My daughter went to Colorado State University and had a very different experience from what you are describing. Their degree is for Equine Science (not Equine Studies) and is actually quite technical. Most of the upper level classes (equine nutrition, genetics, reproduction, etc.) are taught by the Vet School Professors and students have the opportunity to work in the on-site world class facilities. They also take business classes and facilities maintenance classes; they learn ethical and current business practices and also how to build fences and drive a truck and trailer. Upon graduation my daughter got a job as a Vet Tech with a top equine veterinary practice. She got a few small scholarships and it cost about $28K a year (graduating four years ago). To keep this a little bit on track there was also plenty of āSafe Sportā type of education throughout the experience, as I think there is at every college these days.
I have always heard excellent things about the Colorado program . If someone wants to work inside the breeding industry I understand that is the place to go.
Dorito,
I have heard excellent things about the CSU program as well.
Would you mind sharing the pay range for the Vet Tech job?
Iām just wondering what the ROI is on an ~$120K degree.
I did a little digging on the college scorecard data - median earnings 2 years out of school for a bachelors degree in zoology/animal science at CSU fort collins (probably same 2 digit CIP as equine science) is $26,694. This would be for the 2016/17 and 2017/18 graduating cohort. Median earnings i the first year were $27,291, which is interesting. Granted, these data are only taken from students who had federal aid.
I have a Safe Sport/USEF question; not necessarily regarding this case.
My question is how is it that a person is determined/found āguiltyā by Safe Sport, gets a lifetime ban by USEF; goes back to a final arbitration with Safe Sport and gets themselves reinstated back into USEF?
In my mind, a lifetime ban is very serious compared to less than a year removal from USEF employment/participation.
I donāt know the detailsā¦
The details are going to be what count.
Every ban or indeed prison term is subject to appeal. If you can show you are innocent, or that the evidence isnāt enough to establish guilt without doubt, you can have any sentence anywhere in a democracy at least over turned.
So presumably this person made a good case why the ban was unfair. If we canāt see the transcripts of the hearing we donāt know why.
The fact that an unfair or hasty ban can be overturned on appeal is a good thing. It shows the process is working.
I thought that bans/suspensions can also be dropped/over-turned if the complainant does not follow through on the complaint, like not wanting to ātestifyā before an appeals committee. (Iām sure my nomenclature isnāt exact here).
I can understand that the emotional toll on the victim could get to the point that they change their mind about pursuing the complaint further. That doesnāt mean that the complaint wasnāt true/valid.
All to say that if I were looking for a new trainer, and someone had been banned/suspended and then removed from the list, I would still want to investigate more thoroughly. Iām not exactly sure how I would do that, but maybe try to discreetly inquire of current and former students or post on this board for PMs from COTHers from the area concerned.
If itās regarding John Manning I can attempt to explain.
That is what happened in the Bob McDonald case.
She started off making $20/hour (about $42k) a year base salary with lots of opportunity for overtime. That said, it was in an area with a high cost of living.
Andrew Temkin caseā¦
Donāt know about that one, except what Iāve read. Sorry.
The grammar of that article is a little confusing.
Someone reported him to SS. He was banned. He appealed. On appeal his ban was removed. Why? We donāt know. Maybe he proved his actual innocence. Maybe he proved some technical deficiency in the SS process. We donāt know. But on appeal, for some reason, the arbitrators felt the ban was not proper. Because the arbitrators reversed the ban, SS removed it.
And thatās how the process is supposed to work. If you are disciplined by SS and you believe itās wrong, you appeal to the arbitration panel which has the power to affirm or reverse what SS has done.
USEF follows what SS does. If SS bans you, USEF does too. If the SS ban is removed, USEF removes its ban also.
From what was published in various articles, there were two individuals and two different complaints. One in 2013? The other in 2018?
Perhaps, the victims were not able to continue to pursue their cases? Or? I donāt know?
Seems odd. Thus my question.
The article is very poorly written and confusing. Apparently there was some kind of incident that happened in 2013. Unclear whether anyone made a safe sport complaint at the time or soom thereafter, it does not appear anyone did. Then in 2018 there WAS a safe sport complaint made. The article says no one is sure whether or not there were two separate incidents, one in 2013 and one and 2018, or whether the 2018 complaint was ABOUT the 2013 incident. There was some complaint in 2018 and thatās the basis of the sanction that was later removed. That is what I gather from reading that very poorly written article you linked to.
It would appear that he did something which deserved suspension, but arbitration thought a lifetime ban was too much, hence his shorter suspension.
Did SafeSport exist in 2013?
The Temkin incident is an odd matter. The only thing that we can take from what we can see is that he clearly did something inappropriate involving a minor, hence the time-served suspension on his record and not an exoneration, but whatever was presented at arbitration changed his punishment to a far lesser one. I can only theorize why that happened, but to go from a life-time ban for sexual misconduct involving a minor to a time-served suspension of several months is unprecedented in the short history of Safesport thus far, as far as I know.
Yes and no. The concept of Safesport was coming into play, but there was no organized body to implement itās practice and no government backing. That was the time during which GM began getting his financial ducks in a row, because it was being implemented and he knew that his days were numbered because he would be a fat target once things started rolling.
Because the SS hearings arenāt public like a criminal trial, we get no details unless one of the parties talks. So we donāt know the details of the complaint or why it was reversed.
