People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[ladyj79]

it’s funny to me that again, as I stated earlier, most big name actual still current show jumpers are behind the decision and the process, and the one big name who is opposed himself has real problems in that area, but is not American.

I am absolutely not hearing this outcry of the dangers of weeding out sexual predators from my camp.

I think Packy and company overestimate the number of child rapists in the general horse world, which says a lot of really bad things about that small circle.

[TheMoo]

@Moesha

Of course- I live in a large city with its share of problems and no one is discounting them but it is the same complaints without solutions or community problem solving- it is sadly equated with victim blaming ( in the case of crime) and it is not so- Like I said I support the goals of Safe Sport and believe it is long overdue.

But there has been overt victim blaming on Facebook. I don’t think Packy’s post is victim blaming but when people post comments calling HR a murderer… you can’t deny there IS victim blaming.

Even on CoTH. At the beginning of the GHM thread someone expressed doubt about the claims against GHM because a minor could have gotten something out of it. Granted the person knows nothing about GHM beyond his name but that is victim blaming under the guise of not knowing.

[neigh]

And the score is Poltroon 2 and Packy 0

[Jenerationx]

The deference shown to anonymous allegations stands as a major policy problem for SafeSport. It allows people to claim victimhood who are not entitled to it. Because SafeSport allows anonymous allegations to be investigated using a method that does not require the accuser to provide evidence other than their own claims, concerns about an improper relationship or questionable “grooming” behavior, we have seen a sharp rise in the use of allegations for the purpose of revenge or as a way of claiming a competitive advantage.

I too would love to have some examples of this behavior. You would think there would be more than one “testimonial” about the atrocities of SafeSport investigations if this were true.

[skydy]

The USHJA meeting will be livestreamed for those who can not attend.

It is understandable that people are interested in the Safe Sport process and want to learn more, however the near hysteria online coming from some people, seems a lot like fear to me. There is a difference between wanting to learn about the process and having it be fair, and the real freak out about Safe Sport that we are seeing from some folks.

Fear is natural if you or your friends are concerned that your past behavior may be coming back to haunt you. When the rot includes some people in high places it is difficult for the people involved in the sport to face. At first.

The sport will only get better when people in the H/J world are no longer allowed to prey on children.

[poltroon]

@Jenerationx

I too would love to have some examples of this behavior. You would think there would be more than one “testimonial” about the atrocities of SafeSport investigations if this were true.

There are also a lot of people eliding that SafeSport has options other than Permanently Ineligible.

FiSk123, a journalist who comes to us from figure skating, did an analysis of the people from all sports listed as Permanently Ineligible. Nearly all in that bucket come from a criminal conviction. Some have pretty compelling stories and kind of horrifying reasons why the case did not go to trial (in one the victim died before she could testify at the trial). You can search for her posts but here is one with some data.

@FiSk123

I’ve spent most of this work week cataloging every violation that resulted in “Permanent Ineligibility” that was not under “Criminal Disposition - Sexual Misconduct” or “Criminal Disposition - Involving a Minor”. So far, my search has found:

• An athlete who was arrested and charged with felony sexual battery and false imprisonment (the criminal charges were ultimately dismissed, however).
• A coach whose former athlete was granted a permanent restraining order against them due to sexual harassment and stalking (the evidence included over 15,000 text messages)
• A coach who purchased his then 14 year old student lingerie and exchanged sexual messages with them over SnapChat (this coach was sentenced to 3 years probation for the incident after a plea deal).
• A coach who was accused of raping an underage student, tried in criminal court and acquitted in 2005. When another student came forward with similar allegations, the coach was arrested and charged again, however, the charges were ultimately dismissed. The reason - the former student died of an apparent overdose two months prior to testifying.

The reason I bring this up is because I feel like some of the apprehension around the SafeSport recommendations come from fear of SafeSport itself. You’re not getting suspended for hugging a student after they win a competition. You’re not getting banned for life for accidentally texting a 16 year old “good morning” without another adult in the chat. In reality, these guidelines provide protection for all covered individuals - coaches and athletes alike.

Also, as several of you have already stated, these recommended guidelines did not come out of thin air. Other institutions, especially in education, follow the same guidelines.

Some counts from her search are here.

@FiSk123

I just went through the SafeSport Centralized Disciplinary Database. I selected cases based on the following pair of criteria:

1. The sanction was “Permanently Ineligible” - meaning that I did not include people who had temporary measures, suspensions or non-permanent ineligibility.
2. The adjudicating body was the U.S. Center for SafeSport - meaning that I excluded people whose bans were imposed by their NGB pre-SafeSport (for e.g. if a person was banned in 2015 by USA Volleyball, they were not counted).

Criminal Disposition: 89.04% (n=260)
Non-Criminal Disposition: 10.96% (n=32)

Criminal Disposition - Involving a Minor: 64.04% (n=187)
Criminal Disposition - Sexual Misconduct: 21.92% (n=64)
Sexual Misconduct Involving a Minor: 6.51% (n=19)
Sexual Misconduct: 3.77% (n=11)
Criminal Disposition (General): 3.08% (n=9)
Other (e.g. Intimate Relationship Involving a Minor): 0.68% (n=2)

Total Number of Cases: 292*

(While the Morning Call article citing Dan Hill’s statement of 285 was released on July 1st, I believe that his quotes came from a little over a week ago. For example, I know that two people from USA Swimming were given lifetime bans on 6/28/2019 and 7/1/2019, respectively. I will triple-check my numbers later this evening after a power-nap LOL).

I also want to note that the “Sexual Misconduct” and “Sexual Misconduct - Involving a Minor” categories are very broad. For example, Larry Nassar is listed as “Sexual Misconduct - Involving a Minor” with a 02/06/2018 decision date - even though he was sentenced to 60 years in federal prison for possession of images of child sexual abuse in July of 2017 + 40 to 175 years in state prison after pleading guilty to multiple counts of sexual assault of minors in January of 2018.

[BITSA]

@BeeHoney

The pushback over Safe Sport is astounding to me. Sadly, it is driven by people like BN who truly is a bottom feeder.

Anyone can look back through all of my posts on this forum and see that it is not my style to use such labels and I do not do so lightly. It is one thing to defend child molesters. In our country everyone has the right to legal counsel, and someone needs to do that job. It is perfectly honorable to provide legal counsel and defense to even the most heinous of criminals because it is a necessary part of how our system works.

What I have a problem with is the use of social media and websites to discredit and undermine Safe Sport through carefully worded inflammatory misinformation intended to mislead the public. Safe Sport was created because youth sports in our country have long been a rich hunting ground for sexual predators. For years, sexual predators have been able to prey on children in plain sight in youth sports organizations. Relying on our criminal justice system has been completely ineffective in protecting children from abuse.

NOT ONCE have I seen one of these “we need to reform Safe Sport” folks put forward a SPECIFIC, REALISTIC suggestion that includes references to how Safe Sport actually works or it’s actual policies.

Here’s a link to current Safe Sport policy. Read the policy. What exactly would you change and how? No, the hearings can’t be made public to satisfy everyone’s salacious curiosity. No, the names of victims cannot be released to the public so that they can be harassed and intimidated. Yes, the process allows for multiple hearings with ample opportunity to present evidence and testimony. And finally, YES, there is outside oversight as the final binding arbitration is conducted by an INDEPENDENT arbitrator.

https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-…yperlinked.pdf

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

[mvp]

@TheMoo

But there has been overt victim blaming on Facebook. I don’t think Packy’s post is victim blaming but when people post comments calling HR a murderer… you can’t deny there IS victim blaming.

Even on CoTH. At the beginning of the GHM thread someone expressed doubt about the claims against GHM because a minor could have gotten something out of it. Granted the person knows nothing about GHM beyond his name but that is victim blaming under the guise of not knowing.

Oh, please. “She was wearing a mini-skirt” is the oldest, favorite and sometimes effective defense of a sexual perpetrator. That argument is a defense by way of an ad hominem attack on the victim.

I don’t know what rock packy mcgaughan has been living under, but he’s dead wrong with respect to his claims that no victim shaming happens around this.

[oneequestrienne]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

Hmmm, well I can tell you that I was involved in a Safesport case where there were many victims who came forward to Safesport and gave statements. So many people here and on FB ranted about how long ago it all was. He was no present danger, so leave him alone. This included many of my long time friends and acquaintances. Here’s the thing, sexual predators don’t grow out of it and, in this case, I stumbled over more current evidence. I came across a photo taken two years ago of this person having inappropriate contact with a 14 year old. Normalizing inappropriate contact is part of grooming. You can bet that after talking to the mother, I turned the photo over to Safesport. I also gave USEF a cropped version of the photo hiding the victim’s identity. And no, neither you nor anyone else will ever know who was in that photo. The adult was already well on the way to being sanctioned and the child is a minor and a victim.

[poltroon]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

So a couple of things. First, in criminal law, statutes of limitations have been removed in many jurisdictions for sexual abuse of a minor. This is not generally retroactive so even if a jurisdiction has no time limit now, it may have when an event occurred. But, this change is due to recognition that often people do not come forward until they are 50, and that unfortunately even with that passage of time many of the abusers are in fact still active.

Second, I think with your emphasis on protective you’re completely backwards on how to apply the statute of limitations and most likely what investigators are looking at. That is, you’re thinking that SafeSport is punishing people for violations that occurred decades ago and then the individual saw the light and stopped.

SafeSport has the discretion and the data to make a judgement about that. Was it one incident that happened in a misguided youth? Or is it the only survivor who is willing to testify but investigators have strong suspicion that there are multiple more recent survivors who are unwilling to testify? In both the recent high profile equestrian cases, we have public whispers of people witnessing questionable behavior with minors within the last 5 years. The SafeSport investigators would have been in a position to follow up on those whispers and decide if they were credible. I don’t know either way. But I doubt that what many people seem to fear is true: that SafeSport would ban someone for having a teen-teen relationship 50 years ago* if that’s all there was in the case file, and if the person seems to have led a scandal-free life since.

The only person who said that the allegations are only from a four year period 50 years ago is GM. No one else has agreed that’s all they have. We know a second person testified and we don’t know the time period for that person.

One of the longstanding problems with these cases has been exactly the situation where we had many decades of abuse, with current victims, but the old cases were too old to try and the new cases wouldn’t testify. And so these people - priests and coaches among them - got shuffled around where no one knew of the previous accusations.

It does require putting trust in the SafeSport investigators to do their job - just as our criminal justice system requires trust in police and district attorneys to do theirs. The investigators are drawn from the same pool. If SafeSport needs better people, I’m down for figuring out how to advocate for that. It sounds like they need more people, and I’m down for that too. If you look at the cases that have resulted in Permanent Ineligibility, I haven’t seen even one that looked inappropriate. Even the ones that were public that were overturned on appeal look like the investigators called it reasonably, from the accounts I read in the press.

–
Edited to add this asterisk:

• I don’t mean to imply as you might casually read it, that the GM case involves two teens. The public survivor would have been 13 when GM was 30 in 1968.

[mvp]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

So because you come to this as someone with a vested interest in protecting your kid now and you “can’t imagine” what it’s like to be a victim of a sexual abuse, you think the Statute of Limitations is a good idea? With all due respect, I don’t think you are actually on the victims’ side. And what happens if your kid takes, say, 25 years to come forward with the information that she was a victim? Perhaps then you will feel compelled to imagine.

[BeeHoney]

@packy mcgaughan thank you for your thoughtful post. I disagree with your argument regarding the “weaponization” of Safe Sport. In real life, many rules can be weaponized. In fact, accusing competitors of rule breaking is an age old trick, it didn’t suddenly appear with Safe Sport. Look at the drugs and medications rules. Given the public and low security nature of a show grounds, it would be a simple matter in many cases to administer medication to a competitor’s horse and then watch them be set back for a D&M infraction. There are even cases where it’s tough to tell if a positive test might be the result of a groom’s mistake or even environmental contamination. Should we just do away with the D&M rules? Of course not! We have decided as a community that equine welfare and fair sport are priorities that transcend the discomforts and difficulties of rule implementation. Providing a safe environment for youth sports participants is an even more important priority.

I’d also like to point out that receiving a temporary suspension from Safe Sport is hardly equivalent to being “branded” a child molester. It’s SOP in many jobs to be suspended or put on some type of administrative leave when an accusation of inappropriate behavior is made in order for an investigation to take place. Safe Sport probably offers additional protection beyond many workplaces in that Safe Sport specifically penalizes accusers who make deliberate false complaints.

And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I’m not seeing that connection.

[Tackpud]

@packy mcgaughan

No one who speaks out against the process of how people are banned for life is engaged in victim shaming.

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. The victim shaming on FB has been horrific and has been done by many of the people that say they are supporting a reform to SS. Some of the following are written by persons involved in the new “Athletes for Equity” group.

Direct quotes from FB without names:

“this is his two seconds of “fame” because he never made it as a trainer, a rider nor an actor. I had heard that his brother swore to bring George down. Well, they succeeded. And funnily enough, he still thanks George for his training as an instructor on his sites. I knew JS. I put this in the past tense as I want nothing to do with him ever again. I have zero respect for him now.”

“‘No one will ever again think that sex with an underage student is no big deal. And that is progress’ REALLY Jonathan??”

“Are we supposed to have sympathy for her?”

“Perhaps Safesport ought to ban people convicted of child porn.”

“You have got to be kidding me that we are now going to put a registered sex offender up on a pedestal”

“So kids can go train with a convicted pedophile, but not the former coach of the US equestrian team?”

Just a small list of things that people who say they are working to change the process have put out on FB. And those sure aren’t the worst things I could find. I didn’t even look at what is posted on individual’s pages, this is just from the group pages. So don’t tell me there’s no victim shaming going on - it’s all over the place and you’re incredibly dense if you deny it.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@BITSA

I support safe sport. And here’s what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the “continuing violations doctrine.”

If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I’d like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it’s that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago–where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)–is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind–maybe that’s pie in the sky, but “no current predators/violators” seems like something almost everyone would support). I’d much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It’s more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

Here’s my 2 cents…

People say there needs to be a statute of limitations in these cases. NJ DOES NOT have a statute of limitation for sexual assault. Hunterdon was in NJ, so if someone wanted to press criminal charges against George for an assault that occurred at his NJ home/barn they could. There is another person on the interim suspension list now that was facing charges from the 80’s by a woman in NJ. He agreed to having a judgement entered against him. When the report was made against a Massachusetts trainer on the banned list, the stature of limitation had NOT expired for civil charges. So here are 3 examples of people with either lifetime, or temporary bans that do fall within the statute of limitations.

I vehemently disagree that sexual misconduct with a minor should be similar to sexual harassment cases. I was assaulted at 15 by a trainer. I was sexually harassed by a boss and I will say they are not even in the same ballpark. Sexual assault of a minor destroys trust, makes you feel dirty, embarrassed, alone, depressed, guilty and a multitude of other feelings. It affects you for the rest of your life, as well as any future relationships you have (boy/girlfriend, parents, children, friends, trainers) Sexual harassment is unpleasant, but please, do not consider them equal.

Protective vs punitive. That is the point of punishment; it acts a deterrent. Current trainers pay attention; if you prey on minors, the punishment will be a lifetime ban. You do not know if there are other, more recent victims. Most women do not address their childhood sexual abuse until they are in their 50s. (I will try to find a case study or reference of this statistic). You are also making assumptions on these old cases - you do not know if it was he said/she (he) said. Those banned may not have denied it occurred, There could be many victims or witnesses that testified. There could be many more that chose not to participate. People say “they didn’t see anything” or he didn’t abuse me. All that could be true, but in most cases the assaults did not happen during a lesson or in the public eye. If you know of “current violators” than do something about it. Don’t stand by and ignore it; you are not helping change the culture of the sport.

I don’t understand your comment about it being more than exclusion from a club given the aiding and abetting rules. It is not a civil right to be a part of the USEF or any other NGB. Perhaps if the equestrian world required licensure like other professions, people would understand penalties and accept a ban as a proper penalty. If a doctor/teacher/therapist/lawyer has sex with a patient/student/client, they can lose their license.

If you had the opportunity to be involved in a SS case, you would see that there is an opportunity to obtain evidence. The accused can present ANYTHING they want when interviewed. They can present character statements, letters from doctors, forensic psychologists, etc. And contrary to what is splashed all over social media, they do know who reported it so they can tell their version of the events in question. And if you have a full merit hearing, both sides get to present evidence, witnesses and cross examine. The Responding Party does not get to talk to the Reporting Party before arbitration, but they do not get that opportunity when facing sanctions in other professions either. You do not know the facts that were presented in any of the cases unless you are the Reporting or Responding Party (and their advisors), so perhaps the facts were presented and the truth was revealed. Just because people do not like the outcome of the arbitrations, it does not mean the truth was not revealed. In fact, I think the truth has been revealed and that is why the arbitrator came to the conclusion the did.

[oneequestrienne]

@Keep it Simple

Here’s my 2 cents…

People say there needs to be a statute of limitations in these cases. NJ DOES NOT have a statute of limitation for sexual assault. Hunterdon was in NJ, so if someone wanted to press criminal charges against George for an assault that occurred at his NJ home/barn they could. There is another person on the interim suspension list now that was facing charges from the 80’s by a woman in NJ. He agreed to having a judgement entered against him. When the report was made against a Massachusetts trainer on the banned list, the stature of limitation had NOT expired for civil charges. So here are 3 examples of people with either lifetime, or temporary bans that do fall within the statute of limitations.

I vehemently disagree that sexual misconduct with a minor should be similar to sexual harassment cases. I was assaulted at 15 by a trainer. I was sexually harassed by a boss and I will say they are not even in the same ballpark. Sexual assault of a minor destroys trust, makes you feel dirty, embarrassed, alone, depressed, guilty and a multitude of other feelings. It affects you for the rest of your life, as well as any future relationships you have (boy/girlfriend, parents, children, friends, trainers) Sexual harassment is unpleasant, but please, do not consider them equal.

Protective vs punitive. That is the point of punishment; it acts a deterrent. Current trainers pay attention; if you prey on minors, the punishment will be a lifetime ban. You do not know if there are other, more recent victims. Most women do not address their childhood sexual abuse until they are in their 50s. (I will try to find a case study or reference of this statistic). You are also making assumptions on these old cases - you do not know if it was he said/she (he) said. Those banned may not have denied it occurred, There could be many victims or witnesses that testified. There could be many more that chose not to participate. People say “they didn’t see anything” or he didn’t abuse me. All that could be true, but in most cases the assaults did not happen during a lesson or in the public eye. If you know of “current violators” than do something about it. Don’t stand by and ignore it; you are not helping change the culture of the sport.

I don’t understand your comment about it being more than exclusion from a club given the aiding and abetting rules. It is not a civil right to be a part of the USEF or any other NGB. Perhaps if the equestrian world required licensure like other professions, people would understand penalties and accept a ban as a proper penalty. If a doctor/teacher/therapist/lawyer has sex with a patient/student/client, they can lose their license.

If you had the opportunity to be involved in a SS case, you would see that there is an opportunity to obtain evidence. The accused can present ANYTHING they want when interviewed. They can present character statements, letters from doctors, forensic psychologists, etc. And contrary to what is splashed all over social media, they do know who reported it so they can tell their version of the events in question. And if you have a full merit hearing, both sides get to present evidence, witnesses and cross examine. The Responding Party does not get to talk to the Reporting Party before arbitration, but they do not get that opportunity when facing sanctions in other professions either. You do not know the facts that were presented in any of the cases unless you are the Reporting or Responding Party (and their advisors), so perhaps the facts were presented and the truth was revealed. Just because people do not like the outcome of the arbitrations, it does not mean the truth was not revealed. In fact, I think the truth has been revealed and that is why the arbitrator came to the conclusion the did.

Matches my experience exactly. Thank you, I couldn’t agree more with you.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Tackpud

I’m sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. The victim shaming on FB has been horrific and has been done by many of the people that say they are supporting a reform to SS. Some of the following are written by persons involved in the new “Athletes for Equity” group.

Direct quotes from FB without names:

“this is his two seconds of “fame” because he never made it as a trainer, a rider nor an actor. I had heard that his brother swore to bring George down. Well, they succeeded. And funnily enough, he still thanks George for his training as an instructor on his sites. I knew JS. I put this in the past tense as I want nothing to do with him ever again. I have zero respect for him now.”

“‘No one will ever again think that sex with an underage student is no big deal. And that is progress’ REALLY Jonathan??”

“Are we supposed to have sympathy for her?”

“Perhaps Safesport ought to ban people convicted of child porn.”

“You have got to be kidding me that we are now going to put a registered sex offender up on a pedestal”

“So kids can go train with a convicted pedophile, but not the former coach of the US equestrian team?”

Just a small list of things that people who say they are working to change the process have put out on FB. And those sure aren’t the worst things I could find. I didn’t even look at what is posted on individual’s pages, this is just from the group pages. So don’t tell me there’s no victim shaming going on - it’s all over the place and you’re incredibly dense if you deny it.

Thanks for this post, and being firm in terms of pushing back on the notion that there is no victim shaming going on.

I will add two more to your list of HORRIBLE things said about victims on Facebook by actual people following high profile cases…

1. Following the story the articles that were published about Williams in 2018, and the decision to ban Gage in early summer, one particularly well known figure in the hunter jumper community came out and commented that teenage girls from the 1970’s routinely were “screwing for the blue.”

2. Following Gage’s suicide, Steve Bostwick actually left a comment on AK’s professional Facebook page, accusing her of being a “murderer” who was responsible for his death, because she had spoken up about her own experiences as a victim. By AK going public with her own experiences, and then choosing to be a leader with respect to changing the culture in our sport, others felt comfortable coming forward to and working with Safe Sport. Blaming a victim of childhood abuse for Gage’s tragic decision to take his own life? That’s insane.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Keep it Simple

Thanks for your last few posts. You have done an awesome job at clarifying the process of a Safe Sport investigation, and highlighting misinformation that is obviously spreading.

I’m tired of seeing the same misinformation repeated over and over and over again by well known professionals throughout the industry. It’s disappointing and sad. Folks, you destroy your own credibility when you obviously stand by a small circle of friends, and don’t bother to thoroughly examine the published details of the Safe Sport process, and details about specific cases, before going out and repeating the same old arguments.

I have no problem with people being concerned about Safe Spirt, examining individual cases and the process, and attempting to improve it. But it’s tome to get real… that is not what the vast majority of the groundswell in hunter jumper land is doing right now. The anti Safe Sport sentiment is all about protecting the old guard, and sucking up to big names who have very strong public opinions because close associates and friends have been caught up in a Safe Sport investigation… and it’s sad. The situation is obvious.

I can understand folks struggling with some of the ugly revelations… I can understand folks supporting long time friends, teammates, family members, mentors, etc… but once it’s obvious that allegations are likely accurate… what is the continued noise about Safe Sport reform REALLY all about?

At what point do we decide that this behavior is bad… and always was bad? It’s time to say that. I’m sorry friends and cons are dealing with the consequences of bad choices. It IS sad. But sweeping these things under the rug is WORSE. Support change. Encourage people like me to dial back their rhetoric and speak with compassion about individual cases… that’s fair… but don’t attack the change that is happening in the sport. This change is a good thing for young people, and for the future of the sport.

@poltroon - thanks for going back and finding the statistical information FiSk123 shared in another thread concerning statistics related to Safe Sport cases across multiple sports. It helps put things in perspective, for sure. I wish FiSk would pop back into multiple threads now. She/he contributed a lot to discussions.

[MHM]

@Virginia Horse Mom

I have no problem with people being concerned about Safe Spirt, examining individual cases and the process, and attempting to improve it. But it’s tome to get real… that is not what the vast majority of the groundswell in hunter jumper land is doing right now.

Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

[mvp]

@MHM

Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

On your last point: I don’t think anyone believes that sexual exploitation happens in the H/J world more frequently than anywhere else. Rather, I thought that the point was that we are (disappointingly) unique in our push-back against SafeSport. At least, that’s what I see from my corner of the world, though I am not well-informed about sports at large.

I am surprised by the callousness and entitlement exhibited by "my betters’ in this industry who are ill-informed about the SafeSport process or the experience of victims, but quite sure of the validity of their opinions. And at bottom, these folks are making an argument against preventing sexual abuse of children. This feels like yet more way in which I’m finding myself at odds with the sport I grew up loving. This branch of the high-end H/J world are not my people.

[oneequestrienne]

@MHM

Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

Check out @JudgeThree on Twitter for an interesting cross sport perspective. He/She is from figure skating but also has had direct contact with Safesport and connections to people in other sports.