People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[NoSuchPerson]

@Horsegirl's Mom

There is a middle ground: people who in good faith want to have a safe, abuse-free sport but also want to feel that accused people are treated with the utmost fairness.

My problem with this sentiment is that, despite multiple people asking multiple times in discussions here, no one who feels that accused people aren’t being treated fairly has yet been able to come up with a real example of how any accused individual was not treated fairly according to any widely accepted standard of fairness.

For that reason, I think many of us feel that the middle ground you describe is mostly inhabited by people who claim that they want to have a safe, abuse-free sport, but what they really want is to find a way that they and their cronies can avoid getting caught and sanctioned for their bad behavior.

FWIW, I share @Denali6298’s opinion on DC:

I don’t think she should be blacklisted. However people have a right to vote with their wallet or not so my comments were more about what I would do personally. I don’t think phone calls or emails should be made to the places that want her as a clinician.

In the wake of Safe Sport there are many trainers I won’t use. I also don’t go out of my way to make sure everyone knows why and try to paint them as some monster because of what they think wrt Safe Sport.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@NoSuchPerson

For that reason, I think many of us feel that the middle ground you describe is mostly inhabited by people who claim that they want to have a safe, abuse-free sport, but what they really want is to find a way that they and their cronies can avoid getting caught and sanctioned for their bad behavior.

So your conclusion is that DC wants to keep pedophiles in equestrian sport and ensure they can continue to abuse children without penalty. In other words, DC is a co-conspirator in pedophilia, if not a pedophile herself.

That is exactly the kind of uncharitable, assume-the-worst-of-fellow-humans thinking I am talking about.

Don’t you think someone can be dumb, or perhaps have emotional difficulties accepting reality, without being evil?

[mvp]

@Horsegirl's Mom

So I don’t know this DC person, and I certainly agree people have the right to spend or not spend their money with clinicians of their own choosing. That said, I really think we should try to avoid the black and white thinking that seems so prevalent on this issue, where people either support SafeSport wholeheartedly with no reservations and no questions asked, or they are pedophile-enabling monsters who want to supply children to abusers.

There is a middle ground: people who in good faith want to have a safe, abuse-free sport but also want to feel that accused people are treated with the utmost fairness. Granted, some people with concerns about fairness may be confused. They may be unsophisticated people who have trouble grasping the process or understanding how it compares to processes say, in the Boy Scouts or in a workplace. People may disagree about whether some or none of their concerns are legitimate. But the key thing is, they are acting in good faith. They are not evil people, even if you think they are ignorant or confused.

This mirrors what is happening in the political landscape. Many of my friends say quite proudly, “I would never be friends with [a member of the other party.]” As if it is laudable to shun someone with different beliefs. To me, it’s not laudable; it just shows a failure to understand that someone could be acting in good faith yet reach a conclusion that seems incorrect.

Ok, but no:

People shouldn’t be given credit for having a vaguely noble motive (fairness for the accused as well as the victims)… then not know enough about the expert organization (SafeSport in this case)… then not bother to learn enough about either the organization nor the law to discover if, in fact, those experts who worked on this issue professionally and before them were idiots because, to their shallow understanding, it appeared so.

I understand the difference between evil and ignorant. What I can’t so-sign is ignorance in service of evil.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@mvp

Ok, but no:

People shouldn’t be given credit for having a vaguely noble motive (fairness for the accused as well as the victims)… then not know enough about the expert organization (SafeSport in this case)… then not bother to learn enough about either the organization nor the law to discover if, in fact, those experts who worked on this issue professionally and before them were idiots because, to their shallow understanding, it appeared so.

I understand the difference between evil and ignorant. What I can’t so-sign is ignorance in service of evil.

So you do believe DC has evil motives?

[mvp]

@Denali6298

I don’t think she should be blacklisted. However people have a right to vote with their wallet or not so my comments were more about what I would do personally. I don’t think phone calls or emails should be made to the places that want her as a clinician.

In the wake of Safe Sport there are many trainers I won’t use. I also don’t go out of my way to make sure everyone knows why and try to paint them as some monster because of what they think wrt Safe Sport.

Fair enough. But do you think that Carney’s “qualification” (a very public (and unfounded, IMO) rejection of SafeSport and her activism, is one worth mentioning in the context of folks in Pony Club (which does adhere to SafeSport) should know about?

I don’t give unsolicited opinions of pros or service providers that I think are bad… unless their particular flavor of badness is likely to matter to the person I’m speaking with. In that case, I tell the truth as I know it. And tell them how I formed my opinion so that they can evaluate its merit or accuracy.

[mvp]

@Horsegirl's Mom

So your conclusion is that DC wants to keep pedophiles in equestrian sport and ensure they can continue to abuse children without penalty. In other words, DC is a co-conspirator in pedophilia, if not a pedophile herself.

That is exactly the kind of uncharitable, assume-the-worst-of-fellow-humans thinking I am talking about.

Don’t you think someone can be dumb, or perhaps have emotional difficulties accepting reality, without being evil?

I’d bet that she does not want to keep pedophiles, as a class, in the sport. But she wants her BFFs and idols in the sport. And if she’s personally unconcerned with their sexcapades or personally doubts investigators’ findings, then she’ll attack what she can-- SafeSport’s process. I think it’s disingenuous to criticize anyone as making such an assumption about Carney. It’s so patently wrong as to have been obviously so to anyone, even the poster whom you are accusing of assuming the worst.

[Denali6298]

@Horsegirl's Mom

So your conclusion is that DC wants to keep pedophiles in equestrian sport and ensure they can continue to abuse children without penalty. In other words, DC is a co-conspirator in pedophilia, if not a pedophile herself.

That is exactly the kind of uncharitable, assume-the-worst-of-fellow-humans thinking I am talking about.

Don’t you think someone can be dumb, or perhaps have emotional difficulties accepting reality, without being evil?

No because I know many people who have accepted the reality when a friend/babysitter/coworker got sent to prison and upon the arrest we all ditched him. Yes it is emotional but that internal struggle doesn’t excuse anyone from blatant support of the accused. In my case as well as in GHM the investigation prior to the arrest/ban was going on long before many knew. People don’t just find themselves in these types of investigations without acting in a manner that suggests the time consuming investigations are warranted.

[Denali6298]

@mvp

Fair enough. But do you think that Carney’s “qualification” (a very public (and unfounded, IMO) rejection of SafeSport and her activism, is one worth mentioning in the context of folks in Pony Club (which does adhere to SafeSport) should know about?

I don’t give unsolicited opinions of pros or service providers that I think are bad… unless their particular flavor of badness is likely to matter to the person I’m speaking with. In that case, I tell the truth as I know it. And tell them how I formed my opinion so that they can evaluate its merit or accuracy.

As someone not remotely affiliated with the pony club it’s not my place. As you described, how I phrase my opinion good or bad on a pro when asked really depends on what the person is looking for. For example, my favorite trainer comes highly recommended by me obviously, but not for everyone. I make no bones about what she won’t tolerate in a student. Ie., if you don’t try and make excuses all the time. That’s not a good fit for some. If it’s a parent looking for their kid and I know they bring in someone who has a multitude of rumors about them I will mention those rumors if it’s relevant.

I truly feel people can make their own decisions WRT who to train with when it comes to people who support the banned. It doesn’t need to turn into a witch hunt and it shouldn’t turn into a witch hunt.

[Mara]

@mvp

I’d bet that she does not want to keep pedophiles, as a class, in the sport. But she wants her BFFs and idols in the sport. And if she’s personally unconcerned with their sexcapades or personally doubts investigators’ findings, then she’ll attack what she can-- SafeSport’s process. I think it’s disingenuous to criticize anyone as making such an assumption about Carney. It’s so patently wrong as to have been obviously so to anyone, even the poster whom you are accusing of assuming the worst.

If George were somehow magically exonerated and reinstated this evening, Diane Carney’s interest in SafeSport would be gone by tomorrow morning.

[Denali6298]

@Mara

If George were somehow magically exonerated and reinstated this evening, Diane Carney’s interest in SafeSport would be gone by tomorrow morning.

This. No one cared until the big names/friends started getting called out.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@mvp - I can appreciate where you are coming from with the statement that “blacklisting” would be overstepping. But I do want to politely point out that I have not called for anyone to be GENERALLY blacklisted as a clinician. Nor has anyone gotten a call or e-mail from me indicating their clinician of choice should be fired. I have specifically pointed out that DC is the clinician a Pony Club in Nevada decided to invite in to give a clinician to minor athletes. They have formally undertaken significant fundraising efforts as club to raise money to bring in a clinician. The USPC is formally 100% onboard with SafeSport. DC is the President of an anti SafeSport organization, AS WELL as a widely respected clinician.

There are other widely respected clinicians the Pony Club could have hired who are NOT also presidents of Anti SafeSport advocacy organizations.

So… I have posted on this thread concerning my opinion of this specific situation. I’m aware many others don’t like how I’ve singled out DC in particular. But I have not once suggested she should be blacklisted. Nor have I encouraged anyone to contact the hosts of the clinic and ask them to fire her. Nor have I contacted any clinic coordinators. I’ve simply raised the issue for discussion.

These SafeSport threads ROUTINELY go down logical fallacy rabbit holes. The “slippery slope” argument is one example of a logical fallacy. Here is a good description of the slippery slope fallacy

“When a relatively insignificant first event is suggested to lead to a more significant event, which in turn leads to a more significant event, and so on, until some ultimate, significant event is reached, where the connection of each event is not only unwarranted but with each step it becomes more and more improbable. Many events are usually present in this fallacy, but only two are actually required – usually connected by “the next thing you know…”

So here’s how that applies to this…

”Hey there VHM, you really shouldn’t make the point that it’s a questionable idea for a Pony Club to hire the President of an organization which is devoted to overturning SafeSport as a clinician, because the next thing you know, that person could be blacklisted as a clinician by EVERYONE. And that would be unfair and overstepping.”

If she was blacklisted by EVERYONE as a clinician, it would be unfair and overstepping. But that’s not what we are talking about, and a Pony Club thinking carefully about which of the many nationally known clinicians it might hire for the kids this March, and factoring in stuff like whether or not the person openly supports SafeSport (or supports a coach who sexually abused minors and was banned for life because of it)… well… let’s just slow down and deal with one thing at a time.

The fact of the matter is that she is the President of an organization that is openly advocating AGAINST SafeSport. That’s her choice. She also has put forward multiple public statements and letters about it, expressed her views regarding SafeSport repeatedly (though not always clearly), and given interviews and petitioned Congress to “reform” SafeSport. One of the other people on the “Executive Committee” of her organization is the same individual who started the ISWG group. GM was investigated over the course of 2 years because of allegations regarding the sexual abuse of minor athletes whom he coached. He was found guilty, and banned for life by SafeSport. It was appealed… and the independent arbitrator looked at all the evidence and upheld the lifetime ban.

Soooo… I think choosing someone working to overturn the law that created a process which lead to the ban of a prominent coach who abused minors… a prominent coach who DC happens to be incredibly close to… choosing her to coach a bunch of Pony Club kids?

I think it’s fair to say online with respect to that Pony Club, “WTF are they thinking?”

@ynl063w made a point earlier that was VERY clear. Athletes for Equity, and their supporters diminish their own credibility as an organization that claims to passionately believe that SafeSport is flawed and harming innocent people, by continuing to take the required SafeSport training, by agreeing to abide by SafeSport rules, etc, just so that these folks who are part of the Executive Committee of AfE can continue to be active USEF members in good standing. They need to be members in good standing in order to show, judge, coach, etc at recognized venues. The fact of the matter is… there are plenty of unrecognized shows out there. Not as prestigious or lucrative for coaches who make a living in this sport to target… but there are unrecognized options. They exist. And DC has not been accused of violating SafeSport herself or banned… she is free to coach and clinic active USEF members all she wants, even if she herself is not a member.

So I think ynl063’s point regarding putting the onus back on DC and others as individuals is pretty interesting and fair. If SafeSport is as flawed, unfair and unconstitutional as they claim, then they should resign from USEF and do independent clinics, coaching, shows, etc. I believe that is EXACTLY what Bernie Traurig did. Granted he’s retired as a competitive rider, but he still gives clinics. Many people attend. Apparently he’s a great clinician. He considered RG a close friend, and made the public choice to resign from USEF as a member.

I’m not raising a protest with respect to BT’s clinics… because he is not trying to have things both ways. Nor have USHJA or USPC invited him in as a clinician for a specific event that is actually formally associated with the national organization. So they aren’t trying to have it both ways either.

Frankly… I actually think my position on the issue is MORE grey than ynl063’s (no criticism intended of her, as the continual reference to black and white thinking about SafeSport brings us to ANOTHER logical fallacy… the straw man. And it also borders on an ad hominem attack… And yes… that comment is directed at Horsegirl’s Mom ). But just to be clear… I personally don’t care if all these folks continue on as USEF members, and coach and clinic. But serving as a clinician for a specific date that is partially funded by USEF, USHJA, or USPC dollars… while at the same time openly fundraising and advocating in opposition to a SafeSport?!? Yeah. I think that’s someone having their cake and eating it too.

Maybe the issue isn’t DC though. Maybe it’s actually USEF, USHJA, or USPC though. Maybe the problem is that the national organizations/governing bodies related to our sport want to openly and publicly claim to support SafeSport… but in reality… also want to continue to closely associate with people who are trying to get rid of SafeSport.

I notice that, and think it’s an odd choice. And diminishes everyone’s credibility with respected to the stated goals of SafeSport - preventing sexual abuse of minor athletes participating in sports associated with the Olympic movement.

There was recent testimony in front of Congress regarding SafeSport. They need more funding. There also was a BIG lawsuit announced last week with respect to Larry Nassar, and a medical officer affiliated with USOPC. The medical officer was actually fired after alleging the USOPC was slow to act and had been warned about Nassar. The lawsuit is certainly something to watch. Essentially, I think the folks involved are putting forth the argument that SafeSport is not actually about stopping abuse, but actually mostly about trying to get in front of liability when it comes to major lawsuit risks in multiple Olympic Sports because multiple athletes have suffered sexual abuse. They are aiming at both USOPC and certain NGBs. And sadly… I wonder if there is merit to the arguments being made. The ongoing situation with USA Gymnastics is a horrible mess, with HUGE liability, and it makes you wonder.

But the concern that SafeSport is really a corrupt liability mitigation measure, and not actually a sincere effort to address the sexual abuse of young athletes engaged in Olympic sports is NOT the argument Athletes for Equity in Sport is making. just pointing that out before we go down yet ANOTHER logical fallacy tangent.

I’m not intending to be harsh with anyone… but am trying to call out what I see going on here, and push back against mischaracterization of what I have tried to raise as meriting discussion.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

@Virginia Horse Mom

[USER=“114463”]

[B] If SafeSport is as flawed, unfair and unconstitutional as they claim, then they should resign from USEF and do independent clinics, coaching, shows, etc. .

Isn’t there a long tradition of trying to improve institutions from within? When someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Bill Maher criticizes much of how our society operates and vows to try to change it for the better, do you say, “If they don’t support everything about the U.S., they should resign their citizenship!”

[Denali6298]

@Virginia Horse Mom :applause::applause::applause::applause:

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Horsegirl's Mom

So I don’t know this DC person, and I certainly agree people have the right to spend or not spend their money with clinicians of their own choosing. That said, I really think we should try to avoid the black and white thinking that seems so prevalent on this issue, where people either support SafeSport wholeheartedly with no reservations and no questions asked, or they are pedophile-enabling monsters who want to supply children to abusers.

There is a middle ground: people who in good faith want to have a safe, abuse-free sport but also want to feel that accused people are treated with the utmost fairness. Granted, some people with concerns about fairness may be confused. They may be unsophisticated people who have trouble grasping the process or understanding how it compares to processes say, in the Boy Scouts or in a workplace. People may disagree about whether some or none of their concerns are legitimate. But the key thing is, they are acting in good faith. They are not evil people, even if you think they are ignorant or confused.

This mirrors what is happening in the political landscape. Many of my friends say quite proudly, “I would never be friends with [a member of the other party.]” As if it is laudable to shun someone with different beliefs. To me, it’s not laudable; it just shows a failure to understand that someone could be acting in good faith yet reach a conclusion that seems incorrect.

OK…

I will respond as politely as I can.

STRAW MEN. AGAIN. You routinely rely on straw men.

Black and white thinking? STRAW MAN

Accusing DC of wanting to supply children to a child abuser? Also a STRAW MAN.

Frankly, there is an element of ad hominem attack as well to this post.

Oh - and the attempt to bring in our divisive national political moment, how polarized people are reflexively retreating to their chosen party - either R or D - and “shunning” others who have “different beliefs?” And the. relate it to the SafeSport discussions we are engaging in on these forums?

I think that’s an example of a red herring fallacy.

If you want to join in the discussion - great! But please… stop with all the logical fallacy stuff. It is unproductive.

[Denali6298]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Isn’t there a long tradition of trying to improve institutions from within? When someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Bill Maher criticizes much of how our society operates and vows to try to change it for the better, do you say, “If they don’t support everything about the U.S., they should resign their citizenship!”

That is literally all you got from that post? And don’t turn it political. That’s not remotely on the same level. I can’t figure out if your playing devils advocate to make people think or if your that desperate to be accepted into the upper echelons on the SoCal horse world.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Isn’t there a long tradition of trying to improve institutions from within? When someone like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren or Bill Maher criticizes much of how our society operates and vows to try to change it for the better, do you say, “If they don’t support everything about the U.S., they should resign their citizenship!”

[h=1]Red Herring[/h]
Ignoratio elenchi

(also known as: beside the point, misdirection [form of], changing the subject, false emphasis, the Chewbacca defense, irrelevant conclusion, irrelevant thesis, clouding the issue, ignorance of refutation)

Description: Attempting to redirect the argument to another issue to which the person doing the redirecting can better respond. While it is similar to the avoiding the issue fallacy, the red herring is a deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Logical Form:

Argument A is presented by person 1.

Person 2 introduces argument B.

Argument A is abandoned.

Example #1:

Mike: It is morally wrong to cheat on your spouse, why on earth would you have done that?

Ken: But what is morality exactly?

Mike: It’s a code of conduct shared by cultures.

Ken: But who creates this code?..

Explanation: Ken has successfully derailed this conversation off of his sexual digressions to the deep, existential, discussion on morality.

[Horsegirl_s_Mom]

Virginia Horse Mom, you really are an original. Thanks for the explanation of different fallacies, but as an attorney who also has a Masters in Philosophy, I’m pretty familiar with them. You may want to check out the concept of arguing by analogy.

What I’m most interested in is the fact that you actually didn’t address the substantive points I raised. When is it appropriate to try to change an institution from within and when is it morally required to quit that institution? How do we determine if someone is misguided but acting in good faith, or if they are actually motivated by evil? Is it sometimes appropriate to blame someone for ignorance (i.e., you didn’t know, but you should have known?) Does that change if the person is cognitively or educationally challenged? I suspect the latter two questions are most relevant to the DC situation.

These are deep questions, just the kinds of questions philosophers debate and worry about.

As for Denali, your post made me laugh. I have no stake nor aspirations in the SoCal horse world! But I do like to encourage clear thinking and sound moral reasoning.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Horsegirl's Mom

So your conclusion is that DC wants to keep pedophiles in equestrian sport and ensure they can continue to abuse children without penalty. In other words, DC is a co-conspirator in pedophilia, if not a pedophile herself.

That is exactly the kind of uncharitable, assume-the-worst-of-fellow-humans thinking I am talking about.

Don’t you think someone can be dumb, or perhaps have emotional difficulties accepting reality, without being evil?

QUOTE]
[h=1]Strawman Fallacy[/h]

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position or the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.

Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).

Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.

Therefore, claim Y is false.

Example #1:

Ted: Biological evolution is both a theory and a fact.

Edwin: That is ridiculous! How can you possibly be absolutely certain that we evolved from pond scum!

Ted: Actually, that is a gross misrepresentation of my assertion. I never claimed we evolved from pond scum. Unlike math and logic, science is based on empirical evidence and, therefore, a scientific fact is something that is confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent. The empirical evidence for the fact that biological evolution does occur falls into this category.

Explanation: Edwin has ignorantly mischaracterized the argument by a) assuming we evolved from pond scum (whatever that is exactly), and b) assuming “fact” means “certainty”.

[Denali6298]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Virginia Horse Mom, you really are an original. Thanks for the explanation of different fallacies, but as an attorney who also has a Masters in Philosophy, I’m pretty familiar with them. You may want to check out the concept of arguing by analogy.

What I’m most interested in is the fact that you actually didn’t address the substantive points I raised. When is it appropriate to try to change an institution from within and when is it morally required to quit that institution? How do we determine if someone is misguided but acting in good faith, or if they are actually motivated by evil? Is it sometimes appropriate to blame someone for ignorance (i.e., you didn’t know, but you should have known?) Does that change if the person is cognitively or educationally challenged? I suspect the latter two questions are most relevant to the DC situation.

These are deep questions, just the kinds of questions philosophers debate and worry about.

As for Denali, your post made me laugh. I have no stake nor aspirations in the SoCal horse world! But I do like to encourage clear thinking and sound moral reasoning.

Except you seem determined to be accepted in that world and your posts show a profound ignorance despite your profession. I’ve never met an attorney who advertised as such that started statements with “I don’t know who this person is but…” and then proceed to espouse an opinion that people should see as educated.

I have also responded to you and others here with a link to someone I know who is in jail for heinous crimes against children to illustrate the fact that I have acted upon my statements. But you conveniently ignore that. So yes, all I’m left with is a Mom who desperately wants to be relevant in the horse horse world despite no longer having a a kid whose a junior.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Virginia Horse Mom, you really are an original. Thanks for the explanation of different fallacies, but as an attorney who also has a Masters in Philosophy, I’m pretty familiar with them. You may want to check out the concept of arguing by analogy.

What I’m most interested in is the fact that you actually didn’t address the substantive points I raised. When is it appropriate to try to change an institution from within and when is it morally required to quit that institution? How do we determine if someone is misguided but acting in good faith, or if they are actually motivated by evil? Is it sometimes appropriate to blame someone for ignorance (i.e., you didn’t know, but you should have known?) Does that change if the person is cognitively or educationally challenged? I suspect the latter two questions are most relevant to the DC situation.

These are deep questions, just the kinds of questions philosophers debate and worry about.

.

Thank you for sharing your bio.

I think your comment regarding me being original was not a compliment. But… if I have misunderstood and misinterpreted, feel free to clarify.

At this point, however, I do want to pause and define ad hominem attack for anyone following the thread… just in case they AREN’T a lawyer with a Master’s in Philosophy. And just in case “original” was some sort of thinly veiled insult (which is what it seemed like to me, but I can be overly sensitive at times) [h=1]Ad Hominem (Abusive)[/h]
argumentum ad hominem

(also known as: personal abuse, personal attacks, abusive fallacy, damning the source, name calling, refutation by caricature, against the person, against the man)

Description: Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the argument the person is making.

Logical Form:

Person 1 is claiming Y.

Person 1 is a moron.

Therefore, Y is not true.

Example #1:

My opponent suggests that lowering taxes will be a good idea – this is coming from a woman who eats a pint of Ben and Jerry’s each night!

Explanation: The fact that the woman loves her ice cream, has nothing to do with the lowering of taxes, and therefore, is irrelevant to the argument. Ad hominem attacks are usually made out of desperation when one cannot find a decent counter argument.