Safe Sport Update

[DownYonder]

When our GMO board reported on it at the annual members meeting (they had just come back from the USDF convention), they said EVERYONE involved with a USEF competition had to take the training. Competitors, trainers, coaches, owners, competition staff and volunteers. They said competition organizers/secretaries were responsible for ensuring everyone could tick the box. I haven’t looked at the requirements myself so I don’t know if that is all correct.

Someone upthread insinuated that anyone against the SS training requirements must have a nefarious reason for not wanting to comply. At the board meeting I mentioned above, I was sitting next to several men who had brought their daughters to the meeting. They were quite concerned about the possible ramifications of the SS policy. In a side conversation, one of them said that his daughter chore-shares on weekends with another girl at the barn. Since the two girls live in the same neighborhood, the other girl’s parents take her to the barn in the morning, and when he takes his daughter at 1 pm, he picks up the other girl and takes her home. After hearing about the SS policy, he stated he would have to drop out of the ride-sharing arrangement as he didn’t want to be in a situation where he could possibly be falsely accused of some impropriety. While some may think he is being overly paranoid, I get where he is coming from.

I know that the intent is to protect minors from being taken advantage of sexually. But I also fear that there is a risk of innocent people being falsely accused (we all know that teenaged girls in particular can be very jealous and vindictive). And even if the accused is exonerated after investigation, there is damage done to his/her reputation.

So while I truly hope the SS policy works to prevent instances of a sexual misconduct, I also hope it doesn’t result in the innocent being [damaged].

[ladyj79]

Then I presume a dad like that would also disallow slumber parties or daughter’s friends visiting his home, since he would be equally open to accusations in those situations.

seems silly, but his choice.

[vxf111]

Has anyone who has connectivity issues actually asked SafeSport (not USEF but SafeSport) for a non-internet alternative training?

[netg]

@vxf111

Has anyone who has connectivity issues actually asked SafeSport (not USEF but SafeSport) for a non-internet alternative training?

They said it is up to the sport governing body. The exact text of the email I got is below:

Hello ,

You will need to contact your NGB (National Governing Body) with any questions regarding requirements. These requirements may vary by NGB. Please let us know if you have any other questions.

Help Desk Staff

My GMO reached out to USEF and was turned down in trying to find alternatives.

[vxf111]

@netg

They said it is up to the sport governing body. The exact text of the email I got is below:

My GMO reached out to USEF and was turned down in trying to find alternatives.

But did the person (you?) who requested make it clear that they had accessibility issues? That’s what I’m wondering. Did they say “I cannot take online training due to connectivity issues, is there a non-internet alternative.” Or just ask “is there a non-internet alternative.”

Sometimes there is a difference between saying “Is there a way to get there without taking the flight of stairs” and “I am in a wheelchair, is there a way to get there without taking the flight of stairs.” I’m just trying to understand whether SS was asked for an accommodation for a specific reason.

And then the follow up question whether USEF was asked that same thing (for an accommodation specifically due to inability to access the internet).

[netg]

@vxf111

But did the person (you?) who requested make it clear that they had accessibility issues? That’s what I’m wondering. Did they say “I cannot take online training due to connectivity issues, is there a non-internet alternative.” Or just ask “is there a non-internet alternative.”

Sometimes there is a difference between saying “Is there a way to get there without taking the flight of stairs” and “I am in a wheelchair, is there a way to get there without taking the flight of stairs.” I’m just trying to understand whether SS was asked for an accommodation for a specific reason.

And then the follow up question whether USEF was asked that same thing (for an accommodation specifically due to inability to access the internet).

Unfortunately the email from them didn’t have a copy of the text of the email I sent, but the subject was “alternative methods for taking SafeSport Training” and yes, I asked for alternatives ways due to connectivity issues. Same with my GMO’s request to the USEF - we have many rural areas where high speed internet is simply not available. While Starbucks internet wouldn’t handle it at any Starbucks I’ve ever been to (it struggles with youtube, and this requires higher bandwidth than youtube), most of those people who struggle are also outside of a reasonable range to get to a Starbucks, too.

The USEF currently does not accept any other method of taking the training. Just because I can manage it despite living in a location with available high speed internet doesn’t mean I am incapable of understanding that other members of the GMO would have more difficulty. I’ve also been to Virginia horse country and been places which are rural enough to not have high speed internet. Rolling hills and mountains are not conducive to good internet availability.

This is why I asked if someone can point to the supposedly existing offline option for taking the training, as neither USEF nor SafeSport volunteered it - but if there’s evidence it exists, I will lobby USEF to get it allowed.I feel as if training to help more people become aware of potential abuse is a VERY GOOD thing - and it is absolutely asinine that our organizations are requiring it without ensuring all members can take it without a hardship for some.

For the record, in response to this:

<< NetG removed text of extreme right wing nonsense >>

I too fear that, as we saw it happened for too long with Nassar. Too often, there is shame and hiding of accusations instead of their being fully investigated. I don’t want to see innocent women, girls, boys, whomever, feeling as if they have to keep it in, then being run over and no honest investigation taking place as the abuser gets a pass on the behavior.

This is why I would ALWAYS go to the police, who are required to open an investigation, if I feared someone was suffering abuse - and why I lack trust any organization who is supposed to be looking out for our kids and doesn’t have actual trained law enforcement running it.

[vxf111]

I agree wholeheartedly that there ought to be a non-internet version and I’m just trying to drill down I. Who I should complain to and the specific requests that have been made. Access to the training should not be limited by one’s bandwith

[AZ_TD]

@vxf111

I agree wholeheartedly that there ought to be a non-internet version and I’m just trying to drill down I. Who I should complain to and the specific requests that have been made. Access to the training should not be limited by one’s bandwith

USEF

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@DownYonder

When our GMO board reported on it at the annual members meeting (they had just come back from the USDF convention), they said EVERYONE involved with a USEF competition had to take the training. Competitors, trainers, coaches, owners, competition staff and volunteers. They said competition organizers/secretaries were responsible for ensuring everyone could tick the box. I haven’t looked at the requirements myself so I don’t know if that is all correct.

Someone upthread insinuated that anyone against the SS training requirements must have a nefarious reason for not wanting to comply. At the board meeting I mentioned above, I was sitting next to several men who had brought their daughters to the meeting. They were quite concerned about the possible ramifications of the SS policy. In a side conversation, one of them said that his daughter chore-shares on weekends with another girl at the barn. Since the two girls live in the same neighborhood, the other girl’s parents take her to the barn in the morning, and when he takes his daughter at 1 pm, he picks up the other girl and takes her home. After hearing about the SS policy, he stated he would have to drop out of the ride-sharing arrangement as he didn’t want to be in a situation where he could possibly be falsely accused of some impropriety. While some may think he is being overly paranoid, I get where he is coming from.

I know that the intent is to protect minors from being taken advantage of sexually. But I also fear that there is a risk of innocent people being falsely accused (we all know that teenaged girls in particular can be very jealous and vindictive). And even if the accused is exonerated after investigation, there is damage done to his/her reputation.

So while I truly hope the SS policy works to prevent instances of a sexual misconduct, I also hope it doesn’t result in the innocent being “Kavanaughed”.

you mean the innocent being allowed to walk away from sexual assault?

Because Kavanaugh committing assault, getting away with assault, and then being made a supreme court justice, and all that, is hardly a comparison to a father driving his daughter’s friend home.

[trubandloki]

@right horse at the right time

is hardly a comparison to a father driving his daughter’s friend home.

I do believe the point being made in this situation is one that people have made in these threads, that it is only common sense to not put yourself in a situation that allows anyone to wonder.
So being alone with his daughter’s friend does not follow this rule.

[Maude]

Is this the new training you have to have in order to show in recognized competitions or is that something else?

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@trubandloki

I do believe the point being made in this situation is one that people have made in these threads, that it is only common sense to not put yourself in a situation that allows anyone to wonder.
So being alone with his daughter’s friend does not follow this rule.

I have followed the thread :).

My objection is the use of “Kavanaugh” to seemingly describe a situation that is innocent and one where a woman was sexually assaulted.

[BeeHoney]

I think that issues regarding access to Safe Sport training vs. arguing that you think Safe Sport is a bad thing are two entirely separate concerns. I also think that the argument that Safe Sport would somehow negatively affect a criminal investigation is not valid–Safe Sport has trained investigators that work WITH law enforcement. Safe Sport does NOT replace nor detract from a criminal investigation. That’s like accusing a school of interfering with a criminal investigation for suspending a teacher accused of molesting a child.

@DownYonder, I don’t fully comprehend why the dad in the example you give feels that Safe Sport is changing something for him. If he isn’t a USEF member, he is not under Safe Sport jurisdiction and nothing has changed. Even if he is an active USEF member, a false accusation related to him behaving inappropriately while driving another child home is as likely/unlikely as it ever was. I don’t think this dad’s concerns are really about Safe Sport. I think that more than likely he had a sudden awareness of the responsibility adults have when they are interacting with or taking responsibility for children and teens. There are plenty of single dads or stay at home dads of girls who also worry about perception issues as they deal with things like carpools and slumber parties.

[netg]

@poltroon

Going to take a moment to link COTH’s very useful article answering a lot of questions about SafeSport.

I live in a rural area and I am a longtime and frequent advocate for rural broadband. I can tell you stories for hours about connectivity issues and the cost to all of us and why it’s important. But I note that the complaints here aren’t so much about “I want to take this training and I’d like to make it more bandwidth friendly” or “here’s another reason I’m advocating for rural broadband” but more “as long as it’s inconvenient for anyone we really should scrap the whole requirement.”

Ask them to set up the videos on a better streaming server, if that’s what you need to do the training.

(Flash drives and DVDs are not an easy substitute; probably cost them less to fly the number of affected people to a group training.)

Y’all, I had to do the same kind of training with 4-H.

We need this.

http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/…port-questions

Ummm… I know the block function doesn’t work on this forum so you don’t have me blocked. So apparently you just didn’t bother to read and “know” because you have an opinion and want to project?

[DownYonder]

@right horse at the right time

you mean the innocent being allowed to walk away from sexual assault?

Because Kavanaugh committing assault, getting away with assault, and then being made a supreme court justice, and all that, is hardly a comparison to a father driving his daughter’s friend home.

I don’t really want to turn this into a political thread, but the fact that CBF declined to contact LE even after the hearings says loud and clear that she wasn’t sure enough of her story to pursue charges against BK.

And yes, the term “Kavanaugh’d” is being used in LE and elsewhere to describe a person accused by someone with not enough facts or credibility to make a case, yet the reputation of the accused is severely damaged in the process.

[DownYonder]

@ladyj79

Then I presume a dad like that would also disallow slumber parties or daughter’s friends visiting his home, since he would be equally open to accusations in those situations.

seems silly, but his choice.

I don’t know as that topic didn’t come up. But perhaps his wife is home during those situations, so he isn’t ever “alone” with one of the visiting kids.

[pluvinel]

@DownYonder

…

And yes, the term “Kavanaugh’d” is being used in LE and elsewhere to describe a person accused by someone with not enough facts or credibility to make a case, yet the reputation of the accused is severely damaged in the process.

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal…Neomi Rao Gets Kavanaughed
https://www.wsj.com/articles/neomi-rao-gets-kavanaughed-11548722089

So…just showing that “kavanaugh” seems to have become a verb in the popular lexicon.

[Silverbridge]

@pluvinel

In yesterday’s Wall Street Journal…Neomi Rao Gets Kavanaughed
https://www.wsj.com/articles/neomi-rao-gets-kavanaughed-11548722089

So…just showing that “kavanaugh” seems to have become a verb in the popular lexicon.

So the growing popularity of a word or phrase among deplorable people makes it inoffensive to normal people?

Disagree.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@DownYonder

I don’t really want to turn this into a political thread, but the fact that CBF declined to contact LE even after the hearings says loud and clear that she wasn’t sure enough of her story to pursue charges against BK.

And yes, the term “Kavanaugh’d” is being used in LE and elsewhere to describe a person accused by someone with not enough facts or credibility to make a case, yet the reputation of the accused is severely damaged in the process.

Are you serious??? Are you living under a rock?

The reputation of the accused?? He’s an effing supreme court justice and he has a long history of abuse of women. He’s hardly innocent And his reputation is damaged only by his disgusting behavior not only at the incident described but also his conduct in the hearings.

Disgusting.

[right_horse_at_the_right_time]

@Silverbridge

So the growing popularity of a word or phrase among deplorable people makes it inoffensive to normal people?

Disagree.

THANK YOU.

Disgusting.