While wading through the employee handbook of my employer’s new corporate owner I m reminded that it seems from the comments I see of those who are so anti SS, that surely they have never been employed by any company asking for anything other than maybe a handshake.
12 Likes
Yes, it seems that being held to even the most basic standard of decent human behavior is too much for some folks in the horsey world.
Well, too bad. They’d better wake up.
14 Likes
#3 in my opinion is REALLY all about wanting to know what Safe Sport’s investigators uncovered during the course of the investigation.
In my opinion, that means who the investigators talked with. Witnesses. And what the witnesses told the investigators.
And given one story in particular that came out in the wake of the George case, about a witnesses family members being THREATENED because friends of George didn’t want the witness to speak to Safe Sport investigators about whatever it is they thought she might tell the investigators about…
well… I think #3 is an issue.
Let’s also take a second to note that Diane Carney is a licensed judge, and President of this group making these demands about changes they want made to the Safe Sport process. She’s also a longtime very very close friend and associate of George, and very upset about his ban.
If every detail of the investigation into him, including who the witnesses actually were and what they were willing to tell Safe Sport investigators was shared back with George…
He could then tell his good friend the judge who is very upset about the ban, and guess what… all those witnesses are going to have a problem doing well in competition. Or their students are going to have a problem. Or their horses are going to have a problem.
It shouldn’t be that way. But it certainly WILL be that way. People are human and have feelings and many people are obviously very upset George got banned.
ADDITIONALLY, if #3 was part of the Safe Sport rules and procedures, and every single witness Safe Sport investigators asked to speak with also knew that George would be informed they had provided testimony, and what their testimony actually was? How many of them do you think would have been willing to talk to investigators?
No one who is currently active in competion as an athlete, coach or owner. And no one who makes a living as a horse professional. That’s my guess. Because they all would have been worried about the consequences.
So they would have refused to speak on the record. And Safe Sport might not have compiled sufficient evidence to decide that they were confident substantiating the initial complaint, and George would not have been banned.
So this whole list of desired changes from this group… and saying they want a “more equitable” procedure.
It’s really absurd st this point. They want to protect additional people who probably should, and probably eventually will be banned, if more complaints get made made, and Safe Sport investigators start interviewing witnesses, and people decide to just be forthright with investigators about what they actually know about a particular accuser and accused, and their interactions, etc.
And that brings me RIGHT back to the very first quote I put on this thread from Bonnie Navin attempting to stir the pot and intimidate and upset people about Safe Sport …
“I have heard that the false allegations are starting against Olympic hopefuls to try and knock people out of contention. Watch your backs and don’t spread rumors. Unless you have real facts you better shut up. This is where the real crap starts. All of you hopefuls watch your backs.”
She and others would love to know who the witnesses were in a few different cases. And what they shared. And that’s REALLY not going to lead to anything good for the sport. Not at all. Just a lot of intimidation and retaliation and people being unwilling to talk to investigators.
22 Likes
Bonnie Navin, as RG’s attorney, would have known the identities of the complainants against him. Unless he chose not to tell his attorney… By the way, I know more than one potential witness who was told that they shouldn’t speak to Safesport.
4 Likes
Its all about intimidating people, and leaving open the possibility of retaliation. Under the present set of rules, they can try and intimidate people all they want… but they don’t know for sure who did, or did not, actually provide witness testimony.
Unless a witness decides to look the people engaging in despicable intimidation tactics right in the eye, and to tell them to take a hike, because that witness is just going to be an honest, forthright part of the sporting community if asked questions by a Safe Sport investigator about a potential child abuse investigation.
Unreal. But that’s what this is about.
But yeah - these people are “athletes for equity.” They aren’t “Pedophile protectors” no no no. Certainly not. :rolleyes:
11 Likes
I actually went to the Athletes for Equity FB page because I couldn’t read the photo of the letter. When you do a search, three different variants of the name come up… I was surprised to find 3 friends whom I respect had liked the page. Given who they are and how long I have known them, I’m pretty sure they weren’t aware of exactly what they were “liking”.
1 Like
I have to admit I was very angry when the two support groups started and it really bothered me, why was I so angry? Until tonight when a friend (who started the ISWG group) shared the letter from DC on Facebook, I somehow thought these people spoke for the majority, they don’t. They speak for a handful of people in the sport, some that do seem to have that power people seem to be scared of ( I can’t even type that without laughing out loud…really, any “horse trainer” or “horse show judge” that thinks they have “power”, that is just a whole different conversation), but mostly just fans of the ones that have been caught or the ones scared of being caught. Period. I have realized my anger is really just disappointment in people and the embarrassment I feel for the horse community. Who in their right mind in government is going to listen to their nonsense?
24 Likes
It used to be that BOYS also liked horseback riding. Look at the photographs in riding books back in the 1920-1940s, mostly men and boys with occasional exceptional female rider, usually an adult woman.
Boys used to be into horses and ponies, I’ve heard of their childhood ponies from adults a little bit younger than I am.
No more. One lady at my stable has a young son, and her husband DOES NOT want his son to ride horses, at least hunt seat, and I suspect the other English disciplines.
Hunt seat requires some bravery, something little boys often excel at. There should be enough in hunt seat riding to prove even the most macho of men that he is a MAN, yet amateur males are conspicuous by their absence in today’s hunt seat riding.
Now I know why straight males are avoiding hunt seat like the plague and why they DO NOT want their sons involved with horses. This is a true pity, these pedophiles have caused more than one generation of young males to be deprived of riding hunt seat or association with horses.
Just think of the money the industry could make if young males $/or their fathers knew that boys and men would be safe from sexual harassment when around horses.
Men do not like being hit on by men any more than women do.
4 Likes
- The arbitrator also did not clear George so they must be crooked.
8 Likes
Clearly the whole process needs an overhaul. :lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
6 Likes
Sorry, but as a man who has ridden in H/J/Eventing for over 50 years, this is a complete misguided argument and it completely dismisses the history of the sport. Of course boys in the 20-40s rode! It was part of military service! Women weren’t allowed to even compete in international equestrian sports.
Boys have moved away from the the sport because they are interested in other sports that are sports and not a beauty pageant. They don’t want to spend hours grooming and brushing horses. They want to gallop and ride and tear about like lunatics. Hence why they stick to rodeo and other cowboy type endeavors.
It has nothing to do with what you are saying. Plenty of boys still ride the hunt, and they want to event and do the jumpers where it is not about being in a beauty pageant. They don’t want to compete against girls in the artificial equation divisions or the subjective hunter rings. I can easily get boys into evening and the hunt.
Thus, this is a total tangent from the SS issues and those involved with subverting SS.
30 Likes
I agree with you in the hunter ring but at any stock breed show arena, boys are not interested showing in hunters. It saddens me because like you say they might really find hunting or eventing to be something they want to do.
Interesting saddleseat doesn’t seem to have an issue but that is still mostly male trainer dominated at the top eschelon of most breeds. I think that strengthens your point because I can’t think of the last time I saw a boy in a SS eq class. But I don’t follow it much.
1 Like
And others stepping forward to provide false alibis for the accused.
3 Likes
I’m fascinated to know who these “Olympic hopefuls” are. I mean, I don’t believe these phantom people on the cusp of greatness being wrongfully accused of sexual assault actually exist, but I’m fascinated by how they plan to play this story out.
12 Likes
Do you suppose it has occurred to any of them that there might be way more damning and potentially unsavory evidence from outside of the horse world? That if made public would irretrievably subvert their cause? Given the number of partners GM has claimed its hard to believe they all came from within the industry but I could be wrong.
4 Likes
Um, quite a few at Arab Youth Nationals in the last few years. Zach and Rex White come to mind immediately in saddleseat eq, I believe Desiderios had someone in the hunt seat eq as well.
That’s great! Happy to hear it. But I still agree with the poster that for the most part equitation and I will add showmanship and horsemanship in the youth are mostly female dominated. The male youth kids are showing but in the classes judged on the horse. Interestingly when many get to college they do end up showing and enjoying IHSA. So I am not sure where the disconnect is. But I suppose that is for another thread.
I don’t think they’ve thought of that. I think they want ammo to blame and shame the victims with. They’ll say so and so went to George’s room, so they had to be expecting to have sex, etc. Not that it matters when the victim is a minor.
The sad fact is victims are blamed, and even blame themselves for sometimes decades after molestation and abuse. You don’t see anyone saying a robbery, mugging, or carjacking victim was asking for it or should have known better, or ya know, the times were just different back then.
I also can’t think of another profession or organization that publicizes finding of sexual misconduct aside from the criminal courts and even then, in cases involving minors that’s often limited. Why do these people think they’re entitled to all the details?
11 Likes
Possibly “Olympic hopefuls” is a euphemism for “Olympic veterans who have been on multiple teams over the years and who have known issues that everyone has been ignoring for a very long time”, as well as riders who have not yet been on an Olympic team, but hope to be. Have wondered what might be going on with SS and certain veteran Olympic names.
Given the calendar, I hope it is being sorted out before selection really gets underway. I have wondered if selectors have some question marks that will make selection extra challenging during this Olympic year.
8 Likes
I thought this was an excellent response to Diane Carney’s interview with CoTH.
19 Likes
