Isn’t it odd? There has been SO MUCH SafeSport training and information put out over the last two years. It’s REQUIRED training for USEF members. If you are a parent of a kid who isn’t showing beyond schooling stuff, and more at the grassroots level for now (that describes me), you should STILL read up on SafeSport and be aware - it has some great, practical info for parents and the issues are very real, and it’s our job as parents to be as aware as possible. If you are a lower level horse pro, at the grassroots level, and not currently a USEF member, you should STILL read up on SafeSport, policies and best practices, etc. It’s part of running a good business these days when you have minor athletes as clients. Also… if you follow their prevention guidelines… you actually are covering yourself from the risk of false allegations much more effectively (if you are worried about false allegations of child abuse).
Yet, we still have people popping up in these discussions on the forums who are clearly not informed about SafeSport in the most basic way, but have strong opinions about its unfairness, etc. That’s really a head scratcher for me at this point. At times, it almost seems like there is some gaslighting going on.
I say anyone who pays a minor’s fee has to take the Safe Sport training on behalf of the minor. After all, any adult who joins has to do so too, even if the likelihood of crossing paths with a junior rider is low.
So, first I wanted to apologize for engaging with a poster from other threads, answering her provocative question and sidetracking this very important topic - without thinking this action could possibly close this thread. I hope it doesn’t & I genuinely apologize. Zipping it now on that!
As far the current topic & to try to respond to this portion of your post- I think this:
Many have had vastly different experiences with SafeSport. When a claimant is pleased with an outcome, SafeSport is the best joint in town. 6 stars out of 5. When a claimant does not receive the outcome he/she expected- SafeSport has no idea what’s it’s doing. That’s the general thinking, from what I have understood thus far.
Respondents, I would imagine, likely have the same thought pattern. Nobody enjoys an accusation. Especially if it’s bogus. But, also if it’s not- Bc- that person thought (most likely) he/she “got away with it.”
There seem to be issues with the 1 investigator approach. Also, intake mistakes, as recounted by some, including K.D. Issues as well with being unable to have an attorney present (on either side) to expertly direct, cross examine, re-direct & re-cross examine witnesses, accusers & respondents- during a formal hearing and during arbitration. Even the most basic civil disputes - (outside SS) which don’t guarantee constitutional protections in matters which rely only the “burden,” of the preponderance of the evidence, allow for legal counsel to be present & engaged.
Safesport’s main rebuttal to those who believe it’s an “innocent until proven guilty,” type of deal-like in criminal court, where every constitutional right is afforded- most notably, due process, is that, participation in an Olympic sport is a privilege. Not a right. With this, I agree.
I also agree that attempting to brainstorm ways to better an imperfect system, is not the same as “undermining,” it. (Btw- I didn’t mean for that to sound like you suggested that it is the same.) I suppose it’s frustrating for me to run into a very valid issue/problem every time I think, “What if SS did X, instead of Y,” only to find that “X,” would/could prove to be a greater “evil,” than doing the continued, “Y.” I absolutely disagree that SS should make its processes more “transparent.” Victims have the right to confidentiality- period. And, until solid, materially relevant evidence shows the need for anything otherwise, so do respondents. After that, the chips are gonna fall where they may.
And what is your opinion of posters who anonymously (they hope) make false or unsubstantiated allegations on a bulletin board, @eggbutt? Are they scum, too?
Can you all just leave it? This thread has/had some interesting and good (albeit sad at times, but that’s the reality) discussion going. I, and I’m sure others, quietly follow along trying to learn a thing or two.
If you want to rehash and rehash stuff about the MB threads, take it to PM, another thread, or just leave it. I don’t how going in circles about it, getting threads closed, and now spreading it to this thread is constructive. At all.
If you just want to troll or stir the pot, find another place. If you’ve got beef, take it outside.
I think Pandora was saying that just by honestly doing her job as a police officer, she would be violating aspects of the safe sport code. I’m not sure exactly what that would be, but I can imagine that job duties as a police officer might be in conflict with Safe Sport code in some instances.
Safe Sport is an organization that oversees sports. Why would a police officer be under that jurisdiction? A cop would certainly be putting their hands on people without their permission, for starters. So, the cop arrests someone and they are in violation. How does that make sense?
A peace officer, in the presence of a felony, MUST take action in response to said felony. Either police are to be called or an arrest is to be made. They are obligated to stop the felony.
This does not include contacting Safe Sport at that time.
If the victims life is in imminent danger a peace officer is authorized to use whatever force is necessary, including deadly force.
So. yesterday, a well known trainer put up a post thanking a trainer that is currently banned via safesport, thanking him for hosting her as a clinician. This seems reportable?
I don’t know if the “thank you” post violates SS but hosting the clinic certainly would (assuming the host is a USEF member) and the post would be circumstantial evidence that the clinic indeed occured.
That seems reportable. But the question with these sort of situations becomes a matter of what the penalties are for this sort of activity, and who metes out penalties. I still seem to recollect that this sort of report is pushed from the SafeSport center directly to the NGB to handle… but I might be wrong. But I thought the SafeSport program was designed with an ability to delegate some enforcement back upon the NGB, so that the investigative staff with the SafeSport center could focus more on the direct issues involving abuse that lead to their creation in the first place.
A thought occurs as well… what about the George Morris clinic at Persimmon Tree Farm in 2019 or 2020? Didn’t the farm owner get a one month suspension directly from USEF or something like that for hosting him? It seems like something similar should apply to a situation where an active pro goes to give a clinic at a banned individual’s farm. If it’s reported… USEF itself should follow up with a warning or short term suspension… depending on the facts of the situation.
I will admit right up front that I am on one side of the spectrum of opinion on this issue… I think “banned for life” needs to mean what it says. The people who have been banned for life were banned for serious reasons. Participants in the sport are literally safer without predators like that being a part of the entire community. It’s that simple. I understand the example of Paul Valliere gives people pause… he found a way to continue to make a living for many years after being banned for non SafeSport reasons. But I think when it comes to people banned by SafeSport being associated with CLINICS? Either giving them, or hosting them? That’s pretty basic. It’s a problem, and this activity in particular undermines the intent of the SafeSport program.
