I was friends with a woman who had a boarding facility, and taught lessons. She hired a farrier, that had a criminal record including sexual abuse of minors. He was caught molesting/sexual assault of a person with a learning disability in the high school stairwell, he was over 30 at the time and the victim was 15. The person I was friends with KNEW this, and still continued to hire this man and also have him work unsupervised around children who helped in her barn ages 9-18.
Some people choose to look the other way because its more convenient. Its hard to find a good farrier she said. Some people do not care about the moral compass of others. So I can see how so many convicted child abusers can easily maintain a career.
No surprise. Years ago I was touched and kissed by the barn farrier against my will. I was probably 13. I found out that the same thing happened to my friend who was the same age.
The solution? We weren’t allowed to be at the barn on the days the farrier was scheduled. Not sure what happened to the girls who held horses in our stead. :no:
This is really interesting, along with the article Palm Beach linked regarding USA Gymnastics and what they are doing.
Bottom line… both approaches seem to be “athlete centric.” That’s the language used by USA Gymnastics. And they admit that it required a change in culture to make their sport and community more “athlete centric.”
When it comes to equestrian sport? Clearly many do not want that shift in culture. Because the whole discussion about what is wrong with Safe Sport is revolving around PROFESSIONALS who make their livings in this sport, and how a false accusation can ruin their business. I can understand where they are coming from… but there is a fundamental disconnect going on. That’s a “coach centric” attitude. Not an “athlete centric” attitude.
What I can say for sure, is that as an adult amateur who has no problem paying good professionals good money to coach both myself and my child, and to train and show my horses, I will NOT be choosing to spend money with anyone who is openly complaining about Safe Sport, and how it might “ruin” their business. Because to me… the impression is that a person who has that attitude cares FAR more about their own pocketbook than about the well-being of my child. No thanks - but best of luck with your business. I’ll take my money elsewhere.
Whenever someone responds to a claim with, “That’s not true!” but then refuses to provide the real information, that will tend to give credence to the claim in people’s minds. It’s like Trump’s tax returns. His refusal to release them naturally fuels the suspicion that there is sketchy stuff in there.
The way out of this is for Safesport to release accurate information, including:
–The number of initial determinations overturned in arbitration
–The average cost to an accused party to defend themselves (i.e., the JAMS fees).
And perhaps posters on this board have other concerns that could be cleared up with accurate data from Safesport.
It’s like the old saying: Sunshine is the best disinfectant.
I don’t think anyone at this point should be surprised. People have shown their true colors with RG’s suicide. Many people are believing everything they read on Facebook. There are posts from people saying if it was their daughter they “would help her understand the mistake she made.” Posts from convicted (in the courts) speaking out against Safe sport and receiving support. There are posts blaming AK for blowing it wide open. Posts from people saying a criminal conviction is enough.
We have all known about our dirty laundry. Now the rest of the equine world does too. It goes beyond just one sport complaining, it is one discipline within the sport complaining.
OK, Internet police. If you had looked again you would see I deleted it before you responded here. If you delete your posts critiquing my wording, I will delete this very silly back and forth too and it will all go away. You are the one reinforcing the message over and over again now.
I think that’s it in a nutshell. This entire sport is built around the support of and aggrandizement of trainers, not the welfare of riders who largely make up the customer base. Trainers are revered, the average rider is regarded as a source of funds and an object of ridicule. (If you don’t believe that last part, stand at the ingate and listen to trainers talk to other trainers about their riders as they are on course. The comments are often appalling.)
Is that 35 reports expected coming from Equestrian sports, for which USEF is the NGO, or 35 reports across all sports which are participating in Safe Sport? So 800 complaints across all sports… or just in equestrian sport?
Whenever someone uses statistics I expect a source. Not just I am a lawyer, here’s my track record, and this is why you should believe me. That’s not a source.
Sunshine is the best disinfectant. Not sure why people, and you yourself from your posts, are so resistant to it.
This was true in 2018. Only the Reporting Party and their advisor and the Responding Party and their advisor can view the reports, however I think lawyers will argue they have to have information and details to defend their client.
You’re comparing the NGO statement for gymnastics with the member response for USEF. That’s not apples to apples. Has USEF made statements that they don’t support Safe Sport? Here is the Safe Sport page for USEF. I’m not seeing the opposition.
I actually find it CRAZY that they thought they would only get 35 complaints for all sports given the statistics on the prevalence of sexual assault in general, and the fact that pedophiles are KNOWN to seek out professions and positions where they can regularly interact with minors and have easy access, and position themselves in a role that both minors and their parents revere and trust.
Boy Scouts of America, the Catholic Church, that whole 2nd Mile Charity Jerry Sandusky founded, Larry Nasser… the list goes on and on.
But Safe Sport expected 35 reports a year across ALL youth sports in America with NGOs which had signed on?!? Well that was a “wish” that they held in one hand, and we know what the other hand filled up with. Unreal.
What Navin is saying is that Safe Sport has no right to consider acts that happened before the law passed even if the law itself says it can. It’s the fight she wants to make. Will it prevail? We shall see.
So she is choosing to make an argument that if it prevails, could very well lead to Safe Sport should NOT being able to put lifetime bans in place with respect to anyone who has been CONVICTED of sex crimes involving children before the Safe Sport law went into effect.
That’s great. Just great. I’m sure parents of horse crazy little girls everywhere will cheer Bonnie Navin on.
Or… maybe convicted pedophiles who really want to coach kids again will cheer her on.
I’m probably being too black and white in my thinking though. It’s actually a grey thing. Both (some) parents and (all) pedophiles will cheer - but when it comes to the specific group of cheering parents, they are best described as STUPID parents.
This discussion has brought up an interesting difference between USEF’s “coaches” and other coaches.
How many trainers coach because they truly want to coach? Most of them are also competitors; often the coaching business is secondary to one’s own competitive endeavors. While some trainers truly love to teach, many just do it as a means to fund their show schedule and bring in horses, owners, and sponsors.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of too many other IOC sports where this is the case. Most coaches in other sports have aged out of their competitive years.
So from that standpoint, I can recognize that someone might have a hard time creating an athlete-centered environment when they consider themselves the primary athlete.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not excusing their behavior or the asinine beliefs getting tossed around FB regarding child molestation.
Hopefully you’re vitriol is not directed at me but solely at her. I don’t find her to be the type of person I would want to associate with. But she’s creative…and doing a job that is building a client base. I can’t respect her at all…
I think it’s important to do our best to understand what other people are saying and not saying…as well as what people are being accused of or not.
For instance, a few pages back, a poster called RG a pedophile. I didn’t think we had any information on what the ages of his victims were. Pedophilia has criteria to its determination…it’s not just having sexual contact with minors. We should be careful to use it appropriately. When we don’t, we leave room for argument that just shouldn’t be there.
Or maybe I’m the only one that thinks there is a next level evilness to pedophilia.
Ok… I have been trying to wait for a post I have made that got put in “jail” about this guy, but it seems like that post is stuck in jail.
There is a person who is on the permanently banned Safe Sport list who is on Facebook supporting Bonnie Navins arguments. He comes from the Saddlebred community and has the initials RC. I’m not naming him, as I hope that will mean that THIS post will not get flagged and unapproved.
Anyway… I’m curious as to what some of the lawyers out there make of this ruling, in the context of multiple discussions… it is SPECIFIC to this guy’s case, lifetime bans from organizations, and his original hearing in front of USEF. It seems like the court ruled that he WAS afforded due process during his USEF hearing… and the lifetime ban IS enforceable.
I didn’t think that was particularly vitriolic. But do apologize if you read it that way and thought any vitriol was directed at you. It definitely wasn’t. I think you have contributed much to this discussion.
And I’m pretty positive I have not called RG a pedophile. Others - yes. JW, John Lipari, the people who have been convicted in a court of law of engaging in a sexual act with a minor… yup. I call them pedophiles.
RG was KNOWN to have engaged in relationships with underage girls. However - it is unclear to me as to the age range of the girls, and his age at the time. Regardless… I think relationships like that were unacceptable then, and are unacceptable now. I don’t like the whole “it was a different era” defense.
Just like it is possible to get deep in the weeds on the legal issues here… it is possible to get deep in the weeds on psychological issues. My post was intended to point out that getting deep in the weeds on the legal issues and supporting BNs argument will provide a wide open door to people who have known records of problematic conduct with minors to continue coaching.
I really don’t respect a lawyer who is devoting herself to that cause. I understand grieving her client and friend, I understand being passionate in terms of arguing against USEF rulings she finds unjust… but the whole “if they had relationships with minors before the Safe Sport law was in place, you have no right to ban them” argument? I think it’s really absurd and screwed up. And I hope it fails.
I say this in a friendly way to you, and think you probably agree
