No. Which is why numerous people are alluded to but never named. All those numerous people IMO are Tommy Serio and I hardly think his business was affected. If there are others than I welcome to hear their names so I can be proven wrong.
4 Likes
That’s what I thought as well. Figured it would be a fool’s errand to go back though the posts here to find nonexistent additional names.
1 Like
Andrew Temkin, eventing official (TD I think?) and rider.
So now we have a list comprised of:
Tommy Serio (whose business is apparently fine)
Andrew Temkin
John Manning (though not sure about loss of income, given that he’s course designing and managing)
Nope. In cases like Nassar, no adult is likely to be in the room other than the parents. Parents do need some education about the sport and activities their own kids are participating in. Some sports are “high touch” sports where the coach might need some hands on; parents need to know what is and what is not appropriate touch so that they can educate their kids. Who else is going to do that? Children under 18 don’t need to take the course.
And just a comment: bullying and name calling on this topic are certainly NOT in the spirit of Safe Sport!
2 Likes
If parents don’t know this they should not be parents LOL
1 Like
Well, of course: In the best of all possible worlds, parents (who somehow didn’t already learn how to spot signs of abuse or to prevent it) get educated.
But the point you miss is the difference between their education being a Necessary rather than Sufficient condition. So in the case (as it currently is) than you can’t compel all parents to do a much better job of protecting their children, nor can you compel them to take SafeSport’s training, why argue that no other adult should be armed with that knowledge? Instead, you argued that you shouldn’t have to be educated so long as parents are not.
That is missing the fundamental point of SafeSport’s mission-- to protect children at risk for abuse. Surely you’ll agree that that is worth doing, however it gets done.
5 Likes
“nor can you compel them to take SafeSport’s training”
See - that is where I think SafeSport can tweak it. Minors can’t sign contracts and their parents have to pay their fees, etc. Someone is a guardian of said child and that someone can be required to take the SafeSport training or their kid can’t participate. The kid doesn’t have a credit card or a checking account - the adult does.
Plus trainers need to be aware of the signs of an abused child because it happens in all levels of social strata.
5 Likes
It’s interesting to me that at first people complained about the training because there wasn’t a version for kids. Six months later that rolls out. Now people are complaining parents aren’t required to take the training.
I do think parents should take the training, since they are signing as legal parent/guardian. That being said, if this does get implemented, what is the next reason for not wanting to do it going to be?
8 Likes
Nassar was supposedly performing a medical procedure called Pelvic Massage. It is a legitimate medical procedure just not for what he was claiming to use it for. If I remember correctly when he was initially investigate other medical professionals justified what he was doing. He basically was fondling the children with the parent in the room but telling them it was a medical procedure.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/well/live/pelvic-massage-can-be-legitimate-but-not-in-larry-nassars-hands.html
3 Likes
I am a single person (not “people”) who is saying that SafeSport can be improved and one way to do it is to mandate that the guardian/parent who pays for the minor’s membership has to take the training. They need to know what to look for too. If parents have to undergo training in order to volunteer at their kid’s school (and they do), then why not SafeSport?
SafeSport is to protect children. Trainers need to know how to avoid the appearance of impropriety as well as the signs of a child at risk; parents do too. This could be one way to provide them with the training that they might not receive otherwise. It’s not a big ask. It doesn’t take very long if they have a reasonably decent internet connection.
Oh, it is a very real procedure and there are more women who would benefit from it than are acknowledged. There have been MRIs done on women after childbirth and the damage done can be gut-wrenching. Plus the number of physicians who wave it away with “do more Kegels” is appalling.
But Nassar wasn’t doing it for any legitimate purpose whatsoever.
https://appliedradiology.com/article…birth-delivery
1 Like
Forgive me for not knowing this, but at what age does a child take the SS training themselves?
ETA: ok, looks like 17. I’m assuming little kids competing need their parents to be USEF members anyway (I will google that in a sec). Guys, have you been arguing that SS should work the way that it actually does work?
1 Like
I don’t think so. This is what I found:
“We recommend parents take the SafeSport training and ensure trainers and coaches are Safe Sport trained through the USEF website. Parents work every day to keep their children safe, and that responsibility does not end when they drop them off at the barn or competition. It is important for parents to not only know their child’s coach, trainer, and other personnel associated with their riding, but also familiarize themselves with Safe Sport requirements and the status of the individuals working with their child. The core SafeSport training is available to members at no cost, and parents – regardless of membership status – can take a free version of the training on the USEF website. Parents can also view the background check and training status of coaches, trainers, and other personnel through USEF’s Safe Sport Directory.”
What I’m saying is they could make parent(s) taking the training part of the requirement for their kid to be a member of USEF. The onus shouldn’t be exclusively on trainers. They can go above and beyond in their requirements and it would demonstrate that they take the safety and well-being of minors even more seriously than the minimum standard.
Many people, Ie more than one person, said kids should take the training and that’s why Safe Sport training for all USEF members is not worth while. Now the argument from a poster here is parents should have to take it, and that is partially why it’s an inconvenience to that poster. You and I both agree parents should take the training. I think the more people educated in this the better.
That’s why I said people.
Your post was quoted because it truly has me wondering what the next excuse will be from people like Cowgirl if parents are required to take it because they have to sign the entry forms for their minor children.
1 Like
I think it’s both possible to think implementation of Safe Sport sucks, AND think more people should take the training, not fewer.
Kids should take some form of training, because they are so at risk. Maybe schools now do something which suffices, I don’t know. If that’s the case, cool. And I agree that parents should have to take SafeSport to sign their kids’ forms.
In parallel, the governing bodies to whom SafeSport applies need to make it so all members can take it. I checked with SafeSport directly, and they allow in person training as an option, and individual organizations decide how they want to do it. USEF will not allow GMOs to do a training for their members in person, so those in remote areas can take it. As someone who lives almost next to the airport, yet I have only had high speed internet for under a year, I find it absurd they are unwilling to let us come up with a solution for people on the other side of the digital divide.
3 Likes
Kids should take some form of training, because they are so at risk.
It’s hard to design programs that all kids at all ages and stages of development will understand. There is a lot of time and effort put into it at schools too, but it is hard to know what really sticks with an individual child.
Well, that’s lousy of them. Plus wouldn’t in-person training be the gold standard?
I know what you mean about the digital divide. It’s not unlike living near one of the Great Lakes and having lousy cell phone coverage because the Coast Guard communication towers rightly have priority over commercial ones. People do incredibly stupid stuff out on the water throughout the year!
The USEF not allowing in person training confuses me. I feel like that stance should be in direct violation of the law. With laws and instructions an entity can always add to, but they cannot take away.
ETA: What confuses me further is sexual assault and rape prevention training in the military is in person training. That’s the ONLY approved method by the DoD for the mandatory training. Yes there are CBTs available for those who want to learn more, but they don’t replace the required in person training.
I agree that the implementation could have been better, but as with all sweeping changes there will be growing pains.
The difficulty with kids, especially in our sport and I’m thinking about the three year old lead line rider, is parents should have a say in when their kids are ready to learn about such topics. That is one reason why I think whoever signs the entry form for the child as parent/guardian should be the one taking the training. I do like the fact that they have made training modules for kids, but when the kid takes it should be up to the parent.
3 Likes
I would agree that it is likely quite difficult to make a false accusation stick in an SS investigation.
But I also don’t think that a “conviction” need be reached to do damage; there is the obvious stress and worry that such an accusation would cause, perhaps the need and cost of hiring an attorney, and so on. I am not a pro and so I am just speculating here based on what some trainers have told me personally and what I have seen others post online about simply not wanting to take the chance, and I have some sympathy for their POV. Looking at the number of reports that SS apparently receives and drops - it would seem to be a pretty reasonable fear IMO.
The trainers for whom I barn ratted a million years ago offered me their guidance and opportunities out of kindness to a passionate kid from a non horsey and relatively unsupportive family. They weren’t BNTs but they were good horsemen with relatively small but high quality programs. I was often alone with those trainers. They drove me places, let me share hotel rooms and so on - things that are clearly prohibited (and yes, for good reason) today. Is it really so difficult to appreciate that someone who benefitted greatly from that type of generosity is sad that it would be so much more difficult or even impossible today?
None of that, of course, means that I reject the mission of SS or misunderstand the urgency around the need to protect children from predators.
5 Likes
I’m over 60. I started riding back in the '60s. Those things were never a good idea, not even back then. Yes, you benefited and had no bad experiences, but that still doesn’t mean that it was something adults should have been doing.
From my perspective, adults who grew up with those experiences ought to be saying “I’m so lucky nothing bad ever happened and I’m glad we’re finally taking action to reduce the risk to kids,” not “Gee, it was OK for me so we shouldn’t restrict it.”
So, actually, yes, I do find it difficult to appreciate that someone who benefited greatly from that type of generosity is sad because kids today won’t also have the opportunity to put themselves in situations where they could be harmed.
10 Likes
The point is that there are examples of people who were falsely accused - and even if they were exonerated, had to go through a difficult/painful process that probably felt very unfair and costly and scary. People have KILLED THEMSELVES during these investigations. (Were they guilty? I have no idea, and neither does anyone else, sadly. ) But I think we can all agree that it appears possible to be wrongly accused, because it has happened. Let’s remember that even if you are able to exonerate yourself, you’ve been damaged. No one is reimbursing your legal fees, and there will always be people whispering about how you “somehow got away with molesting someone,” and so on.
If you look at the number of reports that SS has gotten - I haven’t kept up with the number, but it was pretty high last time I looked - compared to the number of actual investigations, it is clear that there are plenty of people charging others with inappropriate behavior that turns out to be unsubstantiated.
That has to be somewhat chilling to a pro who otherwise might truly just be willing to offer a barn rat some opportunities to ride more, learn horsemanship etc.
It’s really not so difficult to appreciate that trainers could be concerned about having a kid around with minimal supervision, IMO. I think of all the times I was alone in the barn with my (fabulous, professional, totally appropriate) trainer as a kid, the number of times I stayed over at her house before a show or got rides to the barn or home or what have you. Today those types of things are solidly on the the “things to be avoided” list. And we all understand that the guidelines were developed for good reason - because there were children who were being abused. Unfortunately the collateral damage of that reality is that a kid like I was back in the day probably won’t have the opportunities I had.
3 Likes
