I think this has been asked and answered by the laypeople here as best it can. Law enforcement also takes anonymous tips, and there are limits to their utility but sometimes they create breakthroughs, especially when the anonymous reporter is a witness. (Ex: I saw Trainer X in the tackroom with minor Y with her shirt off, that’s investigatable without the name of the witness.) They can be used as support but you can’t build a case solely from them, and the name of the alleged victim can’t be confidential from the accused. And if SafeSport calls minor Y and her parents and they all say, no, that didn’t happen, I think it would have to end there. If the anonymous report included a cellphone image or video, maybe they’d do something different.
If you want more information than that, I think you’ll have to email your question to SafeSport.
What gets me is that when you drill down to it, many of those people are wrong about essential facts of how it works; the real objection is that they object to Gage being set down. Not to any specific aspect of process.
I think also people are confusing guidelines for safe, professional conduct with the actual activities that will get you suspended. No one is going to get a life suspension for accidentally texting a minor without cc’ing the parent or for consensually dating a 17 year old while 18 if there’s no other objectionable behavior.
Writing guidelines like that - especially in a wild west atmosphere like the horse industry - is hard. I’m reminded of a situation where someone told me it wasn’t “against the rules” to make dozens of unwanted phonecalls to another group member after being asked to stop. Yeah, um, didn’t think we had to write that in, so sorry.
Process can always be improved, as can documentation. There’s lots of room for constructive, thoughtful suggestions. I think there’s a list of statistics that could be asked for - like people probably want to know summary data like how many cases are in each sport, how many dismissed, how many went to different levels of sanction, how many files are open but idle.
The whole thing is sad. But I think the sad started 40 years ago, or more; not last week.
I want to add a new perspective. No matter the age differences or when incidents happened, these trainers are in a place of authority as a teacher or an employer (working students, grooms). That makes this sexual harassment, even if the woman or girl is 18 or older. And while it’s not criminal, it’s certainly morally reprehensible.
To build on your list, people voice concerns that are refutable as soon as you take time to actually review SafeSport’s policies.
Concerns like:
“You don’t get a hearing or chance to defend yourself.”
“They don’t tell you who the accuser is.”
“An anonymous, false tip can lead to a lifetime ban.”
“They aren’t trained investigators.”
“Everything is so secretive; they won’t tell us how the process works.”
“If you had a relationship with a 17 year old when you were 18, you can be banned for life.”
Some of those concerns I’ve seen on COTH, all I’ve seen on Facebook. None of them are true.
The concern of “you are guilty until proven innocent” and how people don’t like that… to that I say, I hear you, but unfortunately welcome to liability in the 21st century. “Suspended without pay pending investigation” is something you will face for alleged misconduct in almost any job. Heck, SafeSport isn’t even mandating that. They are just telling you that you can’t participate in USEF things. A big deal for a pro? Absolutely; I’m not trying to minimize the ramifications. But it’s also not the only way to earn a living in horses.
After being tipped off of one SafeSport banned individual’s thriving training farm, I googled some of the others. Quite a few of them appear to still be open for business with active websites and social media pages. I’m having a hard time processing that at the moment.
@Texarkana that’s what I’m having trouble wrapping my brain around. There is one in NoVa where the head trainer has a criminal record of misconduct against minors (which is how he got the life time ban). He has a full barn and a thriving lesson business. (With juniors) I’m wondering if people and parents don’t check the sex offender sites or USEF website…it’s super strange.
In some respects all the nonsense on Facebook looks an awful lot like a bunch of sheep wandering around bleating about the scary new sheep dog named “Safe Sport” who they think barks too much. Or barks in the wrong direction. Or who knows what… is just an unpleasant scary dog. And it’s bizarre to notice that many of the noisiest sheep doubting the NEED for a sheep dog were actually attacked by WOLVES when they were little lambs. Or had land friends who were attacked by wolves. Or a lamb wife.
Its all quite odd.
It also does does seem like there are one or two wolves wearing sheepskins still lurking with the flock. Especially the Southern California flock. Clearly there’s a wolf problem over that way. I hope the new sheep dog gets it together quickly, and the sheep settle down, and that any wolves still lurking get spotted, and chased off.
There is one in NoVa where the head trainer has a criminal record of misconduct against minors (which is how he got the life time ban). He has a full barn and a thriving lesson business.
Probably because a) it’s pending appeal and b) because his business is non-rated shows and there’s not much USEF can do about that, or about the lessons, for that matter. His past record has been an open secret for years. But you’re right - I would certainly NEVER let a child of mine take lessons there, but some people apparently can’t read or maybe they believe his rationale, which is basically “b***h set me up”.
I would think there are plenty of people who show at the unrecognized level who are either completely unaware of USEF’s existence, or may be vaguely aware that there is such a thing, but would never think to look on their website for suspensions. Especially if the trainer in charge at their barn discourages any interest in the organization.
And is the suspension list available to non-members?
It used to be but is not anymore. I think the SafeSport website list of suspensions is viewable by anyone though, not that many parents would know to look.
In this day and age, a criminal background check would be advisable before trusting any person with your child. In light of the very public Gymnastic nightmare, I hope that parents are aware of SafeSport and will consult the site for the suspension list.
A person banned from one sport is banned from all.
I’m not surprised parents don’t check the SafeSport banned list or sex offender registry before signing up for lessons. People can be oblivious. People can also be willfully ignorant-- look at all the people who refuse to believe any of the “banned for life” individuals did anything wrong in the first place.
I do wonder if there is any more that can be done. Reciprocity or something. One banned individual still advertises involvement with an IEA team.
This makes me extra mad because it adds fuel to the “SafeSport won’t work” crowd’s arguments. Most of their arguments are coming from a place of ignorance, but in this case, the blind squirrels found a nut, so to speak.
I believe you can access the list without logging in. Safe Sport also provides its own searchable database, so if you wanted to research your area professional, you could see if they come up there. The results also list the sport as well as the decision and grounds, just in case you search someone with a common name and that name shows up on a list for an unrelated sport. I believe the other NGBs have public (not login restricted) lists for their own sports as well.
If IEA is under SafeSport regulation then that person cannot be involved. As I mentioned, if you are banned from one sport you are banned from all sports.
IEA is their own organization as far as I’m aware. They don’t have SafeSport affiliation to my knowledge, like say, AQHA doesn’t have affiliation.
It’s just disheartening when you see that a permanently ineligible person for misconduct with a minor is affiliated with a youth-specific equestrian team. I don’t know specifics; I saw via farm website and confirmed name/location through Google.
I hope that someone that has a connection to IEA will contact the management of the organization and inform them of the individual’s ban. I’m surprised that they don’t investigate before they hire.
His stuff is finalized according to Safesport and I can’t believe parents don’t research this stuff better. The number of sponsors his farm has is alarming as well and we aren’t talking small time companies either. Shame on Stubben and Smartpak. I thought they were better than that.
I just did some checking on this. I would take that Stubben sponsorship with a grain of salt, and cut a little bit of slack. The local rep has had some tough health issues and a lot on her plate. If the sponsorship went through her entirely instead of getting vetted by someone outside of the local rep… that’s the issue. Hopefully Stubben will take a second look at it all, and decide if they want to continue with this relationship.
