I think what is weirder than the statement itself is copying it from FB, pasting it to the COTH forum, and then talking about the person behind their back and making assumptions that they are out to threaten people. Is that what we as a community do now? Sad. I get you don’t like the lady. I don’t know her and have never met her. But wow you must have a LOT of time on your hands to stalk her profile and report back to everyone on what she is saying. That is just really weird to follow someone so closely that you don’t even like just so you can “report” on her activity. Some might consider that a form of bullying…
How am I talking about her behind her back? The forums are public. And she posted publicly on FB. I have not “reported” on anything she has said privately, not have I “reported” on anything she has said in Facebook groups that are NOT public.
If I was truly stalking and bullying her… I’d be copying and pasting and reporting A LOT more than this statement. And focusing on issues other than her various public statements about Safe Sport. It’s not like there isn’t plenty of things to say… but all I commented on was her public statement in the wake of a huge Safe Sport decision.
Bonnie has made herself intentionally very much a part of the public discourse on this subject. there is nothing at all wrong with discussing her repeated and public endeavour to undermine the system and defend the indefensible.
Wow. This really has gone beyond crazy now. I can’t even cope with the daily comments on COTH’s Facebook page about Morris and Soresi.
SafeSport isn’t perfect and I’m sure there are very valid concerns. However, it might be helpful if those who seem the most strongly opposed to it weren’t also those who seem to have the least amount of knowledge about how the process works. When they talk about conspiracies aimed at bringing targeted riders down, or bleat on and on about the constitution, it just makes them look like imbeciles.
I don’t think it’s a matter of being ignorant, rather than being opposed because their friends and people they want to be in the good graces of are the most at risk for getting caught. They are choosing being liked by terrible people over doing what is right as a decent human being.
I have personally been critical of some of some of the SafeSport policies, specifically the MAAP policies because I feel that they are based on the assumption that any interaction between an adult and a minor is suspect when in reality 99.9% of adults in the horse world aren’t sexual predators and are far more likely to provide a positive influence for young riders. My opinion on that hasn’t changed, although I’m not here to debate that … but I can’t believe how many people are willing to not only look the other way when it comes to GM sexually taking advantage of underage students, but publicly disparage his victims (and those of other high profile offenders) as well.
Just to give you a different perspective on this, as someone who is involved with various youth activities, those guidelines are there as much or more to protect adults as to protect the kids. IE: if you follow them, there’s really no opportunity for there to be a substantive allegation, which is better for everyone. It also helps create a much clearer, brighter line between the adults who care about the kids and are doing right by them versus the ones who are out to prey on kids. These policies have been used for 10-20 years in most youth organizations.
There are parts that are good practice, certainly - things like hotel rooms, etc. But then there are things like this, copied directly from the document itself:
b. Social Media
Applicable Adults with authority over minor athletes should not maintain private social media connections with unrelated minor athletes and such Applicable Adults should not accept new personal page requests on social media platforms from amateur athletes
who are minors, unless the Applicable Adult has a fan page, or the contact is deemed as celebrity contact vs. regular contact. Existing social media connections on personal pages with minor athletes should be discontinued.
Even though IIRC the “clarification” that was posted on COTH said that it was ok for trainers to be Facebook friends with students as long as they weren’t posting inappropriate content or sending private messages, it says right here in black and white that trainers must “unfriend” any of their students that are minors unless it’s strictly a “fan page.” I think that is pretty unnecessary.
I’m a female adult amateur rider, and there are plenty of times that I’ve been in the barn and the only other person around was a teenage working student, or a teenage boarder at the same barn because the trainer was down at the arena teaching lessons. Or I’ve been alone down at the arena with a teenage rider because it’s a small barn and we were the only two there riding at that time. I realize that MAAP can’t be enforced and therefore “technically” doesn’t apply away from competitions, but it has been said that the policies should be followed all the time … so does this situation flag me as a predator if I don’t alert the young rider’s or working student’s parents? I think “appropriate” often depends a lot on context, and that gets lost in the wash here.
The MAAP policies only apply to people in a position of power, ie the trainer. If you are alone with a fellow boarder who is a minor your not violating the MAAP policy.
Not sure why grown adults need to friend everyone and their mother on Facebook let alone minors. That to me is just weird.
Also, the suggestion that everyone follows the guidelines is just that. A suggestion.
I have to say, disapproving the way the MAAP policies are structured because trainers can’t be friends with minors on their personal Facebook pages is really on par with not liking safe sport because “it can be weaponized.” Barns that use social media to communicate usually have a barn page for boarders that is a closed group.
I say it’s high time barns move into the business world with a little more professional ethics.
I’m pretty sure most of the MAAP policies apply to any adult USEF member who has “regular contact” with minors, not just those in authority (the social media part I quoted above being an exception). I guess it may be open to interpretation whether riding at the same barn and in the same training program counts at “regular contact” but as far as I can tell it applies to all USEF adults if they’re ever around anyone under 18:
Mandatory Components This policy shall apply to:
Adult members who have regular contact with amateur athletes who are minors;
Any adult authorized by USEF to have regular contact with or authority over an amateur athlete who is a minor;
Adult members at a facility that is either partially or fully under the jurisdiction of USEF or at USEF licensed, endorsed, sponsored activity; and
Adult staff and board members of USEF.
(Collectively “Applicable Adult” for the purposes of this Policy.)
You may personally think it’s weird for adults to be Facebook friends with younger or older individuals, or people they barely know, but the fact is that in actuality it’s very common and in no way indicative of an inappropriate relationship with those people.
I did not want to hijack this thread into another debate about MAAP. My whole point in mentioning it is that it’s perfectly reasonable to disagree with or have concerns about parts of the structure or implementation of SafeSport, while still admitting that there was a problem and that something needed to be done (and being glad to see predators face consequences). But the “I Stand With George” crowd has totally crossed over into unreasonable territory, with their willingness to excuse his behavior and conspiracy claims and trashing of victims.
I and others emailed for clarification as we have juniors at the barn who’s parents drop them off and pick them up and this was a hot topic. We also don’t have a resident trainer so it was in our best interest to ask the questions to the appropriate people to get an official answer.
I am merely relaying the response from the USEF we all received.
It is reasonable to disagree, but disagreeing because g-you believes something that is false per TPTB is just spreading more misinformation.
@TheMoo, would you be willing to post the reply here or PM it to me? I’d be interested to see their reply, because I’ve read over it several times and my interpretation (and one that seems to be common) was that it seemed to apply to any adult USEF member, professional or amateur, that is around minors on a somewhat regular basis. If that’s not the case, maybe it would be helpful for them to put out a clarification statement of some sort.
I sure can when I go back to work on Saturday as I sent it from my work email. And totally agree the USEF is dropping the ball about clarification and letting rumors run rampant.
Thank you for bringing that back up. I think it is very relevant for us to recall her role in the LG case.
Humane sport depends on the drug testing of horses. Her war on the USEF drug testing lab and her battle to undermine the entire drug testing process through the use of misinformation and fear mongering spread via an aggressive social media campaign–all in the name of defending a guilty client–was a completely unethical thing to do. Now she’s attempting to do the same to Safe Sport. If an institution needs to face valid criticism, that’s okay with me, it’s the misrepresentation of facts and fear mongering that bothers me.
FWIW, if I have a dog in this fight it’s only that I am a proponent of clean sport and I would like for youth sports participants to have better protection from grooming, molestation and abuse. I’m tired of our industry being a safe place for people who drug horses and abuse minors.
Hopefully some of the anti-safe sport people will attend this meeting and voice their concerns and have those concerns addressed, instead of continuing their hysterics online. https://www.ushja.org/news/ushja-new…ship-safesport
