Safesport - Aiding and Abetting

[Sswor]

@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?

Quietly cancelled.

[kirbydog]

@ReSomething

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

The OLD Jayne family were bad people. Alex and Linda worked really hard to raise their children as upstanding people. I know all of them, and they are good people, with an unfortunate last name.

[poltroon]

@mvp

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.

USEF sits in a different legal space than the US Center for Safe Sport and may not have the standing to do that over those old cases.

On the other hand, if those cases happened now, you could make a case about the bullying and intimidation that happened around some of those people, and SafeSport might be able to act in a similar future scenario. Valliere hurt horses but I’m not aware that he was dangerous to people in the same way that some of the now-dead conspirators were, who otherwise might be subject to SafeSport now.

[equestrian_mom1]

@mvp

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.

In the land of civil lawsuits I am also curious as to whether or not USEF, affiliate organizations, barn owners, horse show / clinic organizers) can be held liable (as a third party responsible/negligent third party) when continuing to allow participation by individuals that have been sanctioned by the Center for SafeSport and/or USEF.

In the grand scheme of things, I would hope that any and all of the people/organizations who are allowing perpetrators to remain involved realize that they could be held responsible in a civil suit. In many cases where the attacker doesn’t have any assets that could cover compensation for physical and/or emotional damages, victims could be looking for third parties that could be held responsible. Many of the barns and facilities that host clinics are owned by wealthy third parties and I am certain that they would not want to be included in any lawsuits arising from trainers allowing sanctioned individuals to remain involved on their properties. Most certainly the “Mr. Doe’s” that were previously mentioned are not going to take kindly at being placed in this sort of legal nightmare.

IMO, allowing sanctioned individuals to remain active in the sport, you are placing yourself directly responsible the next time they assault another student, working student, or spectator.

[mvp]

@equestrian_mom

In the land of civil lawsuits I am also curious as to whether or not USEF, affiliate organizations, barn owners, horse show / clinic organizers) can be held liable (as a third party responsible/negligent third party) when continuing to allow participation by individuals that have been sanctioned by the Center for SafeSport and/or USEF.

In the grand scheme of things, I would hope that any and all of the people/organizations who are allowing perpetrators to remain involved realize that they could be held responsible in a civil suit. In many cases where the attacker doesn’t have any assets that could cover compensation for physical and/or emotional damages, victims could be looking for third parties that could be held responsible. Many of the barns and facilities that host clinics are owned by wealthy third parties and I am certain that they would not want to be included in any lawsuits arising from trainers allowing sanctioned individuals to remain involved on their properties. Most certainly the “Mr. Doe’s” that were previously mentioned are not going to take kindly at being placed in this sort of legal nightmare.

IMO, allowing sanctioned individuals to remain active in the sport, you are placing yourself directly responsible the next time they assault another student, working student, or spectator.

I believe I contemplated a couple of scenarios where a BO might find themselves held liable-- both because he/she might have deeper pockets than the traveling clinician, and because he/she would have to explain to a jury why she elected to hire someone so bad that that clinician had been banned by the sport’s NGB. The NGB (the USEF in this case) does not have to face the same question because it must ban those members. But I suppose that the USEF could be held liable for not properly enforcing the kind of boundaries between banned bad actors and vulnerable students that SafeSport’s required ban and its Aiding and Abetting rule is meant to get done. And you only have to look at lack of that kind of protection offered in the history of the AHSA and USEF to see why this NGB** needs the supervision and toughness of SafeSport’s policies.

** I don’t think the USEF is extraordinarily lax in comparison to sports’ NGB, plus an institution no less than the Catholic church. But all of those failures are a disappointing common place. Time to shape up and, apparently, it takes an outside, dedicated organization to get this done.

[Mara]

As I read through this thread and the multiple hypothetical scenarios, one thought is foremost in my little grey cells…

If you’re aware that Jane Doe or whoever is aiding and abetting Pervy Pro…report directly to SafeSport. Do not pass Go, collect $200, and for the love of all that is holy do NOT make the report to USEF with any expectations that USEF will do the right thing. I wouldn’t take Vegas odds on it.

[trubandloki]

@Groom&Taxi

Tangential, but this really ticked me off. I have a USE fan membership that was free which I was able to use to access the SafeSport training, but the idea that Pony Club thinks it is fine to add a $20 requirement for me to be able to volunteer for them really does not sit well.

Only certain positions are required to complete this. Not every one, certainly not every volunteer. (At least that is how it has been explained to me.) The positions (DC, etc) who in the past had to do a background check now also have to do Safe sport.
If you are volunteering to teach some lessons or hold a gate at a rally you do not have to complete it.

[packy_mcgaughan]

SafeSport argues that it has very broad authority to control people. It wants sexual predators completely out of the sports it oversees and for us to have no contact whatsoever with them for the rest of their lives. They do not have jurisdiction to control those they ban outside of the NGB context. Instead, they threaten the NGB members with sanctions unless we all actively shun the banned individual. That is how they further their cause.

Many lawyers working in this area of law believe that if challenged in court, the aiding and abetting rule would not hold up to scrutiny if applied to those who sponsor clinics or hire banned individuals to teach them.

The jurisdiction of SafeSport begins and ends with the organizations and competitions as defined in the Ted Steven’s Act. Private activities that have no nexus to the USEF other than that the actors are members should not be covered. So simply sponsoring a lesson or clinic opportunity should.not put the member at risk.

For rule to apply, there would most likely have to be some improper contact between a banned individual and a student facilitated by a USEF member. In that way the non banned person would be an accessory to further misdeeds and could be sanctioned by the USEF for their part in making the act possible. So if the person banned is still in a position to harm athletes through abusive training or sexual misconduct, a USEF member shires them atbtheirnown risk. But if the banned person is not a threat to anyone or the facts of their case do not relate to the job they have been hired to do, there should be no issue.

I am struck that people are giving SafeSport the full force and credit of a court of law when it is the farthest thing from it. Simply put, SafeSport determines who may and may not participate in specific USOC sports when they have been accused of misconduct that threatens athletes. Safesport does not have the authority to place a person on the sexual offender registry for very good reasons. The accused are not found guilty or innocent of a crime. Rather, Safesport’s investigators determine that a person probably did what they are accused of doing. And that something need not necessarily be a crime for SafeSport to render your right to compete forfeited for life.

[TheMoo]

@packy mcgaughan

SafeSport argues that it has very broad authority to control people. It wants sexual predators completely out of the sports it oversees and for us to have no contact whatsoever with them for the rest of their lives. They do not have jurisdiction to control those they ban outside of the NGB context. Instead, they threaten the NGB members with sanctions unless we all actively shun the banned individual. That is how they further their cause.

Safe Sport does not say you can’t have contact with those banned. Quit being dramatic and by all means stay friends with people who have inappropriate relationships with minors.

Many lawyers working in this area of law believe that if challenged in court, the aiding and abetting rule would not hold up to scrutiny if applied to those who sponsor clinics or hire banned individuals to teach them.

Who are these many lawyers? I have yet to have an Appellate Attorney say the law is unconstitutional. If you don’t agree with Safe Sport and the USEF enforcing the ban by all means drop your membership or start your own club where you decide the rules.

The jurisdiction of SafeSport begins and ends with the organizations and competitions as defined in the Ted Steven’s Act. Private activities that have no nexus to the USEF other than that the actors are members should not be covered. So simply sponsoring a lesson or clinic opportunity should.not put the member at risk.

So you want to let the banned Morgan trainer Jim Gorgio, who fully supports your efforts, and who was also convicted in a criminal court to be allowed to host clinics with kids? Got it

For rule to apply, there would most likely have to be some improper contact between a banned individual and a student facilitated by a USEF member. In that way the non banned person would be an accessory to further misdeeds and could be sanctioned by the USEF for their part in making the act possible. So if the person banned is still in a position to harm athletes through abusive training or sexual misconduct, a USEF member shires them atbtheirnown risk. But if the banned person is not a threat to anyone or the facts of their case do not relate to the job they have been hired to do, there should be no issue.

At an entirely adult barn full of non-USEF members they can do the job they were hired to do.

I am struck that people are giving SafeSport the full force and credit of a court of law when it is the farthest thing from it. Simply put, SafeSport determines who may and may not participate in specific USOC sports when they have been accused of misconduct that threatens athletes. Safesport does not have the authority to place a person on the sexual offender registry for very good reasons. The accused are not found guilty or innocent of a crime. Rather, Safesport’s investigators determine that a person probably did what they are accused of doing. And that something need not necessarily be a crime for SafeSport to render your right to compete forfeited for life.

As to your last few sentences, it’s always been a crime to sexually assault, molest, or rape kids. So not sure what you think could get you a life time ban that’s not necessarily a crime.

And again, instead of continually ranting about Safe Sport, please start laying out possible solutions. It’s all well and good to complain and ask for change but no one cares if you also don’t have solutions.

[Sswor]

Let the person most eager to fight it in court hold the first clinic.

[Jo]

I haven’t read the entire thread, but how is it handled if a trainer or facility owner marries someone who is suspended under Safe Sport?

[poltroon]

@Jo

I haven’t read the entire thread, but how is it handled if a trainer or facility owner marries someone who is suspended under Safe Sport?

It’s not that you can’t be friends with them, go out to dinner with them, marry them, etc. It’s just that you can’t use your name to hide the fact that the banned individual is actually the person training the students.

Lots of people manage to run their businesses, horse and otherwise, without the input of their spouse.

Let’s remind ourselves of a situation where this might happen.

Say your brother owns a gymnastics facility and was found to have molested athletes. He sells it to you.

Now, if you take over the training and hire assistants, that’s all fine. You can own and operate the gym.

If instead you own it as a figurehead and he’s the one actually coaching the kids, you’re enabling him to molest more children. That’s not fine.

[Jo]

@poltroon

It’s not that you can’t be friends with them, go out to dinner with them, marry them, etc. It’s just that you can’t use your name to hide the fact that the banned individual is actually the person training the students.

Lots of people manage to run their businesses, horse and otherwise, without the input of their spouse.

Let’s remind ourselves of a situation where this might happen.

Say your brother owns a gymnastics facility and was found to have molested athletes. He sells it to you.

Now, if you take over the training and hire assistants, that’s all fine. You can own and operate the gym.

If instead you own it as a figurehead and he’s the one actually coaching the kids, you’re enabling him to molest more children. That’s not fine.

Makes sense - thank you! This has come up locally and it’s the first I’ve really given any thought about how it is handled.

[TheMoo]

@Sswor

Let the person most eager to fight it in court hold the first clinic.

But they won’t. The president of Athletes for Equity canceled her clinic with GHM. Wouldn’t you think the president of such a group would have the conviction to fight it? I mean she’s got the pro bono help of Florida’s most illustrious equine/ambulance chasing attorney.

That’s why all the crying and feet stomping fall flat with me. The people who really believe Safe Sport needs an overhaul aren’t ballsy enough to be the test case. They just want to fund raise and cry online about how it’s not fair.

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

@trubandloki

Only certain positions are required to complete this. Not every one, certainly not every volunteer. (At least that is how it has been explained to me.) The positions (DC, etc) who in the past had to do a background check now also have to do Safe sport.
If you are volunteering to teach some lessons or hold a gate at a rally you do not have to complete it.

I am glad you pointed out that the Pony Club safe sport requirement does not apply to ALL volunteers as I would hate to be the source of a rumor/myth.

It happens that I am a senior member as well as DC of a very small pony club. In terms of national dues and fees, it costs $155 for my personal senior membership and another $60 for the corporate membership that the DC has to have (club typically pays if funds available). That already feels like double dipping to me - so to get hit with another $20 really did not sit well.

[trubandloki]

@Groom&Taxi I agree, that would not have sit well for me either. I did not mean to negate that frustration.

I Just wanted to point out that it does not apply to everyone because it was something I had to get clarified. When I first read this change I thought it did apply to everyone.

[LexInVA]

@Bobby7

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

According to the Spotsylvania Sheriff’s office, in July, she was drunk driving with a child passenger in the vehicle, hit another vehicle, and fled the scene before being pulled over and arrested, just South of Fredericksburg. I doubt she will appeal.

[Midge]

@LexInVA

According to the Spotsylvania Sheriff’s office, in July, she was drunk driving with a child passenger in the vehicle, hit another vehicle, and fled the scene before being pulled over and arrested, just South of Fredericksburg. I doubt she will appeal.

Ah. This is the one ZM was raving about all over Facebook.

[dannyboy]

@LexInVA
Lisa’s case may not be quite that black and white. I know Lisa has had prescription drug abuse issues in the past and this may be another of those incidents, rather than drunk driving involving alcohol. She may be able to bargain the charge down by agreeing to enter a substance abuse program and in that case, may well get off with less-than-a-lifetime ban. So I believe she will appeal - probably based on the outcome of her court case.

She is someone I’ve known for many years, so that one hit me right between the eyes. Nevertheless, I believe the ban was appropriate. I’m just glad no one was injured.

Who is ZM? That’s one I can’t identify.

[LexInVA]

@dannyboy

@LexInVA
Lisa’s case may not be quite that black and white. I know Lisa has had prescription drug abuse issues in the past and this may be another of those incidents, rather than drunk driving involving alcohol. She may be able to bargain the charge down by agreeing to enter a substance abuse program and in that case, may well get off with less-than-a-lifetime ban. So I believe she will appeal - probably based on the outcome of her court case.

She is someone I’ve known for many years, so that one hit me right between the eyes. Nevertheless, I believe the ban was appropriate. I’m just glad no one was injured.

You may be correct, but the recorded location of the arrest was right outside of the shopping and dining hub of Cosner’s Corner/Southpoint. Based on the filed charges and the date of the offenses in relation to when she was charged, it looks as if she went out to dinner, got drunk or mixed her prescription pills with alcohol, then got behind the wheel with one or more children in the vehicle and hit someone as she left the shopping area, drove down Richmond Highway and quickly got pulled over not very far from the shopping and dining area, and was immediately taken into custody, to face charges and a judge in the morning. Though she is a first-time DUI offender, the reckless endangerment of a child/child abuse is going to be the charge that sinks her ship with a SafeSport torpedo, if one or more children in the vehicle were injured from her DUI and accident, which may be the case. Alternatively, her DUI may be the sole reason she was charged with that and no child was injured. Either way, the charge will end her career if it doesn’t go away.

ZM is probably someone we don’t want to know about.