Rob Gage

[Denali6298]

@Texarkana I don’t think @OwnTooMany will ever get it as their posts are filled with paranoia.

[Bogie]

@FiSk123

“Two-Deep Leadership” and prohibiting one-on-one contact between minor and adult members is not a concept that was created by SafeSport (for example, the Boy Scouts of America follows a similar model). It’s about protecting everybody involved. For the minor, it’s about limiting the potential for grooming and abuse to occur. For the adult, it protects them from false accusations of abuse. This also extends to the social media and electronic communication guidelines.

This is the model followed by the rowing clubs in Boston as well. It protects both the minor and the coach. It works.

I mean, seriously, in real life people are careful not to put themselves in situations that could be misconstrued. Even to the point where I always drove the teen aged babysitters home instead of my husband.

[imagdrider]

If someone has allegedly been violated or abused they need to go to the authorities / police who are trained to deal with these kind of situations, not some self appointed vigilante posse!

[Capall]

@imagdrider

If someone has allegedly been violated or abused they need to go to the authorities / police who are trained to deal with these kind of situations, not some self appointed vigilante posse!

Clearly someone hasn’t read anything but the first post on this thread. Or facebook posts. LOL.

starts popcorn What does everyone want to drink?

[Denali6298]

I’ll take a hard seltzer. Want some guac?

[Texarkana]

@Denali6298

@Texarkana I don’t think @OwnTooMany will ever get it as their posts are filled with paranoia.

There is a lot of paranoia. Some of this paranoia has a legitimate source.

There has been a pattern of beloved trainers being suspended then saying, “I didn’t do it! It’s all false!” And of course their clientele believes them.

Then a little more of the story comes out with stuff like, “OK, so maybe I dated a 17 year old when I was 19…” and all the clientele continues to rally behind the trainer.

Then it’s, “well… I wasn’t 19… I was actually 39… but it was totally consensual and only happened once. And I didn’t even get a chance to defend myself!” And the clientele is so brainwashed they still are willing to go to bat for their trainer.

What I think USEF/USHJA/other NGBs need to do is get out in front of this paranoia with more education. Because let’s be real, busy pros aren’t going to sit down and read the SafeSport Policies. The online training really doesn’t address how SafeSport compliance looks in the equestrian world. These types of policies have become second nature to anyone employed in the public or private sector, but many horse trainers have never had exposure to anything like this before. So when their idol says they were the victim of bureaucratic red tape and government overreach, they believe it.

[Denali6298]

@Texarkana

There is a lot of paranoia. Some of this paranoia has a legitimate source.

There has been a pattern of beloved trainers being suspended then saying, “I didn’t do it! It’s all false!” And of course their clientele believes them.

Then a little more of the story comes out with stuff like, “OK, so maybe I dated a 17 year old when I was 19…” and all the clientele continues to rally behind the trainer.

Then it’s, “well… I wasn’t 19… I was actually 39… but it was totally consensual and only happened once. And I didn’t even get a chance to defend myself!” And the clientele is so brainwashed they still are willing to go to bat for their trainer.

What I think USEF/USHJA/other NGBs need to do is get out in front of this paranoia with more education. Because let’s be real, busy pros aren’t going to sit down and read the SafeSport Policies. The online training really doesn’t address how SafeSport compliance looks in the equestrian world. These types of policies are second nature at this point to anyone employed in the public or private sector, but many horse trainers have never had exposure to anything like this before. So when their idol says they were the victim of bureaucratic red tape, they believe it.

Or people could research it themselves and I dunno educate themselves instead of believing Facebook.

I know, I know, that’s asking a lot.

[skydy]

@Capall

Clearly someone hasn’t read anything but the first post on this thread. Or facebook posts. LOL.

starts popcorn What does everyone want to drink?

It’s early, but sort of a holiday weekend. I’ll have a spicy bloody mary please.

[ladyj79]

@imagdrider

If someone has allegedly been violated or abused they need to go to the authorities / police who are trained to deal with these kind of situations, not some self appointed vigilante posse!

I’m loving these socal contributors. Not crazy at all.

[FiSk123]

@imagdrider

If someone has allegedly been violated or abused they need to go to the authorities / police who are trained to deal with these kind of situations, not some self appointed vigilante posse!

I’ve actually been waiting for a comment like this to pop up. I think the following information is quite important:

Larry Nassar was reported to the Meridian Township Police in 2004. Jerry Sandusky was investigated by PSU campus police and his case was submitted to the DA for consideration in 1998 (the evidence included Sandusky admitting to showering with an 11 year old boy to the survivor’s mother - she was wearing a wire). The DA declined to prosecute.

Would you like me to send you information on a case in which the charges were dismissed against a coach for sexually abusing his then 14-year-old student because the survivor’s father technically broke anti-wire tapping laws when he reported the abuse to the police after overhearing his daughter talking/crying about the assault to her boyfriend over a three-way landline call? All of the evidence discovered thereafter (including the girl’s testimony) were essentially thrown out due to a “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument.

Or would you like more details on the case in which rape charges were dismissed against a coach after the claimant died of an apparent heroin overdose a couple of months before he could testify? A coach who had been arrested and charged with similar crimes about a decade prior.

History and statistics will tell you the same thing: Solely depending on the authorities to police predatory behavior has proven DISASTROUS time and time again.

(My apologies to anyone if I came off frustrated - this is one of the complaints against SafeSport that continues to boggle my mind since some of the most infamous sex abuse scandals in sports are key examples of why solely relying on the police is a terrible idea. SafeSport reports to the police if a crime is committed. They also do their own internal investigation).

[Denali6298]

@FiSk123 don’t apologize for coming off frustrated. We are all frustrated with the posters who refuse to educate themselves.

I appreciate your your contributions to this thread.

Here is a question for you. In your experience do other sports have this much push back?

[skydy]

@ladyj79

I’m loving these socal contributors. Not crazy at all.

This one certainly doesn’t have any education as far as Safe Sport is concerned. If that post is representative of Facebook posts, I am once again reminded why I am not a member.

[Salty]

FiSk123, thank you very much for your well-informed, sane contributions to this thread. I completely understand your frustration.

[FiSk123]

@Denali6298

@FiSk123 don’t apologize for coming off frustrated. We are all frustrated with the posters who refuse to educate themselves.

I appreciate your your contributions to this thread.

Here is a question for you. In your experience do other sports have this much push back?

Great question @Denali6298! The short answer: yes and no. The push back usually depends on the answer to four questions:

1. Is the accused likable and/or successful?
2. Is the accuser(s) likable and/or successful?
3. How many accusers are there?
4. Was the abuse done openly or behind closed doors? (For example, there is one coach in figure skating who was given a temporary suspension last year. Let’s just say most people were surprised that it took so long.)

Generally speaking, the equestrian community has been exceptionally resistant to SafeSport. The biggest problem has been the spread and acceptance of misinformation. One of the biggest problems I’ve had with going on social media is that I want to correct every piece of misinformation in regards to specific cases (“No, this person was X years old” or “No, there were Y accusers!” or “How can you say with such certainty that A was lying when there is surveillance footage to prove that B was lying about not going into their hotel room?”), but some of that information has not been made publicly available so I have to bite my tongue.

This reaction is quite common among all sports, however, when the responding party is well-liked/successful and the reporting party is anonymous or not as well-known.

TL:DR The immediate reaction to Rob Gage’s ban and death is pretty common. The current reaction (post-Ridland’s FB post) to Gage’s ban and death + the spread of misinformation about SafeSport, constitutional rights and the specifics about Gage’s ban is definitely more pronounced in the equestrian community than in most of the other communities I’ve worked with.

P.S. Thank you for the kind words @Salty! I’m always more than happy to help dispel misinformation, especially when its related to combating abuse.

[YankeeDuchess]

@OwnTooMany

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Ms. Roper has given you the complete story here. I understand why - she is probably overloaded and the question you posed to her was generic and did not expose the complexity of the code. So I am not, in any way, being critical of her.

My previous interpretation of the meaning of “regular contact” in the context of the USEF SafeSport Policies was not correct. The term “regular contact” does not quite have its plain language meaning. Yet another paragraph of the Policies is required to understand the meaning. Here is what the Policies say:

POLICIES EXPLAINED

National Member Organizations.

Regular contact – Neither the federal statute, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, nor the USOC define the term “regular contact;" therefore determining “regular contact” should be through a process of risk analysis:

• Is the person in a position of authority over a minor (e.g., trainer/coach)?
• Is the person likely to be in a chaperoned one-on-one situation with the minor?
• Is the person going to have reoccurring contact with the minor to an extent where they could develop a trusting relationship that would create an environment where any type of abuse could take place?

So it is the third bullet that applies. This is from pages 24 dn 25 of the Policies: https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/YXj0R68pxq0/safe-sport-policy

So let’s change the example a bit. You, a USEF member and competitor, are at the barn alone working on your horse. A 16 year old arrives at the barn by herself (because she can drive herself). She is a competitor in USEF shows and happens to be your daughter’s best friend - a girl you have known for years (a trusting relationship). Now you really are in the position that the Policies consider to be “strongly discouraged.”

This would also apply in your own home (to being alone with your daughter’s best friend). A trusting relationship could, of course, also develop if you do things like trail ride with teens, go to shows with teens, etc. Also, based on the Policies, making a one-on-one interaction OK requires a second adult not a minor as a witness.

I can’t be the only one who is at least a little disconcerted by the idea that the more you have a legitimate, non-exploitative, trust-based relationship with a teen, the more suspect you are. This is a very cynical view of human relationships and it is not clear to me what the long-term effects will be of indoctrinating everyone (including children) into such a suspicion-based view of relationships. And before everyone flips out, of course I understand that trust- and power-based relationships have been used to enable sexual abuse. But there is a real issue here.

So what are my main points:

• It is difficult to codify morality. To do so creates pages and pages of rules that can be hard to know and harder to understand. This example clearly demonstrates that. In addition, there are often unintended side effects (loopholes that are not covered and the opposite - situations deemed inappropriate that are not).
• Many USEF members who are not trainers or volunteering with minors are likely to qualify as "Applicable Adults."
• For Applicable Adults, the code extends into the barn, your home, basically everywhere.
• It is much more difficult to never be alone with a minor than you might think, even if that is your intention.

[YankeeDuchess]

@OwnTooMany

Unfortunately, it does not appear that Ms. Roper has given you the complete story here. I understand why - she is probably overloaded and the question you posed to her was generic and did not expose the complexity of the code. So I am not, in any way, being critical of her.

My previous interpretation of the meaning of “regular contact” in the context of the USEF SafeSport Policies was not correct. The term “regular contact” does not quite have its plain language meaning. Yet another paragraph of the Policies is required to understand the meaning. Here is what the Policies say:

POLICIES EXPLAINED

National Member Organizations.

Regular contact – Neither the federal statute, the U.S. Center for SafeSport, nor the USOC define the term “regular contact;" therefore determining “regular contact” should be through a process of risk analysis:

• Is the person in a position of authority over a minor (e.g., trainer/coach)?
• Is the person likely to be in a chaperoned one-on-one situation with the minor?
• Is the person going to have reoccurring contact with the minor to an extent where they could develop a trusting relationship that would create an environment where any type of abuse could take place?

So it is the third bullet that applies. This is from pages 24 dn 25 of the Policies: https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/YXj0R68pxq0/safe-sport-policy

So let’s change the example a bit. You, a USEF member and competitor, are at the barn alone working on your horse. A 16 year old arrives at the barn by herself (because she can drive herself). She is a competitor in USEF shows and happens to be your daughter’s best friend - a girl you have known for years (a trusting relationship). Now you really are in the position that the Policies consider to be “strongly discouraged.”

  OwnToMany-  The best practices of the section you were quoting apply to conduct “outside the program”, that is, outside the barn, as your own previous post acknowledged. If I, as an adult amateur USEF member, am working alone at the barn and my daughter’s 16 year best friend shows up, we can both do our own thing at the barn. I should not meet with her alone outside the barn by meeting her at my home (unaccompanied) or some other non-barn venue. 

This would also apply in your own home (to being alone with your daughter’s best friend). A trusting relationship could, of course, also develop if you do things like trail ride with teens, go to shows with teens, etc. Also, based on the Policies, making a one-on-one interaction OK requires a second adult not a minor as a witness.

I can’t be the only one who is at least a little disconcerted by the idea that the more you have a legitimate, non-exploitative, trust-based relationship with a teen, the more suspect you are. This is a very cynical view of human relationships and it is not clear to me what the long-term effects will be of indoctrinating everyone (including children) into such a suspicion-based view of relationships. And before everyone flips out, of course I understand that trust- and power-based relationships have been used to enable sexual abuse. But there is a real issue here.

So what are my main points:

• It is difficult to codify morality. To do so creates pages and pages of rules that can be hard to know and harder to understand. This example clearly demonstrates that. In addition, there are often unintended side effects (loopholes that are not covered and the opposite - situations deemed inappropriate that are not).
• Many USEF members who are not trainers or volunteering with minors are likely to qualify as "Applicable Adults."
• For Applicable Adults, the code extends into the barn, your home, basically everywhere.
• It is much more difficult to never be alone with a minor than you might think, even if that is your intention.

[Denali6298]

@FiSk123 thank you for the insight. I get the initial reaction. A former mentor/friend of mine is sitting in federal prison right now for sexual abuse of multiple minors, pedophelia, and distribution of child pornography. I get the shock and disbelief. After reading the article and how he got caught, I walked away. I truly don’t understand the denial.

@YankeeDuchess did you have a comment with that quote?

[YankeeDuchess]

@Denali6298

@FiSk123 thank you for the insight. I get the initial reaction. A former mentor/friend of mine is sitting in federal prison right now for sexual abuse of multiple minors, pedophelia, and distribution of child pornography. I get the shock and disbelief. After reading the article and how he got caught, I walked away. I truly don’t understand the denial.

@YankeeDuchess did you have a comment with that quote?

  My attempted comment was that the best practices recommended by SafeSport applied to interactions outside the “program” or barn, so there is no problem with an AA working alone at the barn if a 16 year shows up. The AA is not supposed to interact one on one in an uninterruptible way with a 16 year old OUTSIDE the barn, for example in a private residence or hotel room. Utterly sensible.

[Denali6298]

@YankeeDuchess

My attempted comment was that the best practices recommended by SafeSport applied to interactions outside the “program” or barn, so there is no problem with an AA working alone at the barn if a 16 year shows up. The AA is not supposed to interact one on one in an uninterruptible way with a 16 year old OUTSIDE the barn, for example in a private residence or hotel room. Utterly sensible.

Exactly. The MAAP policy which you quoted does not apply to AA’s at the barn.

[YankeeDuchess]

@FiSk123

Great question @Denali6298! The short answer: yes and no. The push back usually depends on the answer to four questions:

1. Is the accused likable and/or successful?
2. Is the accuser(s) likable and/or successful?
3. How many accusers are there?
4. Was the abuse done openly or behind closed doors? (For example, there is one coach in figure skating who was given a temporary suspension last year. Let’s just say most people were surprised that it took so long.)

Generally speaking, the equestrian community has been exceptionally resistant to SafeSport. The biggest problem has been the spread and acceptance of misinformation. One of the biggest problems I’ve had with going on social media is that I want to correct every piece of misinformation in regards to specific cases (“No, this person was X years old” or “No, there were Y accusers!” or “How can you say with such certainty that A was lying when there is surveillance footage to prove that B was lying about not going into their hotel room?”), but some of that information has not been made publicly available so I have to bite my tongue.

This reaction is quite common among all sports, however, when the responding party is well-liked/successful and the reporting party is anonymous or not as well-known.

TL:DR The immediate reaction to Rob Gage’s ban and death is pretty common. The current reaction (post-Ridland’s FB post) to Gage’s ban and death + the spread of misinformation about SafeSport, constitutional rights and the specifics about Gage’s ban is definitely more pronounced in the equestrian community than in most of the other communities I’ve worked with.

I am also very grateful for the information you provide.

I did not know Rob Gage, even by name, prior to his suicide. However, I think I can understand the emotional, but not entirely rational, response to his death on FB.
It is clear that RG was an exceptional and accomplished rider, trainer, and coach, and had many wonderful personal qualities that made him valued and beloved to many. Even among people who had some understanding that he had some “flaws”, the vast majority of his circle would not know the exact extent of the “flaws”.
For those who knew him personally, they would have had an emotional connection to the charming, successful, clinician with invaluable advice to give.
When his suicide seems to be precipitated by the delay in arbitration, I think that their gut reaction is “If RG was a good guy, as I know personally he was, then SafeSport must be the bad guy.” Hence, to defend/honor RG, I must bash SafeSport and denounce it as a witch hunt, star chamber, and kangaroo court.
This is a false dichotomy. Arbitrarily wonderful, iconic people sometimes do have not just flaws, but a streak of predatory greed.
In some great spreadsheet of human worth, the FB posters are reacting from a place that says “Didn’t all that was good in RG outweigh a few youthful indiscretions with a student who was nearly legal?” which reasoning (?) suggests the ban was hideously inappropriate, and hence responsible for the death.
For the colleagues and friends of RG, they desperately want to believe that their friend was falsely accused, given no chance to defend himself, etc. This agenda is achieved by spreading misinformation and willfully avoiding getting the actual facts.
From everything I have read RG was a wonderful and admirable person on many dimensions. If his friends want to honor what was good in him, and squint when it comes to the sexual misconduct of minors, they should.
But SafeSport can’t squint on fully investigated reports of sexual misconduct of minors, no matter how stellar the trainer is. They did their job.