I’ve pointed out the inconsistency in how SafeSport is applied. At no point in this thread have I complained about taking the trainings.
I’m here to engage in a thoughtful and productive dialogue, but so far the responses have mostly been a blanket defense of the organization—at times veering into personal attacks simply because I don’t agree 100%.
Unfortunately, the takeaway for me is that these forums lean more toward reactionary defensiveness than balanced, reasonable discussion.
OK, in the interest of having an open discussion can you clarify what exactly you disagree with? The only thing you’ve given us so far is this line, which I still think is an absurd position to hold:
It sounds like you’re advocating for the USA Cycling model, where participants are allowed to have regular contact with minors without being subject to the SafeSport training? I’m totally against that and frankly can’t think of any legitimate arguments to support that model. If there’s something we’re missing from your perspective then please clarify, because so far you’re not making a very compelling argument for reducing the training requirements.
Well on that we can agree. I think it’s problematic that other organizations aren’t requiring the training across the board and I’d support updates to the legislation to close that loophole. That’s not really relevant to a discussion about USEF since they’re already exceeding the requirements.
Thank you. The key word in the sentence you quoted is forced. I believe in a strong social contract where we look out for one another (maybe that’s too idealistic of me?), including protecting children, and I think it’s great that SafeSport provides training, reporting, and resolution processes to make us all more aware of potentially dangerous behavior and provided an avenue to help make our communities safer.
From my (perhaps idealistic) social-contract perspective, what I struggle with is the idea that everyone is required to participate in the same way regardless of their role or actual risk. That’s not the same as opposing protections for kids or SafeSport itself—I’ve even made reports to SafeSport myself.
I’m not advocating for the USA Cycling or USEF models - I literally just thought this forum may find it interesting that not all NGBs have taken the same approach.
Except you weren’t losing any rights to begin with.
What do you feel like they’re forcing you to do, other than take a few hours of training and report signs of abuse that you witness? How is this different from any of the other USEF rules you agree to follow that apply to all members? Those are genuine questions, I really dont get where you’re coming from here. I don’t see any issues with requiring members to do the bare minimum to prevent abuse as a condition for membership, and yes I think the whole “let people do the right thing on their own” idea is too idealistic and has been proven ineffective over and over again. By your argument society shouldn’t need any laws at all.
I used to feel that some aspects of SafeSport’s rules came close to raising 14th Amendment concerns.
For example, take George Morris. He owned a farm, and under the prior language of the Code there was ambiguity about whether he could even ride his own horses on his own property if USEF members were also present. In other words—could he be effectively banned from using his own property, without due process?
That language has since been updated, and now it only applies to ownership of a property used for NGB‑sanctioned events.
As for George himself, I assume he was too old by then for that particular scenario to actually come up, but the principle was what concerned me.
Suppose that was actually true. How would that be enforced? I mean, what kind of power do you think the USEF actually has?
I don’t think anything prevented George from doing whatever he wanted on his own farm. After he was banned there was no further punishment that USEF/Safesport could levy on him. The onus was then on USEF members in good standing who chose to associate with him and they were the ones then at risk of sanction if they went to George’s farm to get lessons, etc.
BTW, last I heard George was still out there giving clinics, including to USEF members. They just got smarter about not publicizing it.
Right now, the system relies on a broad population with just a couple of hours of annual training, yet places on them both a duty to report and the threat of punishment for failing to report. That combination feels off to me. If the obligation to report is going to be that strict, the training needs to be much more robust because this is a nuanced area where a misstep can have real consequences for someone’s life. Alternatively, if the training remains relatively minimal (or non-existent as we’ve learned about with USA Cycling), then the penalties for failure to report should be adjusted accordingly.
You’re right. That’s a good point.
Well I don’t really agree with you, but also none of that is under USEF’s control so not really relevant to the discussion here. The reporting requirements are mandated under federal law and USEF doesn’t develop the training, they just get to decide how it’s imposed on their members. On their website they cite the fact that no horse shows exclude minors so their interpretation of the law was that all USEF members were likely to have “regular” contact so everyone should be required to take the training. Which, FWIW, I agree with and also seems like the smartest choice for USEF from a liability perspective.
Reporting incidents involving minors is a critical component of maintaining a safe and ethical environment within our sport. The intent of strict reporting obligations under SafeSport is to ensure that potential harm is identified early and that minors—who are among the most vulnerable members of our community—are protected from abuse or misconduct.
That said, you’re absolutely right that this is a nuanced and sensitive area. When the consequences of a misstep can be life-altering for both the reporter and the person being reported, the responsibility feels heavy—and it should. That’s why it’s essential that the training provided be equally rigorous, not just in defining what must be reported, but also in helping people recognize context, navigate gray areas, and feel confident in making good-faith decisions.
Strong reporting requirements must be met with equally strong education and support. If we’re going to expect everyone involved in equestrian sport to act as mandated reporters, we need to empower them with training that is thorough, practical, and accessible.
But- people complain about the training now… how much more complex do you want it?
@EXTRAAASALTY how to you propose to fix the situation? Many professional horsemen I know don’t have the time or even the knowledge how to manage an organization of tens of thousands of members. The USEF already has a horse welfare committee populated by horsemen and veterinarians.
I am going with you are crabby. I suggest a snickers, maybe hang out and soak your feet in a kiddy pool with a nice drink that includes an umbrella and fruit slice?
This post has been removed from every other website. IMO wise decision.
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
You aren’t making sense. I think you should take