Leadership of usef

[EXTRAAASALTY]

5 Reasons Why USEF leadership Needs to go Immediately

The United States Equestrian Federation is in a serious void of leadership at a time the sport needs it the most. Equestrian sports are at a crossroads and at a critical moment in determining the future and longevity of the sport. The public outcry from our community on horse welfare is largely due to USEF incompetence and mismanagement of the message.The absurd material that USEF has published almost seems that USEF is sabotaging the sport. USEF has become an insular, behind closed doors ,unaccountable dictatorship. USEF has not met the moment and continues to fumble with an inexplicable arrogance. USEF stands up for no one , not the horse , the rider or owner, officials, organizers only themselves.

1. Horse Welfare - The United States Equestrian Federation has completely failed to develop a comprehensive strategy and approach to horse welfare. They have completely failed to present the sport in a positive light on social media and have greatly contributed to its negative image. The federation has failed to act over and over when presented with overwhelming evidence of horse abuse. At the same time they focus on non issues like collapsing horses and euthanasia drugs further giving the sport and its members a black eye and further tarnishing our image.
2. Competition management - Since Covid USEF has thrown out all the rules of licensing. One person is the decision maker in competition licensing. There is no adherence to timelines and rules and the calendar debacle in California has left a bruise that will take a long time to heal if ever. Now, there will have to be another upheaval of the calendar because it was so poorly done in the first place, causing further damage to what was once a pretty robust circuit. The sudden move to sell many dates to private equity is troubling. Is horse welfare compatible with 20 weeks in a row? Giving absolute priority to the mega circuits will and is killing the affordability of the sport and will essentially all entry level and local competitions. USEF should produce the numbers and show some transparancy as to what is going on in the sport.
3. Athlete Representation - USEF President is on video telling a group at a Southern California horse show that their input and feedback will make zero difference and they’re opinions on local USEF matters or any other matters would be decided by him and him alone effectively telling the large group of exhibitors that he was not interested in their opinions. USEF is quick to suspend its athletes with harsh penalties with little consideration of there need to make a living.
4. Drugs and Medication - USEF has failed to come up with drug and medication policies that mirror the ideals of horse welfare. What are other countries doing? Not this.
5. Safe sport - While there is supposed to be a complete separation of USEF and Safe Sport there is not. The ridiculous record of SS focusing on cases from decades ago while ignoring cases that are in front of them is disgraceful. The misguided SS training is useless and should be replaced with training appropriate for the targeted audience. USEF has failed to advocate for quick resolution to SS cases leaving athletes in limbo for sometimes years and have displayed arrogance and disregard for both the accused and victims.

If the USEF membership does not take action and change course the sport is doomed. Right now there are no checks and balances. They got rid of them. Right now we have a dictatorship all handled behind closed doors. Many of the current policies and actions of USEF will be very difficult to reverse and the destructive impact will be felt for years. The sooner we begin the transition to an organization that cares first about the horse and then an equal amount of care and respect of it’s membership the better.
This has to get turned around before it’s too late. The organzation MUST be run by experienced horseman with a premium put on horsemanship, something that this group has completely disregarded.

[Dana]

Hard to believe no one on COTH forums has commented on this. When it was posted on FB, there were lots of comments before it was taken down. Interesting…

[dags]

I just don’t know what I’m supposed to remark on. It’s a diatribe demanding the ousting of USEF leadership, which is just… not gonna happen. Otherwise, it’s a summary of the same old gripes that have been typed out on the internet hundreds of times to no avail. Bullet points don’t make it new and remarkable.

I’d also wager the tone is just off-putting. Talk of dictators and such. I get enough of that on the daily re: state of the country. I’m not real eager to jump into another heated sandbox of hyperbole re: the governance of luxury sport pets.

That FB got mad comments on it is not remotely surprising nor particularly compelling. I am surprised it got deleted though.

[nutmeg]

“Heated sandbox of hyperbole rè the governance of luxury sports pets”

[Peggy]

What @dags said plus first-time poster here plus anonymous poster on Facebook equals meh.

[findeight]

Not on FB any more so never saw it…not that there is anything I could possibly say as no solutions are proposed here. Just a rant.

[skydy]

@EXTRAAASALTY

• Safe sport - While there is supposed to be a complete separation of USEF and Safe Sport there is not. The ridiculous record of SS focusing on cases from decades ago while ignoring cases that are in front of them is disgraceful. The misguided SS training is useless and should be replaced with training appropriate for the targeted audience. USEF has failed to advocate for quick resolution to SS cases leaving athletes in limbo for sometimes years and have displayed arrogance and disregard for both the accused and victim

USEF leadership can’t do squat about Safe Sport. They have no say in Safe Sport matters and are required to abide by the law that is Safe Sport. Period.

[Paint_Party]

@dags

Otherwise, it’s a summary of the same old gripes that have been typed out on the internet hundreds of times to no avail. Bullet points don’t make it new and remarkable.

This.

[spotlights]

I learned an interesting thing about Safesport a few weekend ago. A friend who is a member of USA Triathlon said that only coaches and officials and other “certain members” have to take Safesport training. Same with USA Cycling, I believe. Certainly a smaller population than USEF’s requirement of every amateur and professional. No comment here, just interesting how different governing bodies have established varying requirements.

As a non-parent and non-mandatory reporter, I’m firmly against any organization forcing me to act as either for the interests of a child. Would I do it anyway? Yes. Do I want to risk the precedent of having a non-governmental body restricting my rights without judicial due process? Absolutely not.

[skydy]

@spotlights

just interesting how different governing bodies have established varying requirements.

Certain “requirements” are demanded by Safe Sport. Trying to compare the safety of minors between very different sports doesn’t really work .

I am quite sick of the whining about the little bit of easy S.S. online learning that is required from people who want to participate in horse sport. Horse sport, which unfortunately, has an horrible history regarding the abuse of minors.

It’s not that hard.

[Midge]

@spotlights

Do I want to risk the precedent of having a non-governmental body restricting my rights without judicial due process?

Which rights are those?

[dmveventer]

@spotlights

A friend who is a member of USA Triathlon said that only coaches and officials and other “certain members” have to take Safesport training.

This is pretty easy to fact-check with a quick Google search. From USA Triathalon’s website, the “certain members” includes any adult athletes who have regular contact with minors. I would bet that most of their events are adults-only given the age restricted divisions, so not really a good comparison to USEF shows where you’ll have minors at basically every competition you attend and at most barns. It makes complete sense why USEF went with the blanket approach, and we’re not the only organization to do so.

It’s a few hours of online training that could potentially save a child’s life, it’s really not a huge ask.

@spotlights

Do I want to risk the precedent of having a non-governmental body restricting my rights without judicial due process?

Due process means you can’t be thrown in jail or have your property seized without a fair trial, it doesn’t mean you can’t be kicked out of a private club because you don’t like their rules, especially when those rules are mandated by law. You can be kicked out of USEF for any number of rule violations without “judicial due process” but for some reason people only take this issue with SafeSport…

@spotlights

I’m firmly against any organization forcing me to act as either for the interests of a child.

This is a disgusting statement. All they’re requiring is that you keep an eye out for signs of abuse and file a report (anonymously if you want) so they can look into it. Being part of any community comes with rights AND responsibilities - if you’re not willing to carry your share of the responsibilities to protect fellow community members then you’re welcome to leave.

[spotlights]

I don’t mean to diminish the importance of protecting minors, and I’ve taken the training myself. My point was more about how different governing bodies have implemented SafeSport in very different ways, and how that raises fair questions about governance and scope. It’s not the length of the training I take issue with, but rather the inconsistent approach across NGBs. I think it’s possible to support the mission of SafeSport while also being thoughtful about how it’s applied.

[spotlights]

Yes, it is easy to fact-check, which is why I included the link in my original post. As a former member of both USAT and USA Cycling, I can assure you that the majority of members in those organizations also have regular contact with children. My point wasn’t to say minors aren’t present, but to highlight that the governing bodies have implemented SafeSport differently despite that reality.

You make a strong point, and I get the importance of looking out for each other. But reading your comment, you almost make me sound like an anti-vaxxer! I promise, I’m all in on our shared social responsibility of protecting kids—I just want us to be thoughtful about how the rules are applied and who exactly they bind.

[dmveventer]

@spotlights

As a former member of both USAT and USA Cycling, I can assure you that the majority of members in those organizations also have regular contact with children. My point wasn’t to say minors aren’t present, but to highlight that the governing bodies have implemented SafeSport differently despite that reality.

If the majority of members have contact with minors then the majority of members in those organizations would also be required to take the training, yes? So I’m still not seeing the practical difference here. I would be completely in favor of requiring all members of all NGBs to take the training whether they have regular contact with minors or not, it’s a pretty easy ask and spares the organizations from arguing with people who don’t agree on what “regular” contact means.

@spotlights

I just want us to be thoughtful about how the rules are applied and who exactly they bind.

I’m still not getting your issue with being “bound” by these rules. If you want to be a member of USEF you have to take a few hours of training and promise to report signs of abuse, just like you have to accurately report your amateur status and abide by the medication rules. No one is forcing you to participate if those conditions are unacceptable to you.

[spotlights]

My spouse is a member of USA Cycling and he didn’t have to take it?

[spotlights]

I’m going to retract my earlier concern. After re‑reading the SafeSport Code, I was pleasantly surprised to see that the most recent update added a level of detail that was missing in prior versions.

That said, some provisions remain ambiguous and arguably overbroad. But I’m hopeful that it’ll continue to be refined and clarified given the historical updates.

[dmveventer]

If he has contact with minors then it sounds like a failure in how USA Cycling is implementing their SafeSport obligations. Not really relevant to the discussion on horse sports, unless you’re arguing that USEF should take a similar approach which I certainly wouldn’t support.

[spotlights]

You’re absolutely right. But for the fact that I love showing and USEF is the primary avenue to do so, no one is forcing me to participate, and I understand that membership comes with responsibilities.

At the same time, I think it’s fair and even healthy to have a respectful dialogue about the intent versus the execution of the SafeSport Code. I want to be clear that I support the intent of SafeSport, and I’m engaging here in good faith. My concerns are more about the inconsistency in execution across NGBs.

I’ll also admit that the tone of some of the responses feels a bit dismissive. Being told to simply stop participating because I disagree on certain points is, to me, a little like being told to leave the country because I don’t agree with the current administration. I believe that critique and dialogue, even from those who aren’t in 100% alignment, are part of what helps systems improve.

[fivestrideline]

@spotlights

Being told to simply stop participating because I disagree on certain points is, to me, a little like being told to leave the country because I don’t agree with the current administration.

You do realize how wild this is? It’s horse sports. And Safe Sport. Not the country you live in and the government.

@spotlights

At the same time, I think it’s fair and even healthy to have a respectful dialogue about the intent versus the execution of the SafeSport Code.

Sure! But that’s not really what you’ve been saying, is it?

@spotlights

As a non-parent and non-mandatory reporter, I’m firmly against any organization forcing me to act as either for the interests of a child. Would I do it anyway? Yes. Do I want to risk the precedent of having a non-governmental body restricting my rights without judicial due process? Absolutely not.

“Rights” and “judicial due process”, come on. It’s a voluntary sport organization. But I’m pointing out that you aren’t talking about what happens if YOU were reported, but you are upset that you have to take the training and be expected to report suspicious activity if you see it.

@skydy

I am quite sick of the whining about the little bit of easy S.S. online learning that is required from people who want to participate in horse sport. Horse sport, which unfortunately, has an horrible history regarding the abuse of minors.

It’s not that hard.

It really isn’t hard. This sport has a long history of people NOT reporting, of seeing exactly what is happening and sweeping it under the rug, and of normalizing toxic behavior and abuse to the point that people thought it was normal and accepted behavior. THIS is why it makes sense for all participants to take the training - see something, say something. Because participants in this sport have proven that as a general population we do not say something. And we need to do better.

I’m all for making the SafeSport trainings more user-friendly. But it’s a huge red flag when someone starts whining about taking them in the first place. Ick.