked out. The trainer was gone within the week.
Too bad we don’t have more people around the show world now like XYZ. She had the right moral compass and was not in the least afraid to speak up or wield her power. Even though our trainer was/is a GM disciple, it would be interesting to see where XYZ would come down on the current situation.
I think if anyone here wanted to set up a SS MAAPP like policy at their barn start with SS itself. Set your expectations for their understanding and engagement. It is no longer accepted that Little Suzi should just ask the trainer on the phone or email text etc. Everything and everyone must be transparent.
Parent needs to be up on the rules and that means going through the SS training
I have not read the whole law reveiw article but in going over the history it seems to not address congressional involvement and the requirements set out by law i think because it is referring to 2014 action by the us olympic committee (predating the law) as opposed to the 2017 law. I also notice the 2017 law refers to binding arbitration which usually means no appeal to court of the particular decision. When congress does not provide a path to appeal a decision that is nigh impossible to overcome - unless one is challenging a process. (Take foregoing with a big grain of salt as it is just first impression .) edited to add if the process is attacked is the best he can get is a do over with a new process?
Thanks, Fordtraktor. This is a very insightful contribution. It’s an area of law I’m not familiar with, so I find it very interesting. I’m sorry I missed it when you posted it on the other thread!
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
