I am sure she appreciates y’all giving her work to do.
5 Likes
I’m so glad you piled on, and asked me to let it go, well after I had already tried darn hard to listen to what multiple posters expressed, respect other’s feelings, and be conciliatory about this.
Because I was LITERALLY in the process of typing 30 more paragraphs to convince you and others of my perspective. An was just about to post it all, piss everyone off, and profoundly upset and offend multiple posters I didn’t intend to personally offend ALL OVER AGAIN. :eek:
So thanks. Thanks a lot. I needed another person to jump in and tell me to let it go, and be snarky :yes:
But darn it! :mad:*** Pounds table in complete frustration***:mad: I had 30 more paragraphs worth of things I was ready to say, and thought FOR SURE everyone would see things my way this time!
:sigh:And now I just have to let it all go :sigh: Because you added your voice to the pile on well after the fact. If not for you, I obviously would have kept going.
And with that… :uhoh: I’m going to slowly peddle backwards, take a break from this, and go do some evening chores :rolleyes:
6 Likes
I think someone needs to just take your batteries out. 😉
10 Likes
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:
You really are a funny duck, aren’t you? I didn’t mention you but somehow you attacked me anyway. :lol: You’re new to the forum–or at least your screen name is–and yet you dish out such single-minded attacks on any and all who might look sideways in your (or your teen crush idol, VHM’s) direction. Are all 58 of your posts on this thread?
Regardless, I find your bafflement and switcharoo phrasing to suit your latest point highly amusing. :winkgrin:
This thread has taken an unfortunate turn for the bad. Such a shame. 106 pages of courteous and productive discussion on a very serious topic devolved into attacks and dissection via soapboxing and painfully long diatribes, all surrounding a 17 year old girl’s OpEd piece. Unless it can get back onto a productive track, it seems time to stick a fork in this thread.
5 Likes
5 Likes
Have you considered writing directly to the editor of the Chronicle expressing your concerns? Maybe you will feel better - and you may even get some closure and/or answers to your questions.
5 Likes
*** pops batteries back in for a minute ***
It was an attempt at humor. And I have a suspicion the editors are well aware at this point that myself and others think they handled the OpEd in an irresponsible manner. They don’t need a letter from me. They can publish something about their process regarding op Eds, fact checking and editing anytime they want to.
*** consciously takes batteries out again.***
5 Likes
You originally brought up the Lion King OpEd as an example of a serious media outlet publishing an OpEd that presents opinions as facts, so I thought your recent post was indeed directed at me.
I did find a couple of the off topic follow up posts on the Nazi iconography in Disney movies very funny, so your post was appreciated in that regard.
I was defending VHM from what I regarded as unfair attacks on her, in particular attacks which presumed to know her “intent” and “motives”.
You claimed that it was acceptable, and common practice in serious media outlets, in an OpEd piece for an author to “recreate and add-on to the truth, to make their point”. You’re wrong. To the extent that I’m attacking you unfairly, perhaps someone else will come to your defense.
My bafflement is this: after an author has “recreated and added-on to the truth”, at that point do you consider the enhanced “truth” to be
a) still truth
b) now an opinion, or
c) historical fiction
4 Likes
A few quick points on this.
Neither @YankeeDuchess , nor myself “gave” anyone more work to do.
@FiSk123 mentioned SEVERAL pages ago - in post #2173 actually - that she is working on a series of 10 - 12 articles about SafeSport.
@BeeHoney had shared an opinion about the NEED for some facts and perspective about SafeSport, it’s investigative processes and recommended guidelines, etc a few posts earlier… in post #2152 actually. There is quite a bit of misinformation being spread across social media concerning SafeSport investigations, MAAP guidelines, etc, and it is pretty obvious to everyone at this point that the epicenter of resistance to is in the hunter community. Some of which may because many pros have been connected closely for decades, and also because business has been done a certain way for decades.
What’s obvious though, is that there is substantial resistance to SafeSport, and now, the adoption and implementation of MAAP guidelines. FiSk123 was questioned about how the resistance to change in the equestrian community compared to other sports.
Apparently, the equestrian community is ESPECIALLY resistant to SafeSport changes, and adopting MAAP guidelines.
FiSk123 can jump in and correct anything I get wrong… but in her posts earlier she indicated the reaction to RGs suicide in the sport community, following the long investigation and lifetime ban was actually not all that dissimilar to scandals and tragedies involving other major figures in other sports. However… the equestrian community’s strong objections to adopting MAAP guidelines and suggested best practices actually IS pretty unusual and unique. And concerning.
Anyway… I wanted to set the record straight on this issue. I’ve taken a fair amount of fire for pushing back on the OpEd the Chronicle published, as has Yankee Duchess. I’ve apologized to those who expressed that they were personally upset by many of my posts, and tried to take on board fair criticisms concerning why they were upset with my line by line dissections, and long posts over the last few pages. But I thought it important to get the background on why FiSk123 was brought up in terms of writing any sort of a rebuttal OpEd piece accurate. No one was attempting to “assign” anything. A few posters did suggest I pipe down with my criticism of the COTH editorial staff, and the specific OpEd the Chronicle published about how the MAAP guidelines are flawed, and instead try and pen something myself about my perspective and get it published. After one of those posts directed at me, the project FiSk123 is working on came up again.
4 Likes
And in case anyone is interested in a different perspective about MAAP guidelines, there was an Opinion piece published by NBC News, written by Dani Bostick from May 28, 2019.
I would link to it… but the forum doesn’t let me post links anymore (ongoing challenge… ). The title of the piece was
”Child Abusers Groom Victims and their Families. That’s why the new Olympic Abuse Prevention Policy is so flawed.”
Someone may have linked this 50 plus pages ago on this thread. If so, my apologies for being redundant. However, it actually is a quite relevant rebuttal to the recent perspective published by COTH.
Dani Bostick interviews Nancy Hogshead-Makar, and talks about abuse cases in swimming and gymnastics. Specifically, she argues that the MAAP guidelines are flawed because…
They are not restrictive enough.
She notes how grooming and abuse has unfolded in those sports, and states pretty clearly that we have evidence now of a pressing need for more defined boundaries in relationships between adult coaches and other influential adults in sports, and minor kids. “Mentoring” relationships are exactly the sort of thing a predator uses to disguise grooming… and this can, and does, lead to abuse. Bostick thinks the whole notion of parents signing off on forms, and granting a coach permission to travel alone with a minor is a major problem as well. Not because it’s a cumbersome guideline to implement for coaches though… but because it is sending a mixed message to parents.
Parents need to be involved in, and on top of these relationships between their kids and coaches. Not signing forms and sending kids off alone with coaches. And not supporting kids turning to coaches or other influential adults in sport when they need “mentoring” or “support” for different issues. These dynamics are exploited by predators over and over, and we all know this now. It’s time to acknowledge it.
Anyway… just some food for thought. It’s pretty much the exact opposite perspective about the exact same set of issues that the COTH piece got into.
11 Likes
@poltroon - thanks! Also for highlighting the passage that specifically explains how mentoring can be problematic and make a child more vulnerable to abuse.
I found this later passage in Bostick’s piece also very interesting…
“Not only do the new rules fail to prohibit this type of grooming behavior, they do not give parents, coaches or other stakeholders any information about an appropriate adult-athlete relationship in the context of sports. In the absence of clear guidance from SafeSport, governing bodies like USA Swimming have developed their own materials that actually promote poor boundaries by framing the coach as a mentor in whom children can confide about “anything weighing on your mind.”
This thread has continued on at great length, because of frustration at the amount of misinformation being promoted about SafeSport in the wake of RG’s death. The debates over MAAP policies are another issue. I thought this opinion piece effectively presented a case regarding why it’s actually NOT perhaps the best idea to promote the notion of a coach as a mentor and confidante for kids.
5 Likes
Actually, I am happy to plead guilty to nominating FiSk123 to write about her perspective on SafeSport and MAAP.
She is the best person for the task, I think, because she
-
is not an equestrian,
-
has bucketloads of knowledge and experience in the investigation of child abuse, including SafeSport, and
-
her calm, fact-based, rational writing style commanded great respect from me, and as far as I could tell, from everyone else.
I trust she will consider my nominating her as an expression of respect, and just say “no” if she is not inclined to write anything.
11 Likes
@YankeeDuchess - I went back and found FiSk’s post, and quoted it now to make things a little easier to follow with respect to this lonnnngggg thread. :winkgrin: You’re right though - you did nominate FiSk… but then she replied and indicated that her project is already in the works.
2 Likes
Perhaps I am wrong, but it sounds to me like she already has a landing site for this project. I doubt she can say, ‘Oh here. Let’s give this to COTH too.’
3 Likes
Fair enough.
COTH did a great job with the Jimmy Williams story last year, and has had a few follow up reports on the broader need to address abuse of athletes. And the 2018 Horseman of the Year feature on Anne K and DiAnn Langer, which Mollie Ball wrote was EXCELLENT, and very well done, IMO.
So the radio silence in the wake of the RG tragedy concerning the push for “Safe Sport Reform”, the misinformation that has been spread across social media… and continues to spread, and then publishing this recent OpEd?
It it would be good to see something else in COTH that covered these issues. FiSk does obviously have the background to speak from a well informed position, with extensive real world experience… which is important.
Dani Bostick wrote the opinion piece I referenced for NBC news, which poltroon provided a link to as well. Her bio was at the end of it…
”Dani Bostick is an educator, advocate, and former mental health counselor. Her work on trauma, child sexual abuse and rape culture has appeared in the Washington Post, The Week, Marie Claire, Parenting, and Huffington Post, among others.”
Bottom line… hopefully there is something published in COTH soon regarding a different perspective on these issues. Something coming from a well informed person with perspective that helps round out the information presented so far.
5 Likes
(highlight mine)
I’m not commenting on the comment …
… rather, I’m going to dig into what might be nitpicking details, or might be an important distinction.
I’m not an attorney, just speaking from life experience. Victims are victims and are deserving of empathy and understanding.
But, legalistically, when we first hear an accusation made by someone who is a stranger to us, knowing nothing about the details or even the background of the incident, that someone has the status of ‘accuser’ rather than ‘victim’. The word ‘accuser’ does have a different tone than ‘victim’. But the information that is still to come that will take an ‘accuser’ to the credibility and status of ‘victim’ is an inevitable journey in the public mind.
That doesn’t mean they are disbelieved, or believed, just that we readers/listeners are waiting for independent verification.
We the public should hopefully be circumspect and respectful of what the accuser has to say. Even give the benefit of the doubt. But emotionally we are justified in standing back from too much involvement until more verification is shared.
We are not ‘not believing the victim’. We are merely protecting ourselves while waiting for verification.
Once there is satisfactory corroboration of the accusation, the ‘accuser’ is validated to us strangers as a ‘victim’. Then we strangers of the public feel confident to believe. The victim receives full regard as such (or that’s the way it’s supposed to happen). (One caveat is that every individual has their own threshold of ‘satisfactory corroboration’.)
All of us have had the experience of having believed something in the public media, sometime, on some topic, that later turned out not to be true. Somewhere in all of our pasts we each found out we’d been lied to by someone whose credibility we had believed. So of course the public is defensive about that possibility each time a fresh accusation hits the media radar. And it’s natural that we random strangers will come across as unconvinced, maybe even skeptical, until we feel comfortable that we have grounds to be convinced and give victims the full credit they deserve.
I think once victims have the confidence of the public in what they have to say, they’ll receive support and credibility from the sensible section of the public. Hopefully they know that the not-so-sensible segment is not to be allowed inside their heads. Hopefully.
Anyway … wanted to clear up the difference between ‘accuser’ and ‘victim’ in the public mind. If possible. :yes: 
4 Likes
Wow! :eek: :eek: :eek:
What disturbs me the most is that this might be true. Might probably be true. :o
This. ^^^^^^^^^^^^
The two quoted posts above underline that it is time, well past time, for the paying customers/clients to start taking a stand and require professionalism from equestrian professionals. Not happy with behavior that would be unacceptable, even subject to lawsuit, in any other business? Time to slam that checkbook shut and take the business elsewhere. 
9 Likes
Your statement just has me pondering something:
SafeSport and MAAP my be the first policies enacted that actually enforce professionalism in how a trainer conducts him/herself.
I’m racking my brain trying to think of any other policies that set guidelines for how a horse professional should interact with their clients. Everything else they have to abide by are basically just rules for what they can/can’t do with regard to horses, shows, etc.
Basically, trainers have had zero accountability for their interpersonal relationships for far too long. In any other sector, from corporation to self-employed, lack of professionalism usually leads to reduced or limited business opportunities. That’s not always true in our sport. There are plenty of classy trainers out there who conduct themselves with the utmost professionalism. Yet then there are others who act like egomaniacs and still maintain clientele provided they remain successful in their clients’ eyes. I’ve suspected all along that it’s mostly the latter making noise against SafeSport.
17 Likes
It’s been tried. Remember just a few years ago when the president of the USEF wanted to find a way to enforce invoicing for horse sales? Invoices that disclosed exactly what individuals were receiving how much, as part of the sale. You know - standard business practice.
The reaction was such an explosive resistance that one would have thought it was reducing all horse pros involved in horse sales to homeless street people. It went nowhere.
There comes a point where the problem is no longer the horse pros who refuse to behave professionally. It is the paying customers who allow it. We have the system we deserve, where the finances are concerned.
12 Likes
