So, who’s been discriminated against, pedophiles?
What the fruitbat with the 3rd question? Does the coach fall under a NGB? If so, then yeah, they’re under SS territory regardless of whether the kid they molest has even played a sport… If the USEF kid is molested by a coach of any sport and the coach is not under a NGB, then no. Really reconsidering my stance on the mentally challenged angle if they keep going with these questions.
Those are dang-interesting little tools the USEF has at its disposal. But I suspect that it would prefer to not get into the rather murky area of deciding whether or not a Licensed Official who publicly disagrees with a policy (not of the USEF’s making, but from SafeSport and the Federal Government) is committing an ethical violation as the USEF’s code defines it.
That’s true because the issues are layers and it is also true because the USEF is also a conservative, tending-toward-laxness organization until it either can do something (e.g. ban a drug for which there is finally a test) or must do something (because Congress says so).
And Another Thing! (I’m continuing my rant, which you improved upon a bit):
I think most of the public, most of the time (and especially since an event happened in late 2016 that allowed the least compassionate and least careful thinkers among Americans an imprimatur for spewing their hate (and sometimes hypocrisy)), is intellectually lazy. This is also about not giving up power.
The point is that no one wants to “walk a mile” in the shoes of a victim. The kind part of them doesn’t want to image that children are sexually exploited. They’ll do what they can to shield themselves from that dark and disturbing rabbit hole of detail. They hope it doesn’t happen to them or theirs. Historically, if it did happen to them or theirs, they saw the writing on the wall and refrained from insisting that others see and acknowledge their experience and perspective.
No one, similarly, wants to discover that their own behavior, while previously perhaps a bit questionable, is now labeled officially immoral or even illegal. So they do what they can to erase that conclusion. Those who were part of that large crowd of people sitting “a few rows back” from the crime (“I heard rumors but never saw anything,” “George will be George,” “Where were their parents”?/(read: Why does any onus to protect a child from something bad fall anywhere close to my feet?) also do not want to have their behavior audited.
So here’s the thing: It has taken more than half a century to establish the notion that perspective matters and than not all people experience the our world the same way, AND, that one should be obligated to consider the experience and perspective of a person or group that has historically had less power. So, for example, I am sorry to tell you, white men in Western Culture, that your perspective does not suffice as a stand-in for everyone and certainly not those whom you oppress. And so we have had to fight for so many things-- literature, history-writing, laws, science that is unbiased from structuring research questions to reaching authoritative conclusions-- that take into account groups like women, people of color, LBTGQ folks, the physically handicapped.
And so here we are on the frontiers of the happily entitled and oblivious moral majority having to really confront and appreciate the reality of the sexual exploitation of children. Note that, as a class, this is a pretty powerless group; I don’t think that is a coincidence. And the moral majority, even otherwise very nice and ethical people, suck at changing how they see the others not like them and grown under the new moral burden they didn’t know they had: to protect children at risk. Or, even stranger, they have to re-learn how to treat those they would have been treated carelessly in the past with new respect. (Consider, for example, the new rules of gaining continued consent during whatever make-out session is maybe/kinda/sorta leading to sex.) In any case, these nice, floating-above the dirtiness and horror of the sexual exploitation of children are now losing that impugnity and, perhaps, their sense of innocence. While doing so will make the world a better place in the long run, there’s nothing in it for them in particular to gain in the short run; there is some comfort and self-esteem to lose.
Carney represents, I think, this Average Joe member of the denying moral majority. And because there are so many “able deniers” like her now (but fewer than there were during the Weinstein case; and fewer in that moment than there were for the Bill Cosby thing hitting a critical mass of women who told the same story; and fewer still in that Cosby moment than there were when the sex-based abuses by Catholic priest and a cover-up by the Church came to light some 20 years back), Carney can still find lots and lots of lazy, comfort-seeking members of the moral majority to join her in continuing to exclude the perspective and rights of victims.
Indeed. I think Kessler got bored with the project of running the USEF. He perhaps had been tapped to take the job in the first place. But given the several PITA aspects of that organization and then the added pressure and scrutiny of having to sell a new requirement (SafeSport training and SafeSport’s acceptance) to an industry that has resisted regulation (such that stuff gets allowed to stand that most members of the American public would question), I think Kessler discovered a new, Not Fun chapter awaiting him and the USEF and bailed.
You did an excellent job of zeroing in on EXACTLY one of the issues with all this that I am, admittedly, narrowly focused on with respect to DC in particular. The links to the Code of Ethics and Social Media Policies for USEF Licensed Officials were also enlightening.
After reading through both, I think there are some obvious problems with DC being President of AfE, and writing these letters to SafeSport, describing herself ONLY as a “USEF member” and President of AfE, then signing these letters… and publicly sharing them on social media on the Athletes for Equity FB page.
Under the “What You Should Do” section: Disclose your Affiliation: If you talk about USEF related matters that are within your role as a USEF Licensed Official, you must disclose your affiliation with USEF. Review the Conflicts of Interest and Restrictions sections within Chapter 10 of the Rulebook. Recall the Licensed Official Code of Ethics and the prohibition on interacting with competitors. This prohibition applies to social media and the timing of communications can be interpreted incorrectly and create a dishonest perception of you or other licensed officials.
Under the “What You Should Not Do” section: Legal Information: Do not discuss anything to do with a legal issue, legal case, or attorneys without first checking with the USEF General Counsel.
After reading that… I’m curious about whether or not Sonja Keating reviewed the letters DC has written to SafeSport and Congress so far, and signed as President of AfE, and published on the Facebook page of AfE.
I’m sure a clever lawyer could wiggle around a bit with the whole way DC only describes herself as “a member of USEF” … but there seems to be a requirement with respect to disclosure. There also seems to be a pretty obvious conflict of interest issue. Or at least an appearance of a potential conflict of interest. Does USEF have visibility to the actual membership of AfE, and specifically to who has made financial contributions to the organization, and when the contributions have been made? Are any of the people who have made contributions and signed up to be members of AfE active competitors… and are any of them going to be showing in classes she will be judging at upcoming competitions?
If USEF isn’t privately discussing these issues with DC… why not? Maybe I am reading the guidelines and policies, and interpreting them way too broadly. That’s probably fair to say. But the whole situation most certainly IS messy, and USEF leadership behaving like a bunch of ostriches while DC… a licensed official… continues her activity on social media in terms writing and publishing these letters as President of AfE? And AfE continues to essentially solicit support and funds from active members of USEF? I find it disappointing USEF isn’t being more clear and strong about this.
And again… for the record… I’m not advocating that DC be blacklisted. Nor that her freedom of speech rights be infringed upon. I am however, pointing out that she is supposed to abide by certain policies and codes of ethics as a licensed USEF official. I don’t think it’s possible for her to be BOTH President of AfE AND a licensed official. But it’s really up to USEF as to whether or not they want to enforce their own policies.
And so far… it seems like they don’t. Which disappoints me.
Sadly, I think you are reading those USEF things too broadly.
To me, the money shot sentence is the one I bolded. I read that to mean that the ethical constraint the USEF could use with a Licensed Official is limited to their role as that official. In their capacity as a USEF member or a random person, they have freedom to publicly disagree with USEF or SafeSport policies.
So if Carney promises to never place any competitor she judges if she knows they are an ardent SafeSport advocate, that’s conflicts with her assigned role (to judge competitors based on their performance on that day and not on their way, way outside the ring politics), she has committed an ethics violation.
I don’t think the “do not discuss legal matters” clause extends as far as publishing a criticism of the USEF (or SafeSport or Congress). I read that clause to mean not discussing stuff in an official capacity that could screw up litigation or cause it. But to read the current “general unhappiness with SafeSport among USEF membership” as a “legal issue” that cannot be discussed seems like a gag order. Surely you wouldn’t want to give the USEF power to muzzle people who raised criticisms of its policies, right?
I did read that sentence you bolded two or three times, and figured it would be the point upon which any enforcement or sanction of DC would run into an issue. And I can understand that.
As for the legal issue interpretation… I can understand that as well being an overly broad interpretation. I will say though, I disagree that USEF strictly enforcing that provision is the same as “muzzling” people in general who are criticizing their policies. These guidelines specifically apply to licensed officials. I think it’s fine for USEF to have policies for licensed officials to refrain from commenting on social media about ongoing legal issues without first running it by General Counsel. If an official feels VERY strongly about something, and is at odds with USEF, they can resign as a licensed official, but continue to be a USEF member… and then voice their opinion all over social media with respect to the legal issue l think. At least that’s how I read it. 
As far as the conflict of interest issues go in terms of her role as a licensed official… I’m more thinking about the possibility of her pinning people who she knows have donated to AfE. Using her position as a judge to inappropriately rewarding competitors she knows have financially supported her unrelated non-profit organization.
She’s President of AfE. She could easily cross reference the membership list for her organization with entrants in a specific class. Some pretty high profile names already donated (it was visible when they were using GFM). Now… the names of who donated and how much? I think it’s all gone private, as AfE has gotten more organized and gotten their website built. But that privacy with respect to actual people being members or donors to AfE? That’s a bit of an issue. If you are talking about situations involving close subjective calls as to who gets pinned in a specific order in a class DC is judging… if no one knows who has or hasn’t donated to AfE… how can anyone say for sure she ISN’T favoring certain competitors?
That’s a problem, in my opinion.
Yes, but insofar as the USEF grants judging licenses it now becomes a professional organization for an industry. Imagine the AMA telling a doctor that he cannot speak critically of a policy (and one mandated to the AMA by Congress at that) that the AMA endorses (even if weakly). I think that would allow someone to claim that their licensing organization is infringing upon their freedom of speech, and insofar as the person now is forced to choose between enjoying her Constitutional right and making a living, she gains standing for phat lawsuit.
The key point is that the USEF can inflict a level of coercion on an official it licenses to do business within the horse show industry in a way that it does not not function as a private club for hobbyists whom it doesn’t not have to guarantee any adherence to constitutional anything. Sorry for the ugly sentence. I hope you can see the contrast in the “classes” of membership the USEF has.
I’m not a lawyer or nuthin’ so this opinion is worth what you paid for it. But I do think it’s worth considering how much power or not the USEF actually has before anyone thinks that that organization “ought to do something” about a bad-tasting nay-sayer like Carney.
Yes, but that’s not a new or unique problem. Any USEF judge can infer who is male and female from a membership list and pin according to gender bias. A USEF judge can check ownership of the horse and pin that way. Same for other pros with whom they, say, buy and sell horses. And insofar as plenty of trainers get their judging cards and wear both professional hats (albeit not at the same horse show), this problem is really old, common and well-understood. So you can’t claim that Carney raises a new species of challenge because so many judges have interests and access to information about who might further those or thwart them.
I think the grey area isn’t so much that DC as a USEF judge is against Safe Sport as an individual but rather she has helped spear head and is part of a group to thwart it. It’s clear she is testing the waters to see if the powers that be can be influenced by big names in the industry or not.
Interesting perspectives from both of you - I had to think about it a bit… but I see where you all are coming from.
It’s all a bit infuriating to watch. I think I’m going to have to resign myself to LadyJ’s views with respect to a lot of this…
Sooner or later, these fossils with backwards attitudes on the sexual abuse of minors will just retire, or pass away.
Yes that is an unfortunate truth. All we can do is speak out and vote with our wallets. Unfortunately some people value athletic accomplishments and friendships despite what the person does. It’s hard for people to have a moral compass especially when they think their job will suffer. It’s easier to go with the perceived flow. Unfortunately these people won’t realize that despite pissing off their “friends” they will gain a lot.
I agree that USEF won’t/can’t do anything about this. I wish they would/could but as we all know, they haven’t fared well when sued over their drug policy. This is a free speech type issue so they could really be in for a lengthy legal battle.
The fact that she is a USEF official and writes those bizarre letters to the Safe Sport organization really doesn’t reflect well on USEF though.
My guess is that the ‘freedom of speech’ aspect may be murky in the written rules, but in actual practice there will be constraints on officials who are loud in their position firmly against any publicly visible USEF policy. Unless there is a consensus within the USEF that yes, that policy/rule/regulation needs to significantly change or be rescinded, which I doubt is the case for SafeSport (and isn’t legally possible anyway).
In any business or organization, someone who publicly and repeatedly asserts that they are not on the same page as TPTB is likely to tender a sudden resignation in order to pursue other interests. And very probably certain persons will find themselves more constrained than others, and certain issues viewed more closely than others by TPTB.
Just another wild guess, but likely DC is being pulled into quiet conversations within the USEF discussing the wisdom of her path and her continuing role as a USEF official. Likely time will be given to see if she will cool off, within a few months at most. If not … time will tell.
No one else is publishing letters under the auspices of the AfE? Just DC?
The majority of the letters put forth so far from AfE are signed by DC. There was one that came from “the Executive Committee” or something like that. And she co-authored the last one with the VP - Kelly Cormaci.
The notion that there might be some private discussions, and time to see how it all plays out makes complete sense. At present, however, DC does not come across as though she will be willing to quietly resign as a licensed official, and refocus on her non profit organization. Time will tell.
Yes.
There are two things that are more powerful and drive more decisions than all of the passion in the world: Money and Time.
People are all fired up to go to the wall and keep up relentless pressure until they start running out of those two things. It really all comes down to Money, because most people have to do something to support themselves (and their dependents and horses), and when work starts falling behind because all Time is going to the cause, the rubber really meets the road. They have to cut back substantially on the Time given to the cause, or else find enough Money to support them and their dedication. Big-cause charities can speak to that…
Independent wealth and/or a supportive spouse helps, as do others with deep pockets and a keen interest in carrying on the fight to the end. But the deep pockets and the spouse have a way of losing interest, so fundraising becomes a whole other time-consuming endeavor.
(SafeSport itself is running into this issue right now on a governmental footing. As I understand it, they are going back to Congress to beg for substantially increased funding. An illustration of how serious this sad problem is across sports.)
Most ordinary humans have limited resources to continue the struggle at a high level for long.
The latest email from AES:
[h=1]Athletes for Equity in Sport, Inc.[/h] [h=1]Today’s news[/h]
As you may already know, Athletes for Equity in Sport is working daily toward achieving substantive change in SafeSport procedures. This means legally defining the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s rights and duties.
What We’ve Been Doing
The members of Athletes for Equity in Sport (AES), along with our legal counsel, are actively engaged in this endeavor. For the past 30 weeks, we have sent letters to Congress — 535 weekly letters in all, every week for 7-1/2 months.
The replies received in response to AES’ letter-writing campaign have been very encouraging. Leaders in TOP positions in Washington, D.C., are very concerned about the lack of constitutional rights afforded by the current SafeSport process.
AES will continue this mail campaign until SafeSport procedures become fair and impartial, affording equity to both parties involved in SafeSport claims.
We’re Getting Results
As a result of our mail campaign, starting in February, face-to-face meetings are scheduled with Senators and Congressional Representatives in Washington, D.C. AES is also working with a lobbyist regarding currently pending national legislation S.2330, the Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019.
This bill, which was introduced in the Senate last year, attempts to give athletes more control over the policies and procedures employed by the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and SafeSport. Hence it is of maximum interest to AES.
At this time, there is not a companion bill in the House of Representatives. That’s good news, which AES will use to help accomplish our strategy for implementing necessary changes to SafeSport.
What Else We’re Doing
In addition, we are meeting monthly with major worldwide news organizations, whose journalists are becoming as uncomfortable as we are with the unconstitutional ways of SafeSport. So far in February, AES representatives have been interviewed by two more sports magazines, for articles to be published this Spring.
Meanwhile, with the help of counsel and the members of AES, we have mapped out various legal strategies. These will be launched at appropriate intervals via a three-pronged approach:
Legislation
Litigation
Education
An announcement will be made this Spring regarding AES education, including more facts about how SafeSport really functions plus details on social services, also known as “wraparound” services.
Save the Date: AES’ Third Public Information Session
To date, AES has held two public information sessions, each featuring athletes involved in the SafeSport process along with their representatives. These participants shared their firsthand experience of navigating SafeSport’s inconsistent and poorly constructed protocols, which in practice are very different from what SafeSport has publicly stated in recorded presentations or put in writing.
On March 2, 2020, AES will hold our third public information presentation. Our featured presenters are athletes, coaches, and attorneys involved in SafeSport cases. They will speak from their firsthand experience and knowledge of the prosecution’s bias toward any report, be it legitimate not. The number of false reports and manipulation of the SafeSport process grows monthly.
Please note March 2 on your calendar! We’ll send you more details soon.
AES is Growing Fast
AES membership has grown by 200 members since January. Furthermore, the number of sports adding their support grows weekly, including cycling, boxing, wrestling, equestrian sports, skating, and gymnastics. Participants in all of these sports — and more — are joining AES as members, providing testimonials, and attending our information sessions.
In addition, owners and coaches are realizing their vulnerability and supporting AES’ efforts to improve SafeSport procedures for the protection of ALL participants in Olympic sports.
Going forward, AES is closely watching more national governing body (NGB) cases, including USOPC X HEARING for Appeal and others. When more information about these becomes available, we will share it with you.
What You Can Do
Please continue your efforts as well. To become a member of Athletes for Equity, go to AthletesForEquity.org and click JOIN US. For updated letter and article postings, click on NEWS & TESTIMONIALS. In addition, please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions: AthletesForEquity@gmail.com.
You can also help by Liking us on Facebook (Athletes for Equity in Sport) and donating via AES’ GoFundMe page.
Athletes for Equity in Sport is dedicated to an equitable SafeSport process: one that is fair and impartial for both the reporter and the accused. Only by achieving this equity do we protect all of our athletes.
Thank you to all of our members and donors. Your support is making it possible for AES to bring about much-needed changes in SafeSport procedures and policies. Together, we can make a difference!
Sincerely,
The Executive Group Athletes for Equity in Sport
Thanks @SolarFlare
So, SS needs AfE to legally define their rights and duties? I think not.
I’d like to have a list of the false reports and manipulation of the SS process for statistical purposes.
wow! 200 more members! and in only months and months? that’s a real tidal wave of success
:rolleyes:
And I’m sure totally like some of them aren’t hunter riders :lol: and definitely not the support squad for banned persons
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
