It’s not stupid because the industry needs to be behind SS not shunning it.
1 Like
My point was the discussion around SOL(Statue of Limitations?), due process, etc. doesn’t apply. In any corporate setting you can get fired for a multitude of HR violations, why is the horse world special? The people in the industry that are shunning it need to take a look at any profession and realize they probably have it a lot easier than most when it comes to freedom to act or do as they please in the workplace.
17 Likes
You are correct, I don’t know you. I respond to what people write, no more and no less. I have yet to see you offer victims anything better than SafeSport or your sympath. Also, the state of New Jersey disagrees with you regarding the value of Statutes of Limitations for sex crimes. I don’t know what the basis for their reasoning is (besides the many, many cases of serial predators that have come to light in the last few years). Do you have an argument that is stronger than the State of New Jersey’s for applying a Statute of Limitations to sex crimes?
I am supporting SafeSport. I think it ought to put the protection of victims first since, it seems clear, no other institution in law enforcement has done that. That’s what’s on my side of the street. What, exactly are you offering? Confused.
10 Likes
Note the refusal to name members of the group https://www.chronofhorse.com/article/what-is-athletes-for-equity-in-sport
2 Likes
The accused should have more rights, and the accuser less. these people are real winners.
I presume any person who donated and put their money out there is a member.
And a dumpster fire.
A person’s ability to participate in a club is frankly not the same as a victim of sexual assault’s right to not have to be around that person.
Her complete indifference or even failure to admit that the courts and justice system has failed victims for far too long is sickening.
These opinions should cost these people their livelihood. That’s called the free market.
27 Likes
Diane Carney is an R USEF judge. 
@ladyj79 - I love your last post.
I’m sickened by these people. I could spend multiple hours posting here about the many many reasons why I think pedophile apologists, and people who stand with men who RAPE teenage boys are absolutely the MOST pathetic dregs of society…
but I have stuff to do this evening. First and foremost, I need to hug my kids.
Honestly though… I am sincerely pondering whether or not I have the stomach to picket the next show this woman judges. I am not really the picketing type - most of the time. But someone needs to inform all the HJ parents that she’s a pedophile apologist. If I have to be the jerk standing around with a sign making people uncomfortable… so be it.
Constitutional Rights and Free Market economies are a beautiful thing. Equity… Right?
10 Likes
JMHO, but, good grief, these people need to stop.
10 Likes
Well, that was an eye opener…worse than I actually expected. It made me sick inside.
Her complete disconnect with with the victims is unbelievable. At the same time, it is something I think I might sort of understand. I am embarrassed to say that when survivors started to come forward in other areas/industries, first as a trickle and then a flood, I had thoughts similar to DC. I have a friend who grew up in the entertainment industry with both parents involved with major studios and who has been in the industry for decades and is involved in the industry today. I asked about what was going on with all the accusations (notice I didn’t say “victims”) flying around. My friend referred to it as feeling like a witch hunt and I didn’t disagree even though I myself was the victim of an older trainer as a junior.
’Then the US Gymnastics story broke and Safesport came into being. There was just no denying what happened there. Once Safesport came in to being, I began to wonder how long it would be before someone reported my abuser. I had no intention of being the one to contact SS. I found out that he had been reported when people began contacting me and asking me if I knew. Some of these people went so far as to tell me not to speak to SS. That was the moment everything changed for me. These people clearly knew what had happened to me but instead of being concerned about me or the other victims, they wanted to protect him. (By the way, my friend mentioned above in the entertainment industry, stood by me.) I was so angry that people would tell me to keep quiet. I responded that while, I would not seek out SS, should they contact me, I would not lie to protect him. I owed him nothing. I did ultimately become involved in the SS investigation. The revelations which came to me (mostly privately) took me to some very dark places when I became aware of the magnitude of my abuser’s depravity.
It appears to be easier to blame victims, to call them accusers, than it is to face the ugly reality that sexual assault and rape has been and continues to exist in our sport and our society, though to do so publicly takes it to another level.
I hope that this will lead to a sport which no longer resembles the “Wild West” where anything goes from highly questionable financial transactions, to the abuse of these magnificent creatures most of us love and to the rape of children with no consequences. It’s going to be a rocky ride from here to there but worth it if we can get there.
34 Likes
Thank you for sharing on these forums.
I find it completely SICKENING that people told you NOT to speak with SS.
These people have ZERO integrity. They take the training and pretend to be willing to abide by the rules, just so they can continue to make a living as a judge, cis h, or pro rider involved with recognized competitions… but then when an actual investigation into SEXUAL ABUSE OF MINORS gets underway… they call up individuals they suspect might have been victimized in the past, and push them NOT to talk to investigators.
SICKENING.
17 Likes
And… another thing…
How is it ok for a LICENSED JUDGE to be president of an organization that is accepting anonymous donations in relation to their stated goal of “reforming” Safe Sport?
The next time she judges, a thinking person might wonder whether or not any of the winners happens to be directly tied to an owner, rider or trainer who anonymously donated to Ms. Carney’s organization.
16 Likes
Agreed.
5 Likes
When I am reading what seem to be thoughtfully worded comments about improving the SafeSport process, making it more efficient and more fair, I am all for it. By all means let’s always improve it and be better. That would be a way to bring the sides at least somewhat closer together in a common effort.
But there is never a true offer of specific effort for SS itself, time after time after time these comments are posted, wherever they are posted. Such as adding private sponsor funding to add more investigators; or even clarifying the qualifications and requirements of those investigators. Or how to make something better about the arbitration, and/or a different process for the accused to defend themselves. Or any point where SafeSport itself would ask for more support. And I’m glad to learn in this thread that I’m not the only one who sees the lack of an offer of specific help.
The thing that is increasingly undermining the credibility of these reasonable, scholarly sounding statements, in my eyes, is the refusal to answer specific questions about the nature and scope of the problem that SS is addressing. For me to be persuaded or even just willing to collaborate with them on some improvement process, I (like others) need greater insight on what beliefs are behind it and what are the true goals. Unless there is a common goal, supported by an agreed set of principals, there can’t be a common effort that works.
Instead of explaining those things, the skeptics use broad generalizations intended to scare the audience, and also seem to have the goal of defending known offenders. They are tearing down their own credibility with the larger audience. But they don’t seem to see how this. They don’t seem to care about crafting a better and more persuasive message that addresses the concerns that originated SS in the first place.
Rather than truly engaging in dialog, Packy, Navin et. al. are just throwing statements against the wall and hoping something sticks. Maybe another doubter reads it and comes over to their side.
Navin seems stuck on one misinformative, fear-mongering theme I’d paraphrase as ‘They’re comin’ for ya!’ Ridiculous, she’s selling paranoia over sound policies that have been part of everyday life for two decades. She’s trying to scare people away from something that is already common and familiar to them.
And Packy not only refuses to answer specifics that would help clarify if he thinks there are any concerns at all, he actually cites Navin’s tripe as part of the effort to “improve” SafeSport. Just pull the toilet handle, it’s faster.
Instead of formulas for improvement, the messages I’m hearing from Packy, B. Navin, D. Carney representing Athletes for Equity in Sport, and others of their crowd have the classic characteristics I’ve been taught to look for as indicative that someone is avoiding speaking to the facts.
- Deflection, not answering specifics, changing the subject instead.
- Generalizations instead of speaking to specific instances and facts.
- Broken logic. A does not lead to B, does not lead to C.
- Incorrect information. Scrambling the facts. Such as suggesting that there is “no investigation” and no process.
The article with the interview of Diane Carney was rife with all of this. This excerpt is an example -
We are innocent until proven otherwise. There has to be the ability of a person to have a report, to have resources available at SafeSport to address it, and then to have the next layer of, “Where does this go to be investigated?”
Because they don’t have enough investigators to do what’s on their docket, they don’t have the process to do that. So when you start having fatigue and assumption and just normal human error factor in, that to me is way too high a margin of error when you’re dealing with people’s lives.
The point wanders from “innocent until proven otherwise” (fair enough) to “where does this go” (it’s detailed in SS public documents) to “fatigue and assumption and human error” (what does that even mean? specific instances?).
I found that much of her side of the interview didn’t read all that coherently due to her deflections and scrambled logic. And she’s an experienced presenter as I understand it, who should be well able to organize a cogent statement supported by facts.
This is her argument against the way SS is doing its job? In the entire interview, she never says what exactly she thinks needs to change about the process - other than that SS exists at all.
And she never addresses the actual concern that is premise of SS and inspires it’s supporters - Is there a problem with inappropriate sexual contact and relationships between adults and minors in horse sport? Yes or no; why or why not? The interviewer repeatedly tries to get her response to this specifically, but she’s just not going there, and it seems very deliberate on her part.
But the #1 question that keeps being asked by many posting on COTH, and that never gets an answer, is this:
-
Do the SS skeptics/anti’s acknowledge that horse sport has had a deep and wide problem of sexual contact between adults in authority and minors? Regardless of how they think it came about, even if they think “the youngsters threw themselves at him/her” (there are other things I could say about that, but not now). Maybe I shouldn’t use the words “inappropriate” and “problem”, in case that’s the thing they don’t agree with.
-
Do the SS skeptics/anti’s believe that anyone on the banned list today is innocent of what they are accused of? Specifically give the name(s), there’s no confidentiality to worry about because they are already on the public list (and would probably appreciate the support).
-
Do the SS skeptics/anti’s believe that adults in the sport, especially those who make their living from it, who have had repeated sexual contact with minors over the course of years should be excluded from the sport?
I understand that the SS skeptics may have issues with how these things are addressed by SS. But many of us are not even to the point of the “how” in the dialog yet, because we haven’t understood where the SS skeptics stand on the questions that are being asked of them, because they won’t answer.
Based on what the skeptics/deniers/anti’s have had to say so far, my fear is that they don’t actually disagree that there has been, and is still, a lot of sexual contact between adults and minors in horse sport. But that they view it as primarily consensual and not truly a problem. My concern is that this is the true stopping point in the communications to date.
But that’s speculation, because the skeptics/deniers/anti’s haven’t actually said one way or the other if they think that those adults who repeatedly engage in sexual contact minors should be excluded from the sport, no matter how many times they have been asked.
20 Likes
One equestrienne, Wow! Unbelievable that someone would tell you not to talk. Just unbelievable.
I hope you gave SS the name of the person that encouraged you to stay silent. I’m sorry this happened to you.
I feel like the Athlete for equity group is trying to help friends, and/or save themselves from past wrongs. Shame on them.
12 Likes
@packy mcgaughan
I would really like to read Packy’s specific responses addressing the details of each of these questions. Packy, as I’m sure you know, you can click on the blue arrows to get back to the original, complete posts.
3 Likes
From the linked article…
The problem is many people have not gone to law enforcement because they may not have enough information for a legal case to stick.
This comment is absolutely disgusting. That is not a reason people don’t report immediately, or even ever. I don’t know a single victim who hasn’t reported saying the reason was “because he/she won’t be charged so it isn’t worth it”. No. It is embarrassment, shame, knowing that others might not believe you, not knowing that something is not normal and wrong for an adult to do to you, fear of repercussions, fear that your friends will no longer want to associate with you, disgust that you let something like that happen to you, fearing that others will label you as a victim and only see you as such in the future, confusion, and the list goes on. It is different for everyone how they feel but the last thing on ones mind after sexual abuse or assault is “but, I won’t say anything because a legal case won’t stick”.
27 Likes
To a R-judge: may I trade sexual favors for a winning round? (If answer ‘yes’, should be banned.)
To a trainer: may a child “trade” sexual favors for preferential treatment? (If answer ‘yes’, should be banned.)
Hm. Does that help at all to shut down the ‘but the child THREW themselves at me …’ argument?
9 Likes
Probably won’t shut it down, no. Nothing is enough to shut it down.
The magic of “they threw themselves at me [or the trainer, or whoever]” is that it shifts total responsibility to the other party. The offender was just minding his/her own business when suddenly they were overwhelmed by this sex-crazed hormone-driven “Lolita”. In fact, it makes the offender into the victim of the victim. Offender and victim switching roles is a welcome relief to an offender who is about to be in huge trouble. And to their apologists.
I think that as an excuse, it probably belongs more to older generations, from a less enlightened time when it was a common protest. It does make one wonder about anyone who thinks this is a rational excuse.
“Lolita” is another word from the past that is a cue to shift responsibility to the minor. Ironically, in the Nabokov novel, Lolita is very much a victim who has few choices, and is just surviving as best she can on a long, twisted journey with a man who is essentially her abductor. No one is looking for her because her mother is dead. She makes it clear that she doesn’t want this. He understands that, but he puts his own perverted needs first. Society accepts this strange relationship between a man and a girl who may or may not be his daughter, leaving her few outs until she is old enough to make her own way through life. I never understood the common assumption that she was the initiator who kept it going. Something to think about. (Probably most people who use ‘Lolita’ as an adjective haven’t read it.)
15 Likes
I knew Diane Carney fairly well when she was starting out here in Colorado. I rode with her and against her. I am absolutely dismayed and frankly, disgusted, with her comments in this interview. I am rather sad that somebody of who I thought highly as a horseman is this ignorant and this disgusting as a human.
27 Likes
@OverandOnward - I totally agree (and in fact thought ‘Monster’ with Charlize Theron was brilliant in execution and difficult in topic. Totally recommend it to anyone who hasn’t seen it.)
My point is to keep coming back every time someone accuses the victim, point blank offer to buy a win or whatever points out the blatantly overt ethics failure/corruption on the part of someone who should know better. (Assuming any still exist, sigh.)
(Sorry if it’s explaining the already clear, lol)
3 Likes
