GM Clinic at Persimmon Tree Farm

[amb]

@Equibrit

I also thought that…but I checked, and posted a piece of the relevant code up-thread which was “unapproved”. Anyway it appears to not be the case.

…

(b)Definition of Applicable Amateur Sports Organization.—In this section, the term “applicable amateur sports organization” means an amateur sports organization—
(1) that is not otherwise subject to the requirements under subchapter III;
(2) that participates in an interstate or international amateur athletic competition; and
(3) whose membership includes any adult who is in regular contact with an amateur athlete who is a minor.

Note that requirements 1-3 there have an “and”; if VHSA/MHSA/etc. are not participating in interstate or international amateur athletic competition I think they would not be subject to this. (More hair-splitting may be required to understand what constitutes an interstate athletic competition, though; events in multiple states would I suspect qualify, but I’m less sure about merely having competitors from multiple states.)

I was going to write something here about hopefully public opinion and pushback would cover the edge cases that the law doesn’t, and then reality (and the very reason this thread started) asserted itself. Sigh.

[ladyj79]

@amb

Note that requirements 1-3 there have an “and”; if VHSA/MHSA/etc. are not participating in interstate or international amateur athletic competition I think they would not be subject to this. (More hair-splitting may be required to understand what constitutes an interstate athletic competition, though; events in multiple states would I suspect qualify, but I’m less sure about merely having competitors from multiple states.)

I was going to write something here about hopefully public opinion and pushback would cover the edge cases that the law doesn’t, and then reality (and the very reason this thread started) asserted itself. Sigh.

Except don’t those organizations in particular, ie VSHA and MHSA explicitly state they conduct themselves under the rules of USEF?

So much of this hair splitting comes from people just seeking to justify their appalling behaviour and choices that actually already are prohibited under current organizational rules.

[Equibrit]

"Welcome to the Virginia Horse Shows Association’s Web Page. The VHSA is an association of show members and individual members cooperating to promote the sport and to improve the breeding of horses in the Commonwealth. All breed groups, shows and horse interests are represented and membership is open to all individuals and to shows in Virginia and the bordering states of Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia, Maryland, Delaware and North Carolina.

The VHSA is a member of the U.S. Equestrian Federation, the American Horse Council and the Virginia Horse Council. "

…

"WELCOME TO MARYLAND HORSE SHOWS ASSOCIATION

Founded in 1932, The Maryland Horse Shows Association is one of the oldest, continuous horse show associations in the United States. Our goal is to provide the latest news and information regarding MHSA-recognized shows throughout the region.

This website exists to inform members of show schedules, show results, special announcements, current standings and organization/membership information. Members can also visit us on Facebook for important news and updates.

Our mission is to provide helpful information to foster horsemanship, competitive riding, endorsement of fair and equitable rules while promoting the welfare of horses and ponies. The MHSA is a long-time Affiliate Member of USEF Equestrian and now the USHJA."

[Bent_Hickory]

@Equibrit

The VHSA is a member of the U.S. Equestrian Federation, the American Horse Council and the Virginia Horse Council.
…
The MHSA is a long-time Affiliate Member of USEF Equestrian and now the USHJA."

Thank you for clarifying my understanding.

[mmeqcenter]

@Bent Hickory

USEF/SafeSport has no power over non-members; and without question, USEF/SafeSport cannot prevent a banned person from coaching or instructing non-members.

But keep pointing to the horsenet article… 🙄

I didn’t point to the horse net article in that post. I shared the actual rule from SafeSport that OneBell was kind enough to point out.
I never said they can prevent a banned person from coaching non-members. Of course they can’t. I haven’t seen anyone else make this claim either. They have zero jurisdiction over riders that are not USEF members. Obviously.
They CAN tell members that they cannot train with banned individuals, and they are telling them that. You really think all the clinic participants are likely non-members??? Doubtful. Much less the farm owners and trainers.

[ohnoO]

I think even the well established local horse show associations state that they follow USEF/VHSA (affiliate) rules with the exception of the height of the fences. Which usually means they follow the Amateur rule and the pony size rule and the green hunter rule, etc. I believe the association in and around Richmond, VA was established in the late1970’s and the one in the tidewater area came along shortly after.

[IPEsq]

@Bent Hickory

A quick glance at a handful of state statutes with very similar language to the SafeSport "Aiding and Abetting” language, and a dozen or so scholarly articles make things pretty clear to me. Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aiding_and_abetting) distills it nicely for laymen:

[COLOR=black]Let’s say I command someone to rob a bank — my “aiding and abetting act” is the command to rob the bank and the “crime” is bank robbery. I might be culpable for aiding and abetting bank robbery if that someone robs the bank, but I would not be culpable for aiding and abetting bank robbery if that someone does not rob the bank. (I might be culpable of some other offense, such as conspiracy to commit the crime, but not aiding and abetting). This is exactly how the Federal law is interpreted. The handful of states that I surveyed treat aiding and abetting similarly.

The language for "aiding and abetting” in the Federal law cited above is mirrored by that of SafeSport:

Because this SafeSport language mirrors the language of the Federal code, I suggest that this SafeSport language should be interpreted in an identical manner, namely that the aiding and abetting act must be accompanied by commission of some Prohibited Conduct.

As for the items E1-E5 of SafeSport, I suggest that these items merely clarify what might constitute “aiding and abetting acts,” but that they in no way diminish or eliminate the need for commission of some Prohibited Conduct. Those who disagree — those who believe that these aiding and abetting acts alone constitute culpable conduct — will have to argue that aiding and abetting for SafeSport means something completely different that what it means in every other context, despite using virtually identical language.

Again, folks should consult their own attorney regarding these matters.

I’m well aware of what aiding and abetting means in the context of criminal code (Title 18). What you are not reading is that the SS code says next is “INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO” a laundry list of things involving already sanctioned individuals who have already been found to have committed Prohibited Conduct in the past. The list of things “included” in the aiding and abetting definition here makes no sense if you don’t read it as it was originally written in 2 sentences with “ALSO”.

[skydy]

USEF says Safe Sport has been notified.

[gottagrey]

@Bent Hickory

As far as I know, various local and state horse show organizations (e.g., VHSA, MHSA, etc.) are not obligated to comply with SafeSport, but I also know that people have been trying to change that. For some horse people, these organizations provide more than sufficient show experience.

For VHSA and MHSA rated shows they would have to follow Safe Sport for unrated maybe not. So I could show at MHSA “regional show” and not be required to take Safe Sport training. As an Adult Amateur I would also not have to present an amateur card since USEF membership isn’t required for the Maryland regional shows. Trust me on this one.

[TheMoo]

@gottagrey

For VHSA and MHSA rated shows they would have to follow Safe Sport for unrated maybe not. So I could show at MHSA “regional show” and not be required to take Safe Sport training. As an Adult Amateur I would also not have to present an amateur card since USEF membership isn’t required for the Maryland regional shows. Trust me on this one.

But the shows as a whole… I seriously doubt the clinic participants are not USEF members. As someone who shows their local circuit, I wouldn’t shell out the money to ride with a banned person.

[gottagrey]

@skydy

USEF says Safe Sport has been notified.

Where did you see this? And why would safe sport be notified? The issue is whether or not the clinic organizer is in violation and if so, subject to USEF penalty/sanction.

[skydy]

@gottagrey

Where did you see this?

In the email I received from USEF.

[ladyj79]

@gottagrey

Where did you see this? And why would safe sport be notified? The issue is whether or not the clinic organizer is in violation and if so, subject to USEF penalty/sanction.

My guess is USEF will leave it up to safe sport to investigate and levy any sanctions that then usef will be duty bound to enforce. Usef has demonstrated it has very little interest in actively enforcing the legislation without the force of safe sport sanctions compelling them.

[gottagrey]

@skydy

In the email I received from USEF.

Why would Safe Sport be involved? I thought once a person is found in violation it was up to the athletic organization to monitor the banned individual - in this case Morris/USEF. How did Carolyn Krome violate Safe Sport? USEF perhaps yes.so I’m not sure where Safe Sport fits in.

[TheMoo]

Sometimes I feel people really do want to remain ignorant.

[ghst13]

@gottagrey

Where did you see this? And why would safe sport be notified? The issue is whether or not the clinic organizer is in violation and if so, subject to USEF penalty/sanction.

The aiding and abetting restrictions flow down from the US Center for Safe Sport. They are not a unique USEF policy.

If you look at Section II: Jurisdiction of the USEF Safe Sport policy you will see that the Center for Safe Sport has exclusive jurisdiction on aiding and abetting matters as related to the Center’s process.

My interpretation is that USEF is obligated to notify the Center of the potential violation once it is brought to their attention and the Center will be responsible for investigating the incident.

[gottagrey]

@ladyj79

My guess is USEF will leave it up to safe sport to investigate and levy any sanctions that then usef will be duty bound to enforce. Usef has demonstrated it has very little interest in actively enforcing the legislation without the force of safe sport sanctions compelling them.

what is there to investigate by Safe Sport? that USEF member Carolyn Krome had a clinic with a banned George Morris. Are there allegations of inappropriate behavior (other than his usually bullying) NGB (= national governing bodies in this case = USEF) USOPC (= US Olympic and Para-Olympic Committee)

Who is responsible for enforcing the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s actions?

The NGBs and USOPC must ensure enforcement of any temporary measure(s) or sanctions issued by the Center.
.
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/res…and-resolution

[ghst13]

@gottagrey

Why would Safe Sport be involved? I thought once a person is found in violation it was up to the athletic organization to monitor the banned individual - in this case Morris/USEF. How did Carolyn Krome violate Safe Sport? USEF perhaps yes.so I’m not sure where Safe Sport fits in.

The allegation here is that not only did GM not adhere to his ban, but that Carolyn Krome violated Safe Sport policy by aiding and abetting GM’s activities by organizing the clinic.

[TheMoo]

@ghst13

The allegation here is that not only did GM not adhere to his ban, but that Carolyn Krome violated Safe Sport policy by aiding and abetting GM’s activities by organizing the clinic.

This. And it needs to be reported to Safe Sport and the USEF because lord knows the USEF looks the other way. If this costs us an Olympic run so be it. Maybe that’s the rude awaking they need.

[gottagrey]

@ghst13

The aiding and abetting restrictions flow down from the US Center for Safe Sport. They are not a unique USEF policy.

If you look at Section II: Jurisdiction of the USEF Safe Sport policy you will see that the Center for Safe Sport has exclusive jurisdiction on aiding and abetting matters as related to the Center’s process.

My interpretation is that USEF is obligated to notify the Center of the potential violation once it is brought to their attention and the Center will be responsible for investigating the incident.

My interpretation is that USEF enforces any violation of the banned person =in this case Ms. Krome for having a clinic where Morris would be teaching USEF members.

Who is responsible for enforcing the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s actions?

The NGBs and USOPC must ensure enforcement of any temporary measure(s) or sanctions issued by the Center.
.
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/res…and-resolution