Further, what about the false report setting in motion the wheels of CPS or whatever it’s called in NJ? Does the state effect repercussions against the false reporter?
While false allegations are rare, imo this case was exceptionally grievous, malicious, and with heinous ill intent which actually effected several lives in many ways. In MBs case maybe irreparably.
To ignore that would be a big mistake.
.
Someone contacts SafeSport about bullying and neglect of minors. SafeSport contacts that state’s child protective service. Adult accused of bullying and neglect shoots client twice on suspicion client contacted child protective service.
How are the organizations to proceed now? A report can be investigated and found to be unfounded though sincerely meant. A report filed as harassment that then turns out to find a different problem and danger of a mental breakdown? Perhaps the reporting was part of the trigger? Perhaps it was going to happen anyway, it was the victim’s unlucky day to piss of the person having a breakdown?
How to organization’s respond to such a complete cluster? What kind of investigation into a mental breakdown can determine the real factors?
It’s not a defense attorney swapping victims to defend his client. That is separate from what really happened internally and externally for this situation to occur.
A big question that is, understandably, still an
‘unknown’ for the public revolves around who the SafeSport report focused upon.
Was it just a report about MB?
Or did the report also focus on MHG, and involve accusations that she was a negligent mother, had her kids living in an unsafe environment, etc etc?
When DCPP showed up at the farm that day, the first person they spoke with was MHG. The second person they spoke with was RC. They had contact with MB during their visit… but interviewing him was apparently a lower priority.
Kind of noteworthy.
If there was a report focused on MHG being by a neglectful parent… it sure seems like that was a false report made for personal and vindictive reasons…
I can understand that declaring any report about MB was ‘unfounded’ is incredibly problematic at this point… given that he shot LK on 08/07/19.
But if there was a report filed which focused upon MHG… and her kids… and LK was the person who called it in… that is not so complicated. At all. And I would imagine SafeSport has a record of what the original report involved, and who actually called it in.
I do not think a “false accuser” should get a ban, as we are asked/expected to report any indication/rumor of bad behaviour. If someone is worried about having absolute proof before making a report, then a lot of bad behaviour will go unreported and uninvestigated.
Now if it is proven that the accusation was made out of spite or to waste Safesport’s resources, then that might be different, but then you are expecting Safesport to investigate that angle as well, which in itself wastes resources.
Hopefully, as people start to trust in the Safesport system, they will realize false accusations are a waste of time, and that people aren’t being banned without significant evidence.
Since this thread is about the perceived “weaponization” of SafeSport and false accusations, I would love to add a few things. We need to stop the completely misinformed idea that we have a false accusation problem. According to a study in USA Today 1 in 4 college athletes experienced sexual abuse at some point while competing in their sport. SafeSport surveyed 4,000 athletes in all the sports they represent. Of those who said they had experienced sexual abuse/misconduct - a whopping 93% did not report it. We know that at least 50% of all minors experience some form of sexual misconduct in their sport prior to their 18th birthday. I would also add after going through SafeSport, along side law enforcement at both the state and federal levels, I can confirm that SafeSport is very evidence based. One of the things that makes it so hard for SafeSport as well as law enforcement to prosecute assailants is that they are so evidence based and most sexual misconduct and abuse leaves very little tangible evidence. Last year I wrote a piece about our SafeSport experience in COTH. I am attaching a link here.
I don’t think the point of this thread is to debate if we have a false reporting problem or not. The point is what should happen when someone uses Safesport as a weapon and what to do about them ignoring it when someone is complained about, with evidence, by lots of people and it is ignored over and over again.
This is not fully true. The working student that was threatened by RG was a minor when it happened.
I’d like SS to take investigations as part of a whole. Good investigations take time and due diligence. There is no quickie formula. Due diligence is the first and a major step to determining the weaponized complaint from the sincere one.
Also, the report that led to the visit by DCPP on the day of the shooting involved allegations related to MHGs children.
Very important and very valid points.
The Barisone situation is an incredibly specific case. It does not appear that the children and minors involved, or any of their parents, EVER made any claims that they had experienced any kind of sexual abuse.
During the trial a lot of evidence was presented that another adult amateur at the farm had a serious toxic fixation with her trainer and his girlfriend. She (LK) engaged in a lot of very specific behavior in an attempt to harass her trainer. She posted extensive accusations on social media, including accusing him of insurance fraud. She called in the local building inspector and fire marshal to get issues in the barn and farmhouse identified, and the trainer fined and locked out of his own property. And she googled the local CPS anonymous hotline on her phone. But instead of calling that number, apparently called a report in to SafeSport.
All of this reporting/accusatory activity on social media and to different agencies took place within a very specific timeframe, of a little over one week, while the trainer was simultaneously asking this woman to move her horses from the farm, and leave the farmhouse (where she has been staying). He began an eviction process during that week.
Anyway… it’s a very weird and unique situation… and shouldn’t be conflated/confused with much more broad concerns about weaponized reporting. But with that said, in such a high profile case… it seems like maybe SafeSport should actually do their own investigation to look at whether or not their reporting process was intentionally abused.
If SafeSport actually looked into the issue of a possible abuse of their reporting process in this particular case… maybe it would reassure a lot of the sporting community that they do have robust internal checks and balances when it comes to the issue of false/weaponized reporting. And that people shouldn’t fear that will happen, and go completely unaddressed and uninvestigated.
Just a few thoughts. It’s a tough situation though, with various angles and concern with respect to unintended consequences…
Here, I fixed it for you:
Client pledges to ruin trainer’s life and launches campaign of threats, harassment, eavesdropping, etc. Client also files SafeSport claim against trainer for “bullying,” and accuses trainer’s spouse of neglecting children. SafeSport alerts child protective services, who come to farm to investigate trainer’s spouse. Trainer, who has been showing signs of severe mental distress and delusion due to harassment by client, suffers mental break and shoots client. Trainer is tried and found not guilty by reason of insanity.
The LK situation is an outlier. Rules are not and cannot be written to take into account very rare or original transgressions. Indeed there is not even a strong crinimal charge that could be levied on her behavior. Or on DH or the Maestro.
Rules altered to address outliers are often bad rules with uni tended consequences. I would be wary of anything that seems to penalize SS accusations that can’t be proven. The bar is already high for a teenager to face reporting a predatory coach.
I’ve also been following the SS cases and I don’t see any that deal with interpersonal conflict between adults.
That said, from what I’ve seen LK has behaved in a way that one would be justified in wanting to ban her from the dressage world. Unfortunately, I doubt that the horse community is cohesive enough to effectively shun her.
However, LK is on maintenance suboxone and I did see on these threads that this is a banned substance in competition. Arguably her drug addiction is a contributing factor to her bad behavior, since suboxone appears to have had side effects of sleepiness that made it difficult for her to train and compete. And drug use may have contributed to her cyclical explosions and paranoid behavior.
So since she admitted at the trial she is on suboxone, a drug test would keep her out of competition.
I think SS does need to think carefully about their options here. I also understand why they would do nothing until after the trial to avoid any appearance of victimizing the victim. It would be good if there was a way to ban her but it can’t come at the expense of precedents or new rules that could have unforeseen consequences to situations that are in the more normal range.
USEF is a membership organization, not a government agency. Being a member is a privilege, not a right. As long as they follow their own published procedures, they can punish someone for a code violation without worrying about getting sued (they may get sued, but it would be hard to sustain a claim). That said, USEF does very odd things with its process. I have seen them go after really stupid things but then not severely punish other things that I considered on a 10 times higher plane of bad conduct. If they have complaints on file, especially if the complaints came from MB and MHG and contained actual evidence, and they did NOT do anything about it, their process doesn’t make sense to me.
It is true that a drug test would find suboxone which is a banned substance.
I would think a drug test would be pretty much required now that she’s admitted to being a drug user.
I should hope so.
Could individual show grounds ban her from the properties?
I’ve seen this done before. Just something to consider if USEF doesn’t step up.
Absolutely yes. Especially with private property.
Yes. SW of DH was banned from venues in Florida. Unless you are at the county fairgrounds horse show venues are almost always private property.
I’m hazarding a guess that she had been taking this medication for some time, and as she was taking it while living it the farm, was presumably taking it while competing back then too. So either she was weaning herself off it in advance of each competition, or else was confident that human drug testing is so rare at national shows that she wasn’t likely to get caught. That’s also assuming it is a banned substance under USED rules. I don’t know whether it is.
Yes. The woman behind Dressage Hub, who has a history of behaviour similar to LK, was banned from the Global Dressage Festival show grounds in Florida. So it can certainly be done if the show is being held on private property.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
