Rich Fellers

[mvp]

@FitzE

Honest question: why does anyone need a second chance? Why must they still be allowed to ply this particular trade after molesting children? So, even your “someone who would appear to have really reformed and changed his life” may still not qualify to continue teaching/training/being around junior riders. Period.

You asked how the industry should handle someone like that: I say, by decertifying, banning for life, disqualifying, etc. They can still go on with their lives and do other things, but there is absolutely NO reason why the industry should ever tolerate them again.

I’m a lawyer. There are things - much less catastrophic - that I could do to get myself disbarred from ever practicing law again. It would destroy my livelihood and career and forever alter my life trajectory for the worse. But if I did them, I’d still be disbarred and the legal industry would not need to handle me any other way even if I was “really reformed and changed [my] life.”

Ex: there was a very famous lawyer with an enormously powerful position at a US law firm who was involved in the Varsity Blues scandal. He can no longer practice law. I’d rather 100 men cheat on college admissions a year rather than one more RF or GM harm a child like Maggie. If that guy can suffer the consequences of his VASTLY less damaging actions, folks like RF sure as hell can.

Sometimes what you do brings about the end of something. Actions have consequences, some of which are forever. People can and do violate the standards of practice for their industry every day and they deal with the fall out of being thrown out of that industry and no longer able to practice their former trade. Horse trainers should be no different.

In answer to your question about why plain, old criminals are allowed to remain in the Horsing Industry while lawyers can get disbarred for less…

IMO, it has to do with what the paying customer base will tolerate. And the lasting, unjustified stigma about being a victim of sexual abuse persists. It seems to me that a bunch of rich people who are used to getting the long end of the stick or having things work out their their favor conspire to look the other way because they are sure that, while sexual abuse or rape is bad in principle and sad when it happens to someone else, it will not actually happen to them.

Look at all the folks on this thread who want to speak of an OR trainer, not by name but also discuss the long-standing open secret about his behavior and speculate about his marriage. Please. Name names and be effective or shut up. But you can’t have it both ways.

[FitzE]

You asked this question:

“I’m asking, genuinely, how you’d like the industry to handle someone who would appear to have really reformed and changed his life. After all, your 15-year-old isn’t at risk.”

The phrasing of this question suggests you think that there should be an alternative to banning for life for an offender who raped a minor but is “really reformed.” I answered that there should be no such alternative. The outcomes should be: professionally - banned for life; legally - on the sex offender registry and, thus, never given access to minors again. C’est tout.

What was the alternative path you envisaged for how the industry should handle “really reformed” perpetrators?

And the difference is NOT what the paying customer will tolerate. If you think there aren’t a lot of rich people/companies who don’t really care about cheating on college admissions (may, in fact, have done so themselves but not gotten caught) and would happily pay for the services of a lawyer of that caliber, you are wrong.

The actual difference is: the governing body of our professional held him accountable and now prohibits him from practicing. Like doctors, teachers, accountants, lawyers, etc. can all lose their license/qualifications to practice, horse trainers should also lose their ability to teach minors or anyone associated with the sport’s governing body. Like GM, RF and his wife should join that infamous club of those banned for life from the industry.

That’s the difference. If the governing bodies don’t hold the line, there is no line.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@mvp

In answer to your question about why plain, old criminals are allowed to remain in the Horsing Industry while lawyers can get disbarred for less…

IMO, it has to do with what the paying customer base will tolerate. And the lasting, unjustified stigma about being a victim of sexual abuse persists. It seems to me that a bunch of rich people who are used to getting the long end of the stick or having things work out their their favor conspire to look the other way because they are sure that, while sexual abuse or rape is bad in principle and sad when it happens to someone else, it will not actually happen to them.

Look at all the folks on this thread who want to speak of an OR trainer, not by name but also discuss the long-standing open secret about his behavior and speculate about his marriage. Please. Name names and be effective or shut up. But you can’t have it both ways.

First:

I 100% agree. We can all talk about SafeSport, licensure if instructors, etc etc… but the fact is that clients and fellow professionals DO have power. We can all vote with our feet. We should, especially when we live in areas with plenty of other options. Sure… someone else’s barn or program might not be as convenient or nice as the ‘problematic’ person’s program… maybe the coaches don’t have quite as many accolades or students who have consistently won or reached certain levels…

But for goodness sakes. Human decency and ethics matter people. Figure it out.

Over and over again, Humans prove that it’s easy to condemn sexual abuse, statutory rape, etc in the abstract… but it’s a lot harder to hold fast to principles when it involves someone you know, who is a part of your friend, family, professional circle.

Guess what? 8 out of 10 perpetrators know the victim. We actually DO need to be careful about our immediate circle.

Source Info https://www.rainn.org/statistics/perpetrators-sexual-violence

Second… about naming that other Oregon guy. He has been named multiple times now. The forum rules are specific. Only people with firsthand knowledge can name him. The rest of us can’t. One poster did chide us for “gossiping.” I pushed back. Because this information about this guy is known across the entire country… to people who ride in different disciplines. But you know who might not be aware? Parents with younger tween and teen kids who are currently riding in his program, who are new to the sport, and not privy to the “gossip” that people who have ridden for decades have heard about for a while. So I reject that we should be quiet about his past. Sure, it’s ugly and tough to talk about something like this, but there are kids at that barn. People should err on the side of concern for the well being of kids. Just my opinion

[hoopoe]

if the information is known, I assume that means SS reports have been filed by all those that know. If not, why not.?

[trubandloki]

I think we very frequently over estimate the number of people in ‘the know’ about a topic.

[NancyM]

The fruit often does not fall far from the tree. This sort of crap has been going on for a long time at the horse shows. And apparently not only in our sport. And I suspect that it is still going on. But perhaps some people are getting nervous. But that will only make them be careful, and more devious and manipulative. JMHO.

[poltroon]

@mvp

The PNW pro friend of mine reported the same change in Campf and was of the same opinion that that’s the reason for Oregon folks in the SafeSport era doing something like “tolerating the open secret” of how he used to roll. Their point was that he is not a present danger.

So what, exactly, do you want, BITSA? I’m not asking this to be sarcastic and mean toward you, or rhetorical. Rather, I’m asking, genuinely, how you’d like the industry to handle someone who would appear to have really reformed and changed his life

I can appreciate forgiveness and redemption, and I know literally nothing about this case.

But my question would be, are there still minor girls in this program? Is there any opportunity for him to be unsupervised with young women of any age?

If so I’d argue the evidence suggests he’s not really ‘reformed.’ Because some combination of (a) he isn’t thinking about protecting himself from future accusations and/or (b) he still wants those opportunities in front of him.

[LexInVA]

In case anyone didn’t know, Ceff Jampf did file a (Horse-related) defamation lawsuit back in the early 90’s, but it was dismissed. I have no idea what it was about, but it was against Trinni Jensen, who is only known to be affiliated with horse racing.

[BITSA]

@kenyarider

Sexual misbehavior is complicated and has many causes. It is also especially in juveniles, very treatable."

Wow, just wow. Spoken like a true criminal defense attorney. e.g., it wasn’t that bad, the victim will be okay.

My most heinous act comes nowhere near having unlawful sex with a minor. I find this response repugnant. And FWIW one of the women (who was a girl at the time) who was abused by the “other trainer” in Oregon has undergone 10 years of therapy and is still not “over it.” She probably never will be.

PS: if this statistic which is in the study you cited makes you feel good about releasing sex offenders…well then that’s you. And the study isn’t even specific to people who rape minors.

“Overall, 67% of sex ofenders released in 2005
were arrested at least once for any type of crime during
the 9-year follow-up period.”

“Released sex ofenders were more than three times as likely as other released prisoners to be arrested for rape or sexual assault (7.7% versus 2.3%).”

“Half of released sex ofenders had a subsequent arrest
that led to a conviction”

[Scribbler]

As far as continuing to work in the horse industry, sure. All those predator BNTs can go clean stalls at the racetrack somewhere they have no authority and no celebrity and no access to teen girls (unless teen girls still work at tracks). If they don’t like that they can go retrain at some other career that doesn’t involve contact with young people.

They should be disbarred from coaching or training or swanning around a boarding barn even if it’s now technically in the name of their complicit wife.

Most men with drinking problems do not end up assaulting 14 year olds. Many men with drinking and drug problems go through some promiscuous party hearty phases, but they sleep with other consenting adults, very often those who are on the same general wavelength.

If you assault a 14 year old because your inhibitions are lowered because of drinking then that is a very good indicator of what your basic proclivity is. People who are disinhibited by definition do what they really want.

[BITSA]

@poltroon

But my question would be, are there still minor girls in this program? Is there any opportunity for him to be unsupervised with young women of any age?

Yes, many of them. And yes he travels with them to away shows, sometimes as the only trainer.

[Scribbler]

I think the point about sexual misbehavior in juveniles would be that you don’t want to treat a 15 year old who does something in appropriate the same way as a 35 year old. For instance, the teens who impulsively send sext messages, even of themselves, and are charged with distributing child pornography. Teens can make bad decisions because of impulse and failure to understand the consequences.

[LexInVA]

There is no evidence whatsoever that Ceff had a substance abuse problem, at any time in his life. If he did have one, it was apparently kept under wraps, behind closed doors and away from the public, with no arrests or charges for anything relating to that.

[BITSA]

People usually aren’t arrested for being alcoholics. Not being arrested has no bearing on that. It’s not a hidden issue here in Oregon that he suffered from alcoholism.

[FitzE]

Thank you. I’m really amazed at the people who whine about these trainers that “their lives and careers are destroyed!” Really? How is that different from a disbarred lawyer, a nurse or doctor who loses their license to practice medicine, an CPA who loses their accounting license, a teacher who is stripped of qualifications to teach, a builder who loses their contractor’s license, etc., etc.

Re: Varity Blues - I can’t imagine anyone shed a lot of tears over the the lawyer who went from earning millions/year to being disbarred, or Lori Loughlin who was written off her show and cut from other projects, or the CEO who was dismissed by his BOD based on his charges. All those people went from one life and lifestyle based on their profession, to a completely different situation based on their inability to participate in that industry going forward - even the ones who accepted responsibility and were truly sorry. But that seems rather reasonable and straight forward to most people.

Why, then, do we have to wade through hundreds of people wailing about how poor George or poor Rich or poor Shelley are so hard done to, it’s so unfair, how will they support themselves now? I don’t know and I don’t care and neither should the industry.

If I can no longer practice law my life changes drastically. I may have to sell my property, my children will need to leave their private school, there will be fewer lessons/instruments/hobbies, etc., travel will not be possible like it is now, my retirement will look completely different, I’ll be less able to support my ailing parents, save for college funds, give to charitable causes. But if I violate professional standards, no one will carry on about these consequences on my behalf. They will simply and rightfully agree that I should not have violated those standards.

I make the choice not to, for instance, misappropriate client money. I make the choice not to commit a crime that would be the basis for revoking my credentials. I make the choice to keep current on all professional fees and requirements so as not to lose my good standing. I make the choice to abide by ALL the rules of my professional governing body. RF, SF, GM, et. al. were all also free to make different choices. They chose to do what they did. They absolutely deserve the harshest possible consequences for those choices: lifetime bans.

You violate industry standards you deserve to be kicked out. RF knew these standards when he repeatedly renewed his membership in the various organizations and took the SS training. SF knew she had to report any such behaviour b/c she is also a member of those organizations and took that training. No surprises here. Why should these people be any different from other professionals?

[BITSA]

This 100%

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Thank you for this post. I appreciate our legal system is adversarial in nature, and respect that criminal defense attorneys have a job to do.

But outside of work… honestly… I don’t understand advocating for the notion that an adult man who raped a 14 year old should be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of whether or not he’s ‘truly’ reformed.

[Arlomine]

“ The unnamed trainer in Oregon was not under any SS requirements when he allegedly engaged in “sexual” behavior with a woman under 18, nor was his spouse. “

Don’t you mean:
The unnamed trainer was not under any SS requirements when he allegedly engaged in sexual (LOOSE THE QUOTES) with a CHILD (the victim was not legally of age, therefore a juvenile, not an adult), nor was his spouse.

Your choice of language here is very telling.

[FitzE]

Agreed. What the hell is “woman under 18” but a disgusting cop out? People under 18 are minors. You can also call them children. Very telling language throughout that post.

[short_strided]

Correct. And GM was not under any SS requirements when he raped kids either, but SS can reach back. So, who is going to email this thread to SS regarding the “unnamed trainer” in question?