Safe Sport - Enforcement

[OneGrayPony]

First disclaimer - I have NO issue with mandating the training. The training is fine. It’s good. We should all take it. I’d love to see that kind of training just available to citizens of the earth.

Has anyone looked into the enforcement however? There are quite a few people in the breed show communities who are worried about the idea that anyone can make a report anonymously and the presumption is guilty until proven innocent. The implications of this are that if you have a rival at another barn who wants to knock a horse/rider out of the running, all they have to do is make a report before that big show and all of a sudden the trainer (or rider) is out on a temporary suspension which makes it difficult to compete. I’ve seen folks say “well, that would be a defamation case” but if the original report is anonymous, who are you going to sue? You could also have a case where a trainer has a client that for whatever reason is disgruntled, and they decide to take the trainer down…this is a convenient vehicle for this.

I’m just curious as to how folks are feeling about the enforcement policies and the potential there for a different kind of abuse.

Again - I have ZERO issue with taking the training, and I think the intent of figuring out how to help to protect children is really good, I just am a bit troubled thinking through the mechanics and am hoping others know more or have thought through this a bit more than I have.

[Scribbler]

I think this has been discussed at length in earlier posts.

Just because the complainant is not identified publically, does not mean it was an anonymous complaint. The suspension is only given after a complaint with credibility and substance.

Similar procedures have existed for decades in the school system, universities, responsible corporations, etc. We simply haven’t seen huge numbers of frivolous complaints result in suspensions. So I am sure that there are existing protocol for sifting out malicious or trivial complaints.

In no place can you give an anonymous tip with no verifiable details and have someone suspended.

[Pennywell_Bay]

@Scribbler

I think this has been discussed at length in earlier posts.

Just because the complainant is not identified publically, does not mean it was an anonymous complaint. The suspension is only given after a complaint with credibility and substance.

Similar procedures have existed for decades in the school system, universities, responsible corporations, etc. We simply haven’t seen huge numbers of frivolous complaints result in suspensions. So I am sure that there are existing protocol for sifting out malicious or trivial complaints.

In no place can you give an anonymous tip with no verifiable details and have someone suspended.

What Scribbler said. In addition, point them to www.safesport.org , specifically Practices and Procedures - a preponderance of the evidence is standard to determine whether the code was violated". It isn’t just for equestrians. In addition, though reports can be made anonymously, it has uploads for supporting documentation (photos, email etc). Someone can certainly report “Pennywell Bay Did XYZ” but I will doubtfully be banned, temporary or not. I will no doubt, have been investigated - as it should be.

[OneGrayPony]

@Scribbler

I think this has been discussed at length in earlier posts.

Just because the complainant is not identified publically, does not mean it was an anonymous complaint. The suspension is only given after a complaint with credibility and substance.

Similar procedures have existed for decades in the school system, universities, responsible corporations, etc. We simply haven’t seen huge numbers of frivolous complaints result in suspensions. So I am sure that there are existing protocol for sifting out malicious or trivial complaints.

In no place can you give an anonymous tip with no verifiable details and have someone suspended.

Thanks Scribbler - I was looking for it here and did several searches including google searching with site: chronicle - can you point me to anything related to the enforcement? I couldn’t find anything other than discussion about the training itself and the issues of internet bandwidth (which I think can be worked around).

It isn’t entirely clear as to when the temporary suspension is granted, as per this flow chart https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/YXj0R68pxq0/safe-sport-policy. I took a look at the safe sport policy too, and it’s a bit unclear to me as well. It does say that anonymous reporting is available, but discouraged because you can’t necessarily investigate to determine whether the mandatory reporting has been satisfied. Therefore, if you report anonymously, but then later were determined to have knowledge of the situation, then you could be criminally prosecuted and you can’t later say “I reported anonymously”.

I’ve been part of a major university that has gone through this training, and again, have no objection to the training itself. I do realize that children do not generally falsify reports but the horse show world can be a very different place, and I’ve seen all sorts of nefarious gossip-mongering and other issues including cutting competitors tails, which is why I was wondering if it had been discussed.

[OneGrayPony]

Ah Ha! I finally found this: https://www.usef.org/media/press-releases/safe-sport-frequently-asked-questions

This is what I needed. The FAQ was broken from the main page, and I needed to share this with my trainer, who was concerned based on information from this guy http://shanedarnell.com/usefprofits/. She was wondering how the other disciplines were handling it, and I told her I would go find out.

[poltroon]

I think the right comparison to make is to think of the trainer like a teacher in a school.

If there is someone making a random anonymous complaint left on the principal’s answering machine, she’d investigate, and either would find nothing or would find some sort of evidence to go forward. Typically, though, these complaints would be from someone known to the principal, even if she didn’t disclose the name publicly.

If she found something of concern, then OBVIOUSLY to everyone here, you can’t just leave the teacher in the classroom. You’d put them on leave while you investigate and then proceed from there.

No one here would be OK with a principal leaving someone with credible sexual abuse allegations alone with kids until the investigation was complete and the person absolved.

The problem in horses is that trainers are sole proprietors, not generally someone’s employee with a clear supervisor. Trainers are alone with children and other vulnerable people all the time. But without Safe Sport, there is no one to investigate or consider allegations short of the police, and police are not always able to act on old allegations, or on allegations involving adults. They also need a much higher burden of proof to take any effective action. In addition, their sole remedy, which is arrest and jail, is not always what we need in sport, which may be instead to remove them from a position managing vulnerable people.

The alternative, then, to people being suspended via Safe Sport is to put them in jail while we sort it all out. That’s maybe not what the people who are upset about Safe Sport and their civil rights have in mind.

[OneGrayPony]

@poltroon

I think the right comparison to make is to think of the trainer like a teacher in a school.

If there is someone making a random anonymous complaint left on the principal’s answering machine, she’d investigate, and either would find nothing or would find some sort of evidence to go forward. Typically, though, these complaints would be from someone known to the principal, even if she didn’t disclose the name publicly.

If she found something of concern, then OBVIOUSLY to everyone here, you can’t just leave the teacher in the classroom. You’d put them on leave while you investigate and then proceed from there.

No one here would be OK with a principal leaving someone with credible sexual abuse allegations alone with kids until the investigation was complete and the person absolved.

The problem in horses is that trainers are sole proprietors, not generally someone’s employee with a clear supervisor. Trainers are alone with children and other vulnerable people all the time. But without Safe Sport, there is no one to investigate or consider allegations short of the police, and police are not always able to act on old allegations, or on allegations involving adults. They also need a much higher burden of proof to take any effective action. In addition, their sole remedy, which is arrest and jail, is not always what we need in sport, which may be instead to remove them from a position managing vulnerable people.

The alternative, then, to people being suspended via Safe Sport is to put them in jail while we sort it all out. That’s maybe not what the people who are upset about Safe Sport and their civil rights have in mind.

This is quite rational, and I agree. I think the concerns are more around the expansive jurisdiction that the USEF has. For instance, the dude I linked to, although a little overblown in his comparisons to Salem, indicated that there may be potential problems around the extension of safe sport’s jurisdiction where things that are unrelated to sexual assault come in.

The Arabian Horse Association is strongly considering dumping USEF over it, so it sounds like there’s a lot more debate than us in the sport horse world are having.

[clanter]

@poltroon

The problem in horses is that trainers are sole proprietors, not generally someone’s employee with a clear supervisor. Trainers are alone with children and other vulnerable people all the time. But without Safe Sport, there is no one to investigate or consider allegations short of the police, and police are not always able to act on old allegations, or on allegations involving adults. .

In this day and time personally there is no way I would ever be alone with any child or female unless I have a recording body camera on

I have no problem being recorded all my time on duty as an air traffic controller was recorded so we have proof of what was said and done for any incident

[OneGrayPony]

I also finally found a thread where it was discussed in more detail. Turns out, googling “Safe Sport” turns out a lot less than “SafeSport”. So sorry for missing it with the extra space before - no wonder y’all were like “just use the search feature”.

So there are indeed situations where people have been removed from the suspensions list. Tommy Serio being one of them. http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/u-s-center-for-safesport-lifts-temporary-suspension-for-serio-adds-names-to-sanctions-list

Many of the permanently banned had pretty obvious criminal convictions, so it seems to be the temporary suspensions that are the sticking point for people. I’m still trying to detangle all of it so that I can present a solid picture to her.

[poltroon]

@OneGrayPony

This is quite rational, and I agree. I think the concerns are more around the expansive jurisdiction that the USEF has. For instance, the dude I linked to, although a little overblown in his comparisons to Salem, indicated that there may be potential problems around the extension of safe sport’s jurisdiction where things that are unrelated to sexual assault come in.

The Arabian Horse Association is strongly considering dumping USEF over it, so it sounds like there’s a lot more debate than us in the sport horse world are having.

Well, I’d say there’s a lot of panic out there. From all my years in the horse world, maybe not entirely unfounded. You know that all the breed associations likely have someone important who has made some poor life choices a la Jimmy Williams or otherwise fear that they will be so accused.

The breed association people have a choice about whether to affiliate with USEF, because they’re only tangentially Olympic sports. The sport associations don’t have the choice.

It’s interesting to watch the panic being lobbed at Mean Old USEF Who Is Doing This On Purpose To Be Mean with huge misinformation about the source of the change and why it is there. It is Congress, not USEF, who created and requires SafeSport. And absolutely, it is meant to apply to any trainer or coach at any level. Swimming and gymnastics in particular are full of examples of private coaches and coaches affiliated with schools assaulting athletes, and SafeSport is absolutely intended to create a place of oversight and reporting for those cases. After all, when the person doesn’t have an employer, who do you complain to otherwise? How are any other parents ever going to find out? Even going through a police report, if it is applicable, won’t necessarily notify other parents.

SafeSport is not USEF nor does USEF control them.

Breed associations certainly have the option to deaffilliate if they so wish. For myself, I’d have to wonder if I was comfortable staying in an organization that wants to so aggressively avoid this particular oversight.

[OneGrayPony]

@poltroon

Well, I’d say there’s a lot of panic out there. From all my years in the horse world, maybe not entirely unfounded. You know that all the breed associations likely have someone important who has made some poor life choices a la Jimmy Williams or otherwise fear that they will be so accused.

Oh of course. Many of the breed associations are smaller though (excepting AQHA) and may not have “as many” just because statistics.

@poltroon

The breed association people have a choice about whether to affiliate with USEF, because they’re only tangentially Olympic sports. The sport associations don’t have the choice.

It’s interesting to watch the panic being lobbed at Mean Old USEF Who Is Doing This On Purpose To Be Mean with huge misinformation about the source of the change and why it is there. It is Congress, not USEF, who created and requires SafeSport. And absolutely, it is meant to apply to any trainer or coach at any level. Swimming and gymnastics in particular are full of examples of private coaches and coaches affiliated with schools assaulting athletes, and SafeSport is absolutely intended to create a place of oversight and reporting for those cases. After all, when the person doesn’t have an employer, who do you complain to otherwise? How are any other parents ever going to find out? Even going through a police report, if it is applicable, won’t necessarily notify other parents.

SafeSport is not USEF nor does USEF control them.

Breed associations certainly have the option to deaffilliate if they so wish. For myself, I’d have to wonder if I was comfortable staying in an organization that wants to so aggressively avoid this particular oversight.

I suspect that a lot of it is based on misinformation as well.

For instance, it’s one thing to have all of the members take the training, quite another to require parents of competitors who may not be members to take it. That’s one thing I’ve heard, that all parents of kids in Academy programs will be required to take the training. How true it is, I’m not sure, because I can’t seem to find that requirement anywhere.

Another is that if someone is found on the grounds who is on the suspension list, the entire show may be voided and all points lost from everyone in the show. I cannot find evidence of this being true as of yet either, but if it is, that seems like a bit of an issue, particularly for those of us paying show fees and putting in effort. It does put quite a burden. on the show management, and while I hope that they are doing everything they can to prevent unauthorized people from being there, I’m not even sure how logistically you could hope to police this fully.

The other part is that the breed organizations feel that they aren’t getting much back from USEF, so it’s a lot of members paying a lot of dues and show fees, and all the educational materials etc. are focused on sporthorse disciplines. In this, I can see a bit of their discomfort.

I think to a certain extent a lot of it is the straw that broke the camel’s back, and not the safe sport sanctions per se, but I’m still trying to understand it all fully and sort out what is true and what is hysteria. It certainly hasn’t been an easy job!

[Highflyer]

I would imagine that if an organization opted to leave because of SafeSport and then there was an issue that could possibly have been prevented had it been implemented the fallout might be substantial. So if I were a board member or whatever the equivalent is, I would want to have some kind of comparable training program and the ability to prevent at least convicted sex offenders from attending organization competitions.

[OneGrayPony]

@Highflyer

I would imagine that if an organization opted to leave because of SafeSport and then there was an issue that could possibly have been prevented had it been implemented the fallout might be substantial. So if I were a board member or whatever the equivalent is, I would want to have some kind of comparable training program and the ability to prevent at least convicted sex offenders from attending organization competitions.

That’s a very good point Highflyer. A very good point indeed.

[poltroon]

I am sure you are right and a lot is misinformation, flying rumors, and the like. Lots of hysteria always, honestly.

For many of these organizations, USEF also provides drug testing and general rule enforcement, two things that are expensive and gnarly to replicate.

The idea that the points from a show would be voided for everyone is completely unlike any other strategy USEF has ever used to sanction events that break its rules. The idea of excluding a suspended member is not new for USEF and they have a nice body of law and practice to work with. If you are truly concerned that this is a plan, please call them directly and ask them yourself.

[Scribbler]

I see from another online source that the AQHA decided to sever ties with FEI? This week. The stated issues were drug testing and age of competition horses I think? Safesport not mentioned.

[OneGrayPony]

@Scribbler

I see from another online source that the AQHA decided to sever ties with FEI? This week. The stated issues were drug testing and age of competition horses I think? Safesport not mentioned.

Yeah - I think that was related in part to the futurities? AQHA is a bit of a different beast altogether with a lot of weight to throw around. The registries that I’m seeing objecting to the perceived challenges are the Arabian Horse Association, the Morgan Horse Association, and the American Saddlebred Horse Association.

[JenEM]

@OneGrayPony

I suspect that a lot of it is based on misinformation as well.

For instance, it’s one thing to have all of the members take the training, quite another to require parents of competitors who may not be members to take it. That’s one thing I’ve heard, that all parents of kids in Academy programs will be required to take the training. How true it is, I’m not sure, because I can’t seem to find that requirement anywhere.

Another is that if someone is found on the grounds who is on the suspension list, the entire show may be voided and all points lost from everyone in the show. I cannot find evidence of this being true as of yet either, but if it is, that seems like a bit of an issue, particularly for those of us paying show fees and putting in effort. It does put quite a burden. on the show management, and while I hope that they are doing everything they can to prevent unauthorized people from being there, I’m not even sure how logistically you could hope to police this fully.

You can email the actual USEF with your questions about these types of issues. I haven’t contacted them with questions about SafeSport in particular, but when I’ve contacted them they’ve been very responsive to questions about rules.

[jvanrens]

@OneGrayPony

Yeah - I think that was related in part to the futurities? AQHA is a bit of a different beast altogether with a lot of weight to throw around. The registries that I’m seeing objecting to the perceived challenges are the Arabian Horse Association, the Morgan Horse Association, and the American Saddlebred Horse Association.

AQHA doesn’t run futurities. Their affiliates (state and provincial) often do , but AQHA does not. The much discussed longer line class for example is not an AQHA approved class. They do have different age groups of classes though, but 7 and over isn’t one of them.

Futurities are often part of NSBA, NRHA, NRCHA etc. shows sometimes held in conjunction with AQHA shows.

AQHA is also not part of USE, don’t remember it ever was. I believe it’s always stood on its own. Same with APHA, ApHC etc.

[OneGrayPony]

@jvanrens

AQHA doesn’t futurities. Their affiliates might, but AQHA does not. AQHA is also not part of USE, don’t remember it ever was. I believe it’s always stood on its own. Same with APHA, ApHC etc.

AQHA definitely has futurities (http://www.quarterhorsecongress.com/futurities-stakes). But I think the futurities that are causing issues are the Reining horse futurities.

Regardless, they are splitting with FEI, not USEF. But AHA, ASHA, Morgans, Fresians, Andalusians…they all got in bed with USEF. Or USE, as it’s now called (which…seems like an unwelcome acronym LOL)

[ladyj79]

@OneGrayPony

The Arabian Horse Association is strongly considering dumping USEF over it, so it sounds like there’s a lot more debate than us in the sport horse world are having.

There are a number of reasons the AHA is considering dumping USEF. My conversations with pro friends in that industry have had nothing to do with safesport at all, but similar to pretty much every other disciple, the mileage rule kills competition between shows driving prices higher and higher, and people out of the shows.

here’s a recent post on the subject making the rounds, you’ll see that safesport isn’t named on the list of current concerns, and that to date AHA has had no individuals targeted by safesport.

​http://shanedarnell.com/arabsvotechange/

many disciplines are simply getting to the point where there is no benefit and a lot of cost being affiliated with USEF, and breed shows especially have little​​​​​​ incentive to retain that affiliation.

that said, I can see usef threatening officials as the FEI tried to threaten course builders, stewards, etc who were working lgct shows, but they gave that up pretty quickly because it was nonsense.