People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

[skydy]

Thanks. It is a tough time for everyone in the world now, and his family of course has every right to privacy.

[SolarFlare]

And today’s contribution:
[h=1]Athletes for Equity in Sport, Inc.[/h] [h=1]Today’s news[/h]
THIS IS AN IMPORTANT READ

On April 1, 2020, the Center for SafeSport issued a new 2020 SafeSport Code. In doing so, it’s evident that SafeSport has listened to the public at large questioning the Center’s various functions and has chosen to “close the gaps” (i.e., silence these uncomfortable questions) by casting an even wider net over athletes, coaches, and national governing body (NGB) members.
That’s right: Now there are even more opportunities for folks to be caught in the SafeSport web of discipline and banishment.

• Previously The Center had the discretion under the Code to publicly correct the record if facts or the process were misrepresented by reporter or respondent. The Center has now changed the code to, “There may be instances where it is unclear who perpetuated the misrepresentation, but that misrepresentation is nonetheless being taken seriously by the public (e.g., an anonymous source for a media outlet). This prior provision is important because it provides an express mechanism for the Center to correct the record if/when publicly disseminated misinformation seeks to undermine the Center’s process or mission.”

This is a very interesting change to the Code because the Center has an automatic GAG ORDER on Respondents and their designees (like attorneys) who are NOT permitted to show the public the actual documents that prove the Center, or its agents, is not being truthful. Therefore, a Center reported Mis-representation may actually be truthful without the ability to clear the record due to the GAG order. This remains a one sided provision.

• SafeSport’s Code previously allowed an accused party 5 days to request an Arbitration hearing; that has now been changed to allow them 10 business days (essentially two weeks) to request that hearing.

In addition, the Code previously allowed time for the accused person to pay for their Arbitration hearing; now, the rule is that if Arbitration is requested, the [B]requestor has 30 days in which to make the full $5,200 payment. Failure to do so will prompt a 5-day notice that payment in full is due at that time. NO payment thereafter ends the Arbitration process for good.[/B]

Furthermore, SafeSport’s previous Code included a hardship exemption: For persons who could not pay the Arbitration fee, the Center would cover those costs. That has now been changed to an arbitrary decision as to what the Center will cover and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

• SafeSport’s Code previously included provisions concerning “aiding and abetting” the person who allegedly committed a prohibited act. The new Code expands those provisions along with its definition of “aiding and abetting” via new language stating, “when one aids, assists, facilitates, promotes, or encourages the commission of Prohibited Conduct by a Participant.”

This goes to the issue of whether a banned NGB member could give a clinic (as in equestrian sports) at someone’s farm or other private location. [B]It could ensnare a landowner, horse owner, rider, money collector, host, etc., in SafeSport’s punitive net.[/B]

Congress intended the Center for SafeSport to have jurisdiction over NGB-related events. This in no way extends to unrelated activities on a person’s private property. SafeSport’s new Code is still vague and over-broad in trying to reach into the confines of non-NGB-related events held on privately owned land.

• SafeSport’s previous Code did not have a provision expressly prohibiting “exposure of minor to sexual situations”; the new Code now includes this via the addition of the following language:

“An Adult Participant violates this Code by intentionally exposing a Minor to content or imagery of a sexual nature, including but [?]* limited to, pornography, sexual comment(s), sexual gestures, and/or sexual situation(s).” *[Editor’s Note: It appears that SafeSport meant to specify “…including but NOT limited to…”; however, as of 4/4/2020, their online pamphlet does not include the word NOT].

This would mean that a Participant had best not allow a Minor to overhear a phone conversation or joke, glimpse an online meme, or in any way incidentally encounter any remotely suggestive content of any kind. It seems that social distancing of at least 30 feet from Minor to Participant might be in order to ensure that Minor does not see nor hear anything the Minor perceives as violating this section of SafeSport’s new Code.

• SafeSport’s new Code also [B]prohibits “willful tolerance” of bullying or hazing, which means that if a coach is aware of bullying or hazing and tolerates it, the coach is now in danger of being disciplined by SafeSport[/B].

By contrast, the Code previously noted if an Adult Participant reasonably suspects an incident involving a Participant. However, that language was removed from the new Code, because supposedly there was confusion among reporters as to if it was necessary to investigate whether or not the person they were reporting was in fact a “Participant”. Now you should just report everything you see, and the Center for SafeSport will decide if the person is a Participant.

• The new SafeSport Code now expressly provides that the Center may also provide law enforcement with information and evidence as part of its Response & Resolution process.

Meanwhile, [B]the Respondent is not entitled to see or be given this same information[/B] in the Respondent’s investigation until the Center has ruled that the Respondent has violated SafeSport’s Code (essentially, found the Respondent guilty).

Then — and only then — can the Respondent pay $5,200 to schedule Arbitration, whereupon they are finally given their first opportunity to see and read what was reported and/or is in the investigative file. Even then, the Respondent will see ONLY what the Center chose to put in their file, because not everything in SafeSport’s investigation makes it to the actual file.

Note that when the criminal prosecutor in a state action discovers evidence that tends to find you not guilty, they are obligated under the law to give you that information (known as Brady material); they can’t hide it from you. However, SafeSport is NOT obligated to give you this exculpatory material and in fact does not provide such information to Respondents. Shocking, but true!

Read the new SafeSport Code here:
https://uscenterforsafesport.org/response-and-resolution/safesport-code/

Please visit our website and become a member by making a donation.

Executive Group
Athletes for Equity in Sport
AthletesForEquity.org

[SolarFlare]

I don’t even know where to start on this…

1. They want SS to listen to the “public” (read: them) but are now mad that SS has listened and is “closing the gaps”
2. They are flat-out accusing SS of lying
3. The arbitration fee - I assume previously there must have been some sort of case-by-case judgement as to who got their fees covered. I mean, I don’t think everybody could just say they couldn’t afford it and SS would cover it, right? Not sure what the significance is of SS evaluating this case-by-case
4. Back to being mad at not being able to host clinics with a banned member. I cannot understand why they don’t see that this IS encouraging the behaviour. And “ensnare” in SS’s “punitive net”? Just get another clinician. There are many who are not banned
5. SS added “exposure of minor to sexual situations” as an offense, and the AfE response is seriously obtuse. “30 foot social distancing” - they sound like toddlers having a temper tantrum
6. I just do not understand the problem with a coach, aware of bullying and allowing it to continue, being subject to SS discipline. Really?
7. I am not a lawyer, but pretty sure a Brady violation occurs when someone has already been charged with an offense, and during discovery, the prosecution does not provide exculpatory evidence to the defense. So, SS providing law enforcement with their investigation material doesn’t qualify, since the individual hasn’t been charged with anything. The police would then continue on with the investigation if warranted, then individual would be charged if evidence warrants, THEN the lawyers would deal with discovery and evidence. Just like the police do not share all of their investigation with a suspect, neither does SS. Somebody please explain to me what exactly their point is here?

Argh!

[Denali6298]

@SolarFlare

I don’t even know where to start on this…

1. They want SS to listen to the “public” (read: them) but are now mad that SS has listened and is “closing the gaps”
2. They are flat-out accusing SS of lying
3. The arbitration fee - I assume previously there must have been some sort of case-by-case judgement as to who got their fees covered. I mean, I don’t think everybody could just say they couldn’t afford it and SS would cover it, right? Not sure what the significance is of SS evaluating this case-by-case
4. Back to being mad at not being able to host clinics with a banned member. I cannot understand why they don’t see that this IS encouraging the behaviour. And “ensnare” in SS’s “punitive net”? Just get another clinician. There are many who are not banned
5. SS added “exposure of minor to sexual situations” as an offense, and the AfE response is seriously obtuse. “30 foot social distancing” - they sound like toddlers having a temper tantrum
6. I just do not understand the problem with a coach, aware of bullying and allowing it to continue, being subject to SS discipline. Really?
7. I am not a lawyer, but pretty sure a Brady violation occurs when someone has already been charged with an offense, and during discovery, the prosecution does not provide exculpatory evidence to the defense. So, SS providing law enforcement with their investigation material doesn’t qualify, since the individual hasn’t been charged with anything. The police would then continue on with the investigation if warranted, then individual would be charged if evidence warrants, THEN the lawyers would deal with discovery and evidence. Just like the police do not share all of their investigation with a suspect, neither does SS. Somebody please explain to me what exactly their point is here?

Argh!

To get rid of Safe Sport because their friends like to touch children and harass people. Same as always.

[skydy]

@Denali6298

To get rid of Safe Sport because their friends like to touch children and harass people. Same as always.

Or those that intentionally tell sexual jokes in the presence of minors or expose them to pornography. God forbid that should be prohibited.

[ladyj79]

@skydy

Or those that intentionally tell sexual jokes in the presence of minors or expose them to pornography. God forbid that should be prohibited.

That was the weirdest sidetrack. I’m encroaching on middle age. I’ve been an instructor and teacher in horses and academia. Somehow I’ve managed not to expose minors to pornography and I am around them virtually 24/7 and have been almost my entire adult life. Like, it’s really not that hard.

[skydy]

@ladyj79

That was the weirdest sidetrack. I’m encroaching on middle age. I’ve been an instructor and teacher in horses and academia. Somehow I’ve managed not to expose minors to pornography and I am around them virtually 24/7 and have been almost my entire adult life. Like, it’s really not that hard.

Exactly. Who does that, and why do they need Safe Sport to tell them that it is inappropriate?

I’m glad I never came into contact with people like that when I was young.

[Denali6298]

That too! Who the hell does that?

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@SolarFlare - thaa as now for keeping the topic updated.

I find it bizarre they are using the term “social distancing” - which has become commonplace given the Covid 19 situation - in the context of Safe Sport.

These people are truly bizarre. At what point will they actually accept that GM is done? Put a fork in him. This is done and they need to get a grip.

[LexInVA]

@Denali6298

That too! Who the hell does that?

The Libertine crowd, many of whom openly or quietly back AFE.

[Denali6298]

@LexInVA

The Libertine crowd, many of whom openly or quietly back AFE.

AFE?

[LexInVA]

@Denali6298

AFE?

Athletes For Equity.

[Denali6298]

@LexInVA

Athletes For Equity.

So now that we’ve established I’m terrible with acronyms :lol:

[Jenerationx]

Where’s the fruit bats? Ya know… I wouldn’t even want to get the poor fruit bats involved in this. Are they ever going to realize this is NOT A CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS? It’s a terms of membership process.

Originally posted by Denali6298
AFE?

My inner voice calls them something else.

[skydy]

Honestly, it’s too much.

At first I gave people credit. At first, I thought that these folks were just shocked and disappointed that their heroes were accused.

Then, I thought they were in denial and might need time to understand the horror and the difficulty that people would have, coming forward and telling about the abuse they had suffered. Those brave people like A.K.

Now, the defenders of these banned professional (or amateur) horse people complain :eek: that they are prohibited from purposefully making sexual jokes and exposing minors to pornography? Because that happens accidentally?
Does it? Does that really happen in your world? :mad:

Shame on all of you members of that club.

[skydy]

I would like for the record, to say that I am referencing my disapproval for “Athletes For Equity in Sport Inc.” .

Hopefully when anyone googles “Athletes for Equity in Sport Inc” this thread (which contains opinions about the group Athletes For Equity in Sport Inc.) will appear.

Perhaps with a bit of reading, people will know not to be taken in by them, those “Athletes For Equity in Sport Inc.”.:rolleyes:

I wish they had the gall to come here and answer the questions we have asked. It won’t happen, obviously. There is no defense to their beliefs. Any semi-educated person could win that debate in two seconds flat.

Let’s make it a secret, private, paying club. Yes, that’s the way to go. Still not a non-profit? I don’t have the wherewithal to “join” the club, but if I had, I would publish the members’ names all over hell and high water.

Let the kiddos parents know what their kids may be in for. If they don’t mind putting their kid in a chancy situation, at least they can forewarn the child.

[Jenerationx]

I have never accidentally exposed a child to pornography. Who visits porn sites from their phone while they’re at the barn? Are these people unable to go a few hours at a time without watching porn? Any parents accidentally expose your young children to any porn? I had no idea that was a thing to be worried about.

[ladyj79]

@Jenerationx

I have never accidentally exposed a child to pornography. Who visits porn sites from their phone while they’re at the barn? Are these people unable to go a few hours at a time without watching porn? Any parents accidentally expose your young children to any porn? I had no idea that was a thing to be worried about.

Like, you’re theoretically at work, cause this is people’s living and livelihood, right? Doesn’t that continue to be the argument? Most places dont really like it when you watch porn at work. Again, reinforcing the notion that these are not actual businesses and these people are not professionals.

[ladyj79]

This group seems like it should just merge with NAMBLA. There probably isnt a need for two groups.

[Jenerationx]

AFE is more like AFP… Athletes for Pedos.