Safesport - Aiding and Abetting

[ReSomething]

Mention PV and the Jaynes and Barney Ward pop into mind. Bad people.

[mvp]

@TheMoo

PV has been banned for ages and doesn’t participate in USEF sanctioned events. He does not come on the show grounds, he does not sign as trainer, he plays by the rules of his suspension. The fact that he still has clients is mind boggling but he is also proof that being banned by the USEF or safe sport has no impact on ones ability to continue holding clinics, running a barn and training riders. They just can’t do so under the auspices of the USEF or on property owned or leased by the USEF. Tom Navarro is another person who still runs a barn and coaches, Mitch Steege is another. Both banned by Safe Sport.

Wait a sec. Hold up! Can you please unpack this paragraph? I think it gets to the heart of what this thread is about.

1. Valliere is banned by the USEF and not by SafeSport, correct?

2. Valliere plays within terms of his long-standing USEF ban by not coming on USEF show grounds. But! Because the ban does not limit his off-the-show-grounds activity, the guy can still do all the business he likes, with anyone, including USEF members, so as it’s elsewhere.

3. It seems to me, then, that Valliere is not a “test case” for the Aiding and Abetting rule because that involves a SafeSport ban and not a USEF ban.

If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.

[TheMoo]

@mvp

Wait a sec. Hold up! Can you please unpack this paragraph? I think it gets to the heart of what this thread is about.

1. Valliere is banned by the USEF and not by SafeSport, correct?

2. Valliere plays within terms of his long-standing USEF ban by not coming on USEF show grounds. But! Because the ban does not limit his off-the-show-grounds activity, the guy can still do all the business he likes, with anyone, including USEF members, so as it’s elsewhere.

3. It seems to me, then, that Valliere is not a “test case” for the Aiding and Abetting rule because that involves a SafeSport ban and not a USEF ban.

If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.

Yes sorry. I did not mean to imply that PV was a test case for Safe Sport. Just an example of people needing to have rules like the ones created by Safe Sport to install a moral compass.

Steege is actually the best test case since despite being removed from the farm website, still is heavily involved.

[mvp]

@TheMoo

Yes sorry. I did not mean to imply that PV was a test case for Safe Sport. Just an example of people needing to have rules like the ones created by Safe Sport to install a moral compass.

Steege is actually the best test case since despite being removed from the farm website, still is heavily involved.

Is Mitch Steege married to Amanda Steege who is one of the donors to the Sports Equity (sorry to murder the name)-- the SafeSport reform group?

We seem to be a rather lawless and amoral lot, those of us who employ who we want (dead horses and molested children be damned). That’s not how I roll. Rather, I want to keep track of which pros in the industry live by decent values and which do not so that I can direct my money in the right direction.

[mroades]

That s her dad

[TheMoo]

@mvp

Is Mitch Steege married to Amanda Steege who is one of the donors to the Sports Equity (sorry to murder the name)-- the SafeSport reform group?

We seem to be a rather lawless and amoral lot, those of us who employ who we want (dead horses and molested children be damned). That’s not how I roll. Rather, I want to keep track of which pros in the industry live by decent values and which do not so that I can direct my money in the right direction.

Amanda is his daughter. Kathy is his wife and runs an IEA program out of their farm. I just can’t even with people sometimes.

I’m with you. I actually left my last trainer and refuse to ride with another one over their posts about “OMG we are being targeted as trainers!” Pretty sure it’s not hard to avoid compromising situations that involve allegations of molestation. Both those trainers are women by the way which I also find fascinating. Women are freaking out the most.

But what do I know. I’m not a pro.

[mvp]

@mroades

That s her dad

Thanks for explaining. I always want to be accurate and fair with praise or blame, money, and my words in public. I appreciate it when people who know more than I do help me be that decent citizen.

[Jenerationx]

Why do these trainers think anyone with a grudge is going to be able to take them down if they’re not molesting kids? If they follow the SS guidelines and aren’t alone with a minor in the barn, then it’ll be pretty easy for the allegation of someone vindictive (if that’s really even happening) to be proved false, the false reporter may be in trouble, and everyone goes on their merry way.

I was under investigation for how a call was handled at a previous job, (9-1-1 dispatch) and some coworkers were going on about how they were going to pull and listen to the call. I was anxious for them to please, please, pull the call and listen… because I know I did my job properly. A slight annoyance to be temporarily suspended from my job while investigated, sure, but I’m not going to gripe about being checked. We need checks and balances in every workplace. I was reinstated w/in 48 hours with back pay and received a letter of praise for what I did.

[roseymare]

@Jenerationx

Why do these trainers think anyone with a grudge is going to be able to take them down if they’re not molesting kids? If they follow the SS guidelines and aren’t alone with a minor in the barn, then it’ll be pretty easy for the allegation of someone vindictive (if that’s really even happening) to be proved false, the false reporter may be in trouble, and everyone goes on their merry way.

I was under investigation for how a call was handled at a previous job, (9-1-1 dispatch) and some coworkers were going on about how they were going to pull and listen to the call. I was anxious for them to please, please, pull the call and listen… because I know I did my job properly. A slight annoyance to be temporarily suspended from my job while investigated, sure, but I’m not going to gripe about being checked. We need checks and balances in every workplace. I was reinstated w/in 48 hours with back pay and received a letter of praise for what I did.

I have no idea why they think as horse trainers they should be exempt from the same procedures that investigations that other occupations undergo when there is any type of allegation made.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Gabriel Belluomini is also now on the list. But he still has an appeal opportunity. It seems like his program is also family oriented, with a daughter and granddaughter involved, and the grand daughter shows.

How are they going to address family owned farms like this, where multiple family members coach? It’s messy for sure.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@mvp

If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.

This is where the USEF membership need to step up at do what is right. If you have knowledge, information and/or proof that a banned person is participation or training a USEF member, than it needs to be reported. History has shown people looked the other way when they knew young girls and boys were assaulted. Safesport did its job to ban these people. Now help them enforcing the ban. Do the right thing. Show these people they are not entitled to do whatever they want. They should accept the consequences of their actions. Instead, they continue to think they won’t be touched and are entitled to teach, etc.
You are doing a disservice to the victims if you continue to look the other way.

[poltroon]

@Jenerationx

Why do these trainers think anyone with a grudge is going to be able to take them down if they’re not molesting kids? If they follow the SS guidelines and aren’t alone with a minor in the barn, then it’ll be pretty easy for the allegation of someone vindictive (if that’s really even happening) to be proved false, the false reporter may be in trouble, and everyone goes on their merry way.

It’s a great question. Do they feel this way about the USEF Hearing Committee? Also secret, also a big potential hassle. If they don’t drug horses or assault people at shows, are they worried that they’re one phone call away from losing everything? I just don’t get it.

(FWIW I actually have gotten a letter from the Hearing Committee before, charging me with acting as a trainer without paying my membership fees … in New York. I told them that it wasn’t me, that I hadn’t even been in NY at a horse show ever, and that was the end of it.)

Also, in case this wasn’t obvious, for those trainers who are worried, if you want to continue to be welcome in a sandbox with rules, I suggest not writing an autobiography (or for that matter a blog post) about how you’re above the rules, how you had thousands of sexual partners, how you took underage students out clubbing, how you got away with a drug infraction when you were on the D&M committee, etc. I’m not a lawyer, but friendly advice that I used to think we all knew.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Soooo, does anyone know whether the GHM clinic that Diane Carney was officially organizing is happening today in Illinois (I think)? Or was it canceled?

[mroades]

@Virginia Horse Mom

Soooo, does anyone know whether the GHM clinic that Diane Carney was officially organizing is happening today in Illinois (I think)? Or was it canceled?

I’ve been dying to know that too.

[OverandOnward]

@mvp

Wait a sec. Hold up! Can you please unpack this paragraph? I think it gets to the heart of what this thread is about.

1. Valliere is banned by the USEF and not by SafeSport, correct?

2. Valliere plays within terms of his long-standing USEF ban by not coming on USEF show grounds. But! Because the ban does not limit his off-the-show-grounds activity, the guy can still do all the business he likes, with anyone, including USEF members, so as it’s elsewhere.

3. It seems to me, then, that Valliere is not a “test case” for the Aiding and Abetting rule because that involves a SafeSport ban and not a USEF ban.

If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.

I have suspected that Valliere et. al. have served as the example of what SafeSport does not want as an outcome, what they had to find a way to prevent. That the ban hammer is lowered but the banned person is not smushed and is still out there as a part of the sport, even if at arm’s length. There may be cases in other sports as well, but I can’t imagine that any case is more definitive than the long-term outcome of Valliere & the horse-killer team.

I would not be surprised to find out that the ‘aiding & abetting’ clauses were crafted against the horse-killer case. To pass the quality test, it had to have hypothetically kept those gents out of the league (although of course their crime wasn’t SafeSport territory).

I have no idea if that is the way the rule was created, but it just seems to me that those were the holes that were plugged with the aiding and abetting rules. Including that what had to be stopped was outside of the USEF system.

[poltroon]

I doubt they were thinking about Valliere. Alas there have been many cases over the years in other sports where people looked the other way to get coaching from a BNT or to allow the family business to continue.

[OverandOnward]

@poltroon

I doubt they were thinking about Valliere. Alas there have been many cases over the years in other sports where people looked the other way to get coaching from a BNT or to allow the family business to continue.

If Valliere et. al. weren’t on the list, that would have been a hell of an oversight.

[poltroon]

@OverandOnward

If Valliere et. al. weren’t on the list, that would have been a hell of an oversight.

Remember, SafeSport was initially created because of high profile issues in gymnastics and swimming and there were high profile sexual abuse cases in other sports as well, like taekwondo, and in non-olympic sports like football. Equestrian isn’t front of mind.

[Bobby7]

Lisa Hammerschemidt is on the list as well but is subject to appeal.

[mvp]

@poltroon

Remember, SafeSport was initially created because of high profile issues in gymnastics and swimming and there were high profile sexual abuse cases in other sports as well, like taekwondo, and in non-olympic sports like football. Equestrian isn’t front of mind.

And for that reason, I’m not sure that the Aiding and Abetting rule, which comes from SafeSport and not the USEF will be applied to all members banned from the USEF for any reason. It would be shocking (and awesome) if the USEF took up the Aiding and Abetting prohibition, such that you could have your business destroyed for killing horses to collect insurance money. And it would be an impressive miracle indeed if that were applied to those old-time guys like Valliere starting now.