Safesport - Aiding and Abetting

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@packy mcgaughan -

a sincere question for you. Why does the existing process involving a hearing in front of a professional, independent arbitrator, which is available to those banned by Safe Sport, not allay your concerns?

Is there a way to focus in on that part of the Safe Sport legislation, and process, and change certain elements about how the appeal procedure works, that you feel might result in more fair process? Can you give an example of a way in which that process could be altered so that it would result in better protections for those who hypothetically have been wrongly accused, and then banned by Safe Sport? Or provide better protection for those who have been potentially credibly accused, but then subjected to a corrupt or unprofessional or incompetent investigation process by Safe Sport, and subsequently banned?

I’m trying not to argue with you and get into a debate on other aspects of Safe Sport that we likely don’t agree on, but actually understand why the appeal process involving an independent arbitrator does not satisfy you, or allay your stated concerns.

[OverandOnward]

The thing I wonder about with the crowd that seems to feel that everything SafeSport is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, is this:

Do they truly believe that the banned persons are innocent?

Or do they think that even if the charges are true, it just isn’t important enough to merit this?

Those are two completely different arguments. And depending on whose influence prevailed, two very different paths forward. If it is the first, then a better process is needed to recognized innocence. If the second, then there is no need for SafeSport at all.

That’s what I’m not comprehending - which is it? SafeSport is needed, but needs to be better … or there needs to not be a SafeSport or anything else like it because what SafeSport investigates doesn’t really matter?

[ladyj79]

most of these people have openly said repeatedly that it was a “different time” and having sex with young teenagers was both common and socially acceptable, and remember all the kids were fighting with mom over who could screw the trainer. they all wanted it, and it was cool, and if we were anybodies, we would get it.

IE disgusting garbage.

[2bayboys]

Well, here is one lawyer’s opinion:

http://equestriancounsel.com/whoever-stands-george-sit-shut-usef-needs-stand-speak/

[OverandOnward]

@ladyj79

most of these people have openly said repeatedly that it was a “different time” and having sex with young teenagers was both common and socially acceptable, and remember all the kids were fighting with mom over who could screw the trainer. they all wanted it, and it was cool, and if we were anybodies, we would get it.

IE disgusting garbage.

Of course this is just my own experience of ‘back in the day’, but what I remember is that certain relationships were ‘understood’, assumed to be consensual, happy and very cool, and no one was going to stop the party to ask more questions. That would not be cool.

I feel like there is a cadre of onlookers who are still in this mindset. It is so uncool to out George Morris, even though they had a fairly good idea about his relationships with his young male staff.

People knew so little then about the dynamics of exploitive relationships between people of unequal power and status (and age difference), unless they had some past personal experience to go by. There was enormous social pressure to go along with what BNT’s wanted. And, classically, certain kids and young women did have the characteristics that predators target, that make them less well positioned in the community and more vulnerable to being exploited. “Working student”, much? How about “few independent resources, no parent on the premises, and therefore dependent on the trainer”?

It could be such an ugly situation and it often seemed that only a few adults truly understood how ugly it was. Those did what they could to run interference as their only means of protecting kids and young women who were targets.

If a BNT was ‘caught’ in an inappropriate relationship and outed, it was tutted over, but soon conveniently forgotten, so people would not have to think about changing trainers. I never heard of LE being involved although there were times when they should have been.

And for my experience this was all before Title IX, so many girls did do horses as their ‘sport’ (although most schools refused to recognize it).

[Alterforme]

This might be a silly analogy, but, the horse world is small… so, I compare it to the social hierarchy of a high school .
The upper level & upper rich( George Morris level) are the popular kids. ( they think they can do what they want, that rules don’t apply) they will win at all costs. They have huge egos. Drugging horses, taking advantage of children, bad horse sales, etc, etc. the upper level folk think they are the cool kids. They think they can do what they want & no one can touch them. People look up to them & they feel superior.
Now, SS has come along… like a new principal in a school that doesn’t give out free passes. Their time is up & they are fighting against it, with the safe sport reform & iswg.
*not all are bad, but I’m just making a simplified analogy.

[Keep_it_Simple]

@OverandOnward

The thing I wonder about with the crowd that seems to feel that everything SafeSport is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, is this:

Do they truly believe that the banned persons are innocent?

Or do they think that even if the charges are true, it just isn’t important enough to merit this?

Those are two completely different arguments. And depending on whose influence prevailed, two very different paths forward. If it is the first, then a better process is needed to recognized innocence. If the second, then there is no need for SafeSport at all.

That’s what I’m not comprehending - which is it? SafeSport is needed, but needs to be better … or there needs to not be a SafeSport or anything else like it because what SafeSport investigates doesn’t really matter?

In my experience, many people believed the person was innocent. “He would never do that… whatever it is they said he did.” Never inappropriate with them, therefore is is impossible he was ever inappropriate with someone else. Others acknowledge it might have happened, but it was common and still is. These people do not know the allegations. The only information they have was trainers had/have relationships with their students.

I am against all the gory details coming out. I believe the Reporting party’s identity should not be revealed to the general public. Part of me thinks if the information was shared some people would support the bans, however, I think others will forever find an excuse for it. These people that say only 1 person, many years ago… would it matter if it was 2, 5, 10? Some maybe, others would still keep their heels dug in and give another excuse.
“It was a long time ago and a different time” - I agree, lots of things in life were different. Some 17 year old did have sex with their trainers, but not all of the Reporting Parties were willing participants. Not all “got rides on good horses”. Some were just abused. Some did get away from that trainer, but not soon enough.
People don’t like their world turned upside down or to hear a person they looked up to is actually a monster. Accepting that they are a monster would cause them to question who else may have deceived them.
Others fear SS coming after them as we know there are many more people out there that participated in relationships with minors.
And finally, I think many others are against it because of their own action (or lack of action) and having to face the fact they did nothing to protect children.

I think what many people want is more transparency. They want the facts of the case. What they don’t realize is if this process was made more public, more people would know exactly what disgusting, vile things these trainers did. Victim shaming will always occur and people will always deny what they don’t want to believe regardless of the facts presented to them.

[oreo_mom]

Let’s pretend the horse world is not as narrow minded as these comments suggest. Also let’s pretend we are not the ONLY sport being watched over by SS. Many other sports are affected by this travesty and there are many many stories of people who have lost their livelihood because someone has been offended. Yes really

Imagine if SS actually investigated in a timely manner the claims of victims, not shelving “til a later date”!

It’s time for people to be informed and reach their own conclusions. Maybe it needs to be explained on a lower level and perhaps people will find out it’s going to be a problem at all levels!

Dads out there— be careful of giving rides to your daughters friends!

Moms — be careful of giving rides to your son’s friends.

Stop repeating yourselves and wake up!

[ladyj79]

@oreo mom

Let’s pretend the horse world is not as narrow minded as these comments suggest. Also let’s pretend we are not the ONLY sport being watched over by SS. Many other sports are affected by this travesty and there are many many stories of people who have lost their livelihood because someone has been offended. Yes really

Imagine if SS actually investigated in a timely manner the claims of victims, not shelving “til a later date”!

It’s time for people to be informed and reach their own conclusions. Maybe it needs to be explained on a lower level and perhaps people will find out it’s going to be a problem at all levels!

Dads out there— be careful of giving rides to your daughters friends!

Moms — be careful of giving rides to your son’s friends.

Stop repeating yourselves and wake up!

Huh?

Again, cannot tell if this fear mongering is meant to be sarcastic or straight…

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

@oreo mom - seems like you are closely following Bonnie Navin’s most recent public post concerning Safe Sport not investigating reports from victims in a timely enough manner.

Interesting. You commented earlier about attorneys offering legal advice.

Also interesting.

[Virginia_Horse_Mom]

Uuytytb

[oneequestrienne]

@2bayboys

Well, here is one lawyer’s opinion:

http://equestriancounsel.com/whoever-stands-george-sit-shut-usef-needs-stand-speak/

Wow!

[oneequestrienne]

@OverandOnward

Of course this is just my own experience of ‘back in the day’, but what I remember is that certain relationships were ‘understood’, assumed to be consensual, happy and very cool, and no one was going to stop the party to ask more questions. That would not be cool.

I feel like there is a cadre of onlookers who are still in this mindset. It is so uncool to out George Morris, even though they had a fairly good idea about his relationships with his young male staff.

People knew so little then about the dynamics of exploitive relationships between people of unequal power and status (and age difference), unless they had some past personal experience to go by. There was enormous social pressure to go along with what BNT’s wanted. And, classically, certain kids and young women did have the characteristics that predators target, that make them less well positioned in the community and more vulnerable to being exploited. “Working student”, much? How about “few independent resources, no parent on the premises, and therefore dependent on the trainer”?

It could be such an ugly situation and it often seemed that only a few adults truly understood how ugly it was. Those did what they could to run interference as their only means of protecting kids and young women who were targets.

If a BNT was ‘caught’ in an inappropriate relationship and outed, it was tutted over, but soon conveniently forgotten, so people would not have to think about changing trainers. I never heard of LE being involved although there were times when they should have been.

And for my experience this was all before Title IX, so many girls did do horses as their ‘sport’ (although most schools refused to recognize it).

Everyone around me knew and nobody gave a damn.

[mvp]

@OverandOnward

The thing I wonder about with the crowd that seems to feel that everything SafeSport is doing is wrong, wrong, wrong, is this:

Do they truly believe that the banned persons are innocent?

Or do they think that even if the charges are true, it just isn’t important enough to merit this?

Those are two completely different arguments. And depending on whose influence prevailed, two very different paths forward. If it is the first, then a better process is needed to recognized innocence. If the second, then there is no need for SafeSport at all.

That’s what I’m not comprehending - which is it? SafeSport is needed, but needs to be better … or there needs to not be a SafeSport or anything else like it because what SafeSport investigates doesn’t really matter?

I think there is a third argument or inspiration in which people feel that, while everyone good and decent doesn’t want children to be raped*, their friends are being singled out for their misdeeds** and made into exemplars which equals “scapegoats.”

• “children raped” is the (maybe) worst, perhaps most glaringly obvious kind sexual abuse one can imagine. When people think of themselves and their friends as “good, ethical people,” they can be sure that no one did anything as plain as rape a child.

**Of course, that leaves lots of “other things” that might have been done. There are a myriad of misdeeds out there that you might not like to happen to you or your kid. Or there are things you vaguely knew about many years ago (“George being George” with an eye roll) but you learned to let that roll off you and kept breathing so whatever uneasiness or straight out aplomb you felt at the time faded. But so long as no one asks anyone to split hairs about those “misdeeds” being on the far side or the near side of that threshold between merely unsavory and unacceptable, they can continue to be “good people” and also think of their somewhat pervy friends as also being good people.

You can add in, if you like, a bunch of people who haven’t gotten the short end of the stick very often in life (after all, the horsey set is not, generally speaking, composed of the descendants of slaves. And lots of Americans really like to think of themselves a self-made, requiring neither help nor regulation. And they find it either honestly difficult or painful to try and get into the victim’s shoes and walk a mile. So they just can’t muster sympathy for a victim, even though they remain “good people” in their estimation of themselves.

So this is all a way of explaining that those apparently technical debates about SafeSport being better or worse than the justice system at protecting potential victims, are really about identity-- who we think we and our friends or idols are in light of some hard truths.

[oneequestrienne]

@ladyj79

Huh?

Again, cannot tell if this fear mongering is meant to be sarcastic or straight…

I sincerely hope it is sarcastic…

[mvp]

@2bayboys

Well, here is one lawyer’s opinion:

http://equestriancounsel.com/whoever-stands-george-sit-shut-usef-needs-stand-speak/

That’s Armand Leone. A bid for the other side of the business than that courted by Bonnie Nevin.

[oneequestrienne]

@mvp

That’s Armand Leone. A bid for the other side of the business than that courted by Bonnie Nevin.

Yes, I noticed. In this case, I’d rather be on the same side as Armand Leone.

[OverandOnward]

@Alterforme

This might be a silly analogy, but, the horse world is small… so, I compare it to the social hierarchy of a high school .
The upper level & upper rich( George Morris level) are the popular kids. ( they think they can do what they want, that rules don’t apply) they will win at all costs. They have huge egos. Drugging horses, taking advantage of children, bad horse sales, etc, etc. the upper level folk think they are the cool kids. They think they can do what they want & no one can touch them. People look up to them & they feel superior.
Now, SS has come along… like a new principal in a school that doesn’t give out free passes. Their time is up & they are fighting against it, with the safe sport reform & iswg.
*not all are bad, but I’m just making a simplified analogy.

IMO you nailed it.

@mvp

…
So this is all a way of explaining that those apparently technical debates about SafeSport being better or worse than the justice system at protecting potential victims, are really about identity-- who we think we and our friends or idols are in light of some hard truths.

The rest of your post as well, but especially this … IMO you nailed it, too.

And very probably these points apply to the other sports as well. It takes a lot of resources to stay immersed in the competitive aspect of any sport, and a lot of time that might otherwise go to income-earning activities. Even a sport where the competitor can fit all the gear they need to actually perform into a lunch box.

[2bayboys]

@mvp

That’s Armand Leone. A bid for the other side of the business than that courted by Bonnie Nevin.

Yes, Dr. Armand Leone. Whose brothers Peter and Mark are not exactly slouches either in the elite H/J world.

[Midge]

@2bayboys

Yes, Dr. Armand Leone. Whose brothers Peter and Mark are not exactly slouches either in the elite H/J world.

Nor was he, BITD.