And the score is TheMoo 2 and Packy 0
9 Likes
And donât forget the $30 background check every three years! Thatâs a total of $230 to be a DC or Jt-DC over the course of three years (3x $60 corp, plus $20 SS and $30 background). Itâs already the most thankless job around, and having to pay to do this volunteer job just adds insult to injury. Luckily, my club makes it a given that the club will pay these costs, but Iâm sure thatâs not the case everywhere. Thereâs also a $100 âclub feeâ to the national office. If using club funds, multiply that times all the members of the club board, and thatâs a good chunk of money that could otherwise be going to use by the members.
1 Like
Bold mine - could you shout this out to the folks on FB who are saying that SS is taking away all the accusedâs rights and destroying them forever because they are being tried without due process!!! Because theyâre just not getting it in the back⊠This is not a criminal proceeding and does not follow criminal process. It is akin to a civil proceeding or an HR proceeding.
5 Likes
Just thinking about this, and maybe this is out of safe sportâs jusrisdiction, but hypothetically, if someone is banned for abuse of a minor/misconduct and they sell their business to a spouse/family member but their primary residence is still on property, how does that affect? Is that ok in safe sportâs eyes? It would seem athletes could still be potentially at risk. I know this is probably unique to equestrian sports, because hopefully your gymnastics trainer is not living in the gym.
Are they still allowed to be present in the barn as a non-employee?
It is shocking that people in the industry of the stature of GM and others are being investigated, found culpable and being banned for such behavior. But this is what happens when an organization begins to address a serious problem that has been in existence for a long time and was never adequately managed in the past. The dam bursts. There is a flood of allegations of very old situations â because those situations werenât addressed in the past.
That need didnât fade or vanish with time. It just built into a bigger and bigger problem affecting more and more people.
Thatâs where we are now. Had the organization handled all this properly back in the early days of the problem, it wouldnât have come to this now. We can only hope that these current high-profile cases discourage others from assuming that they too can get away with things, as they did under the old model.
It takes time to clear the backlog of unmet needs from so long ago. Once this very difficult transition is processed, the number of cases will ease to a flow of just the more recent incidents, so long as the process continues to be in force in a consistent manner. Much earlier intervention will help stop these situations before they can build and fester for so long.
Someone can be good with horses and bad with minors (and/or adults as well). Thatâs why we are so in need of the enforcement that the NGBâs in so many sports have shown they are incapable of performing.
Do those who object to Safesport think there has not been a problem with sexual misconduct in this industry?
Do they think that all of the accusers are liars and there is no foundation to any of it?
Or do they think that yes something bad happened, but that itâs not worth going after, and the victim is less important than maintaining the status quo?
What do they think that the accusers get out of making accusations that can ruin their own lives as well as the accused?
Just wondering.
18 Likes
It is eyeopening to read what people believe. Most feel that all of this âwas so long ago it doesnât matter anymoreâ and that the victims should âget over itâ. And then they start blaming the victims for bringing things to light because they should have spoken up as children. Because everyone believes children⊠Itâs really bringing to light just how corrupted the industry really is.
16 Likes
According to the SafeSport code:
E. Aiding and Abetting
Aiding and Abetting is any act taken with the purpose of facilitating, promoting, or encouraging the commission of Prohibited Conduct by a Participant.
Aiding and Abetting also includes, without limitation, knowingly:
- Allowing any person who has been identified as suspended or otherwise ineligible by the Center to be in any way associated with or employed by an organization affiliated with or holding itself out as affiliated with an NGB, LAO, the USOC or the Olympic Movements;
2. Allowing any person who has been identified as suspended or otherwise ineligible by the Center to coach or instruct Participants;
3. Allowing any person who has been identified as ineligible by the Center to have ownership interest in a facility, an organization, or its related entities, if that facility/organization/related entity is affiliated with or holds itself out as affiliated with an NGB, LAO, USOC or the Olympic Movements. - Providing any coaching-related advice or service to an Athlete who has been identified as suspended or otherwise ineligible by the Center.
5. Allowing any person to violate the terms of their suspension or any other sanctions imposed by the Center.
In addition, a Participant also violates the Code if someone acts on behalf of the Participant to engage in Aiding or Abetting, or if the guardian, family member, or Advisor of a Participant, including Minor Participants, engages in Aiding or Abetting.
SafeSport did go after the wife of a banned taekwondo coach after he sold the gym to her. She continued to run the business and he did coach there. So, I would say selling the business to a spouse who continues to conduct activities as usual, it is not okay. (but I am not a lawyer).
The banned trainer is Massachusetts has removed his name from their website and the property is no longer under his name, but if he is at all involved in the training of students, he and his spouse are in violation of the code. If he trains his daughter at the farm, they both are in violation. The vocal lawyers on FB have said SafeSport cannot control what you do at home, so I am sure no one will stop their behavior until it is reported and given some punishment. No remorse for the wrongs they committed, no amends to the victims, just continue to live in denial and be a self-centered, entitled person a ignoring the consequences of your actions; that seems to be the MO for banned individuals. Just try to figure a way around the rules, that is pretty typical of the equestrian world whether it involves the medication rule, green status, sexual misconduct, sales commission, etc. It definitely is not the posterchild sport for ethics.
5 Likes
The most surprising comment I saw was a very prominent female trainer publicly defending Jimmy Williams on FB by saying âyou should have seen the way those girls threw themselves at him!â as if an adult male is incapable of, you know, NOT having sex with a minor if she flirts with him.
15 Likes
Could you imagine if a teen was to step forward with allegations? The victim shaming from all sides would be Unbelievable. Peers would be taking, peers parents, the victims parents would be upset, other barns, the entire show community, the Internet. Many wouldnât believe them & blame the victim.
It would be more then a teen might be able to handle. This is why children wait till adulthood to come forward. To a teen, itâs almost better to live in silent shame then be the talk of the town.
This is why safe sport is needed.
22 Likes
It is an interesting wrinkle that some horse trainers live on the farms where they also run their business. Most other sports donât usually run into this problem. But I canât imagine that the âpeople get to do what they want because itâs their HOMEâ will fly. After all, no one ever said you had to/were entitled to living where you work. Make your home elsewhere and train your kids there if you want to.
Please identify these âmany lawyersâ and provide examples of their legal opinions with regard to SS.
I am seriously so very tired of the âmany people sayâ argument and how often it goes unchallenged.
13 Likes
I think you missed the point. It is not a trial and does not employ any of the safegaurds we require to ensure a fair process. There is no right to review, no right to confront the accuser, and the standard of proof is not of a certainty but only that one person finds it probable based on the evidence only they have gathered and seen in full. So we are allowing SafeSport to brand people as sexual predators without due process. SafeSportâs punishments are sometimes far more severe and lasting than those a court would impose on the same evidence. And it does this with no accountability.
Seriously? I havenât the time or patience to give you a constituional law education. Let it suffice to say that it is my opinion, having worked in the law for 30 years, that SafeSport is on shaky legal ground here. Many lawyers agree with me. Some donât. But that is why we would mark this issue as an âunsettled questionâ.
I am not ranting. As I have said in my written commentary and on the Chronicle podcast on this subject, there is no question that a person who is guilty of rape or child molestation is not welcome in sport. But the process we use to take away the right to attend sporting events and effectively take away someoneâs livelihood should be based on the same rights and protections used in a court of law. I have been an advisor to NGBs on how to reform the process to make it better, and am not asking for SafeSports destruction. I have been working to institute positive change for the last year. It is vital that the process improves before it is completely discredited and dismantled by law suits. There are many people like me working together to make this happen.
1 Like
I am not asking for constitutional law education thank you. And providing that education would not answer the very simple request I made.
I asked you to identify these âmany lawyersâ you have now twice claimed agree with your opinion about SafeSport.
11 Likes
No question that this is a worthy effort.
However, it leaves open the question of why you seem to feel that SafeSport is off the rails in its actions regarding George Morris and perhaps others as well. Is it truly that you just donât agree with the SafeSport process? Or do you also doubt the truth of the allegations, even after a long investigation by experienced professionals?
There is a disconnect between people such as yourself who donât find SafeSportâs investigations to be credible, and SafeSportâs description of these investigations as conducted by experienced, diligent professionals. Why do you find the investigations and resulting information not to be credible (aside from the rest of the process)?
Do you think any of those making allegations against any of those on the banned list are truthful, or are you of the position that most of those allegations are doubtful?
Hypothetically, if you feel an accuser is probably truthful, what should happen then?
This is what I donât get. Maybe I am misreading what you and others seem to be implying, but there seems to be a default assumption that most accusers are lying. I am just wondering why that is. Especially when the accusers seem to have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming forward. Especially if they go public.
15 Likes
In this case, given your long and expert experience, you know that the courts have not delivered justice to victims of sex crimes. What do you want to do about that? If your answer is ânothing,â then there has to be another institution and avenue for gaining that justice. But, again, being all expertly legal and all, you canât possibly argue that the best system of justice is one that categorically screws over a whole class of people. I think society at large is now deciding that the justice system has, indeed, demonstrated a shocking inadequacy when it comes to this class of crimes and it has had enough. I think the legal systems is just going to have to play some catch up, thatâs all.
In the USEFâs case, I think a more comprehensive ban than âjust canât come to USEF showsâ is required because of the way banned individuals are still in the business (which is what you want), but also still in the position to harm horses as they did (killing them in order to defraud insurance companies). I canât imagine defending the idea that a pro who has molested children not necessarily at horse shows; most likely at a home barn ought to have a ban that still allows him/her to train kids at a home barn.
This is, I believe, a situation that happened and was considered in the Gymnastics world and a reason for the broader, Aiding and Abetting part of SafeSportâs ban. And letâs not lose sight of this: The person who had his paychecks signed by the parents of kids only had to not sexually molest them. Thatâs all. Not hard and not an unreasonable nor unknown requirement of being in the profession.
13 Likes
You may not have read it, but I did consider the situation of a USEF member hiring the proverbial Perpy Pro (who has been banned by the USEF) to come teach a weekend. The unimaginable happens after the clinic on that Saturday night. In this case who cares about whatever fine or unhappiness the USEF delivers? The real problem for the clinic host and non-banned USEF host of the clinic is defending her choice of clinicians in the civil suit.
For anyone who wants to put some skin in the game and explain why the USEF and/or SafeSport are overstepping their bounds and should not be allowed to interfere with some barn ownerâs commerce in hiring Perpy Pro, I want to watch the trial.
3 Likes
The unimaginable might not even have to happen in that situation. All it would take is one parent who wasnât aware of the SafeSport charges/ban to find out that their child attended a clinic with Pervy Pro and was willing to go to the media and make a stink about the BO inviting this person to teach children. The bad PR could snowball and really take a lot of people down, especially since the parents would be talking to the outraged general public and not to the portion of the H/J crowd who doesnât seem to think thereâs anything wrong with that situation.
13 Likes
I also think the H/J crowdâs singular and very public push-back against SafeSport will be distasteful to most people. The industry at large has a habit of not being brought to heel very readily, whether you look at the horse-killing pros still making a living just outside the bounds of USEF shows, or the way itâs Just.So.Hard to keep the horsey set from cheating. To wit: look how baroque the amateur rules have to be. Thatâs because those rules had to be modified over and over and over to fill in some new gap someone insisted on finding. Or look at the constant work needed to develop new tests for drugged horses because the general prohibition of anything given with the intention to enhance performance doesnât stop us.
Presumably, this is a sport and all who are in it love the animals (as well as competition in the purest sense of that word). Clearly, however, we do not like to be regulated AND no amount of common decency or common sense will stop us. Now consider the public comments and the indifference to victimsâ suffering shown by this same group of people who will readily cheat amongst themselves and kill horses once in a while in pursuit of winning.
If you read the public responses to the information coming out about horse racing right now, whether about the deaths at Santa Anita, or the people talking about the extensive drugging in that sport (which is arguably better-regulated than ours), I think you can predict the publicâs reaction to a clinic host who decided that no set of rules-- ones of common sense or common decency, nor those of the USEF and not even the ones of an organization like SafeSport need apply to her.
9 Likes
