Tommy Serio back on Safe Sport list

[hey101]

@NoSuchPerson

I don’t see this at all. I think SS has actually been reasonably internally consistent, given that some of the situations they deal with fall within gray areas. A SS decision is, of necessity, a judgment call. There are going to be situational differences from case to case that are not going to be readily apparent to bystanders who are not privy to all the details of a case.

I see one consistent and glaring difference between those who generally accept SS decisions as legitimate and those who don’t and that is trust. Some people have looked at the law and looked at Safe Sport policies and practices and Safe Sport staffing and have concluded that Safe Sport can be trusted to hand down equitable decisions. Others have reached the opposite conclusion.

This might be because most folks here don’t agree that the “real solutions” being offered are indeed solutions to problems that truly exist. For example, maybe some folks think SS is already “following their own process every time,” at least as closely as they can, given the subjective nature of the process and situational differences between every case.

To me, the objections raised here against Safe Sport are almost always of the “Straw Man” type and/or very vague. To use your own example, “follow your own processes every time” is vague and non-specific. You might get more traction if you would give specific examples: Safe Sport rules say that they should always do X and in this case, Safe Sport did do X, but in that case, which was exactly the same kind of situation, Safe Sport did Y.

May I turn back to tables on you then. Pleae
give some examples of how they have been consistent in the entire approach, from initial notifications to investigation to ruling and subsequent hearing. They have all been different. And I see SS all over the map depnding on the person involved and very different applications of the “rules”. Which is what is making a lot of people very distrustful.
And this is the continued disconnect in these discussions. I have given what I thought were a few good examples. No one has commented on the guy who was on the list for three weeks and had no idea. The immediate reaction, from what I can ascertain is a few dedicated posters on a forum, is “you are wrong”. I see no attempt to say “hey that’s a good point “

it’s a losing battle IMO in these forums, there is an entrenched set of opinions that will not be swayed.

I respectfully ask that those who keep asking for “make SS better “ maybe come to the table with what they have heard and read in these forums, their own ideas that might improve the process to address some do the negative feedback.

if they don’t have any, I don’t think we can get any further here especially with all of our “talking heads” (myself included) bitching on a forum

[ladyj79]

So no, you aren’t going to engage in exactly the way that you said people should, you are instead immediately going to “turn the tables” in someone who asked you to clarify your position.

Neat.

Seriously are these really different people???

[YankeeDuchess]

@Horsegirl's Mom

Is every sexual relationship where there is a power imbalance between the two parties conclusively improper and therefore sanctionable under SafeSport? Or does there have to be some additional proof that the more powerful party used pressure tactics, that the sexual activity was unwelcome, or the like?

      I believe that, even when both parties are over the age of consent, SS code prohibits sexual (or intimate) relationships when there is an imbalance of power. Even if the relationship was welcome and no overt pressure was exerted, I think the principle is that such relationships are improper. 

        Think of the professor/student relationship, or patient/psychologist relationship. It’s not unusual for the student or patient to morph respect and desire for approval by the professor or psychologist into romantic attraction. The point is that it’s not fair for the person with the power to take advantage of that phenomenon. University codes and psychiatry professional standards would deal very severely with a faculty member or psychiatrist who slept with a student or patient, even if the student were an adult, and even if the student/patient swore they were consenting and even the aggressor. 

       So I think that a sexual relationship between a trainer and his employee or client is prohibited in principle. That said, I strongly suspect that whether SS “made a case out of it” and the severity of the sanction would depend greatly on various aggravating circumstances, like actually using the power for quid pro quo, or retaliation. I really doubt that SS would come down as severely as a University or the AMA would on a professor or doctor purely on the basis of the relationship if there were no aggravating circumstances like quid pro quo. 

        The only information released by SS is the nature of the violation — and in Serio’s case, it is sexual  misconduct in the context of a power imbalance, NOT sexual misconduct involving a minor — and the sanction. I’m inferring there were serious aggravating circumstances, based on the three year suspension.

[ynl063w]

@hey101

May I turn back to tables on you then. Pleae
give some examples of how they have been consistent in the entire approach, from initial notifications to investigation to ruling and subsequent hearing. They have all been different. And I see SS all over the map depnding on the person involved and very different applications of the “rules”. Which is what is making a lot of people very distrustful.
And this is the continued disconnect in these discussions. I have given what I thought were a few good examples. No one has commented on the guy who was on the list for three weeks and had no idea. The immediate reaction, from what I can ascertain is a few dedicated posters on a forum, is “you are wrong”. I see no attempt to say “hey that’s a good point “

How many people do you know have been investigated by Safe Sport that you are able to come to these conclusions? And you would have to know them well enough that they would share these details with you - if I were you, I would be more concerned with the quality of my friends than I would be of whether or not Safe Sport is conducting their investigations in a just manner.

Calling your examples “good” is a bit of a stretch. Other than GM, you didn’t even name the other one by name so no one can even attempt to look for more information to figure out what you are talking about. You also allude to a couple other potential cases, and complain that no one has turned in the perpetrators of those supposed transgressions, and yet you yourself haven’t done so. Your credibility regarding specific Safe Sport cases is right around zero.

[YankeeDuchess]

@Bascule Baby

25 year old “girl” or “woman” is a matter of semantics. So a violation is not a crime? I did not know. But a 3 year suspension to a pro who knows no other life is devastating. I have been away from this h/j world a long time. Heard about the suspension and asked my husband’s professional granddaughter and her husband (cross county) about SS. They were telling me all of the restrictions. No texting with minors, no traveling together without two adults. Just sounded overly protective to me. I wish no one ill will, but i have sincere reservations that the man i knew, who is now 70 and happily married, should be judged by bystanders.

SS is mostly but not exclusively concerned with protecting minors from bullying, abuse and sexual abuse.

As far as I know, if a professor engages in a sexual relationship with a student over the age of consent, that is not a violation of any state or federal law. It’s not a crime, at least in my state. However, the professor would probably be sanctioned by his/her university for violating its code of behavior. Probably fired. In the same way universities, the AMA, the ABA have codes of ethics that prohibit some things that are not crimes, the SS code prohibits some things that are not crimes.

The “rules” about not texting minors (actually including an adult in the text thread) and having two adults present so an adult is never alone with a minor are partly to protect minors, but also to protect the adults from “the appearance of impropriety”, or, to put it more bluntly, from false accusations.

Again, I’m not judging Serio. He was investigated by SS, they found the allegation of misconduct credible, and I find SS credible.

[YankeeDuchess]

@hey101

thank you for a measured and reasonable response. I am going to completely ignore the pissing match currently ongoing with a few posters. Not interested.

i think it would be helpful for some of the people on both sides (or, many of us in the middle) to take a deep breath and come back to understand the spectrum of opinions on this.

I see three basic categories (highly simplified): SS sucks full stop. SS is perfect and if you don’t support you are a bad person. And a large number of people in the middle who, like our political process, don’t identify with either side and keep trying to offer suggestions but are being drowned out by the radicals at the extremes of both positions.

we may have to agree to disagree on what constitutes a “ major” breech. It’s pretty easy to sit back and say “well GM didn’t constitute an immediate threat so of course he didn’t go on interim” but there have been a number of people who have come off and on the interim list that might feel otherwise. I can think of two Eventers in this category.

with respect to the comments on “limited interactions”, this goes directly to the heart of many peoples’ issues on the lack of transparency. No one actually knows. Why is this person being treated specially, and “limited interactions” leaves vast area for interpretation on someone being able to continue to work and earn a living.

with respect to your comments on statutory rape, this has been brought up quite a few times In Various social media discussions I’ve read. SS is uniformly applying a standard across all states where actual legal rules in that state are different . You can’t have it both ways. This is the issue that many people have with SS- it appears they are picking and choosing how to apply laws and regulations.

I keep seeing heated requests for “offer real solutions” to fix SS. But yet when people actually try to (ie follow your own process EVERY time?!!) I’m seeing a lot of “no you are wrong and you are a child molester/supporter if you think otherwise” instead of “hey I am trying to hear and understand and let’s try to calmly discuss what is reasonable and fair for all parties”

     Re: interim suspensions for some.  I think it makes sense to have an interim suspension when the person poses a risk, but otherwise not. That is the “rule” that applies for everyone. It is unavoidable that whether a person is deemed a risk is then decided on a case by case basis. So your eventer friend you think posed less of a risk than George Morris. A judgement call needs to be made, and not everyone is going to agree.

      Statutory rape:  The age of consent varies by state. If the sexual relationship with a 16 year old occurred in a state in which 16 was the age of consent PRIOR to the introduction of SS, you’re OK. As of about 2018, SS considers it a violation to have sex with someone under the age of 18, even if the age of consent is lower in that state. But it’s not retroactive. Makes sense to me. SS is a national code, not a state code. 

        None of the SS supporters on this thread is claiming that SS is perfect. I tend to be skeptical of the claim by AES people and the Safe Sport Reform group that they are actually interested in constructive suggestions to improve SS, as opposed to attempting to undermine SS.

[YankeeDuchess]

@hey101

May I turn back to tables on you then. Pleae
give some examples of how they have been consistent in the entire approach, from initial notifications to investigation to ruling and subsequent hearing. They have all been different. And I see SS all over the map depnding on the person involved and very different applications of the “rules”. Which is what is making a lot of people very distrustful.
And this is the continued disconnect in these discussions. I have given what I thought were a few good examples. No one has commented on the guy who was on the list for three weeks and had no idea. The immediate reaction, from what I can ascertain is a few dedicated posters on a forum, is “you are wrong”. I see no attempt to say “hey that’s a good point “

it’s a losing battle IMO in these forums, there is an entrenched set of opinions that will not be swayed.

I respectfully ask that those who keep asking for “make SS better “ maybe come to the table with what they have heard and read in these forums, their own ideas that might improve the process to address some do the negative feedback.

if they don’t have any, I don’t think we can get any further here especially with all of our “talking heads” (myself included) bitching on a forum

As NoSuchPerson said, it’s impossible to address your complaint about unequal treatment unless you give specific examples.

Further, even if the rules are the same and applied consistently, the details of the cases are different, so some people are interim suspended and some not. Almost no details are made public, so how are you, or anyone, in a position to second guess their decisions? The only entity that can do that is the independent arbitrator.

The guy who didn’t know he was on the list for three weeks is easy. SS notifies people by email. If you don’t check your email, you won’t know.

[Atlas_Shrugged]

@FitzE

Hmmm, and yet do not know the difference between prey and pray or that people from many native-English speaking countries other than your own use different English spellings. I’m doubting the legal and the medical license! :lol:

Or I’m really worried for your clients/patients.

I have it on good authority that you are neither -

[poltroon]

@Bascule Baby

I have been in Tommy’s show barn. Who here has? Whether it happened or not the girl was 25,not a child. This is a lynching.

I’m sure this is difficult, even devastating news to people who know him, who care about him, or use his services. However, please don’t use the word “lynching” again without learning what it actually means. It’s stunningly inappropriate in this context.

[poltroon]

@Bascule Baby

But a 3 year suspension to a pro who knows no other life is devastating.

Agree. This is not an action to be handed out lightly. I am certain that the people who chose it are well aware of this - just as the Hearing Committee is when they set down trainers for long suspensions due to various misbehavior.

Being the victim of a sexual assault is also devastating. In a community like ours, where the perpetrator is a Very Important Person, it could make the victim’s line of work or favorite pastime completely impossible. The person on the short end of a power imbalance, in particular, is threatened usually with never being able to work in the industry again, and generally never has the resources to just pick up and walk away - they’re counting on the person of power not blocking money they need to support their horse, pay their rent, buy food. Traditionally, victims of this sort don’t get a formal 3 year suspension; they get permanent exile with no fanfare, and if they’re lucky win years of expensive therapy to recover. If they object, they may even get public shaming about how this person was obviously broken and scheming, which could chase them forever.

If you’re a young professional, all you know is horses, you have $50 in the bank, and the nationally known trainer who is on your resume is now your predator, you’re going to have to find a new way to make a living. And it’s not even for something you did wrong, but rather something done to you. You know no other life. It is devastating, to give up on your career and probably also your dreams.

People change their lives because of events like these; it’s just that because they aren’t already “important” we don’t hear their stories. Or if we do, we fail to recognize how trauma changed the course of their life.

Disclaimer: I know nothing about the facts of this particular case, only that SafeSport has done an investigation of some significant duration and given what is for them a pretty significant sanction. My scenario here is only to counter the idea that only the pain of the accused is important or relevant or worthy of our consideration.

[poltroon]

@Bascule Baby

Heard about the suspension and asked my husband’s professional granddaughter and her husband (cross county) about SS. They were telling me all of the restrictions. No texting with minors, no traveling together without two adults.

These are standard practices for all youth organizations now - scouting, 4-H, schools, youth soccer, you name it.

[Bogey2]

@Bascule Baby

Tommy catch-rode my OTTB for me at 2 KY shows about 16 years ago. My horse did not behave well and at no point did Tommy recommend drugging or lunging to death. In fact, my older trainer even asked it there was something we could give my horse that wasn’t yet deemed to be illegal. Tommy said no. I also spent some time around Tommy in Florida. I have never seen him to be anything but a gentleman and consummate horseman. My big question is would he risk his livelihood and life for drugging or dalliances? I think not.

this is hardly “knowing” someone…
I support SS because I know I will never be accused of anything they are concerned about. George Morris is a classic example of someone who got away with a lot of shit because of who he was and how people kissed his ass.

[dags]

@Bascule Baby

Tommy catch-rode my OTTB for me at 2 KY shows about 16 years ago. My horse did not behave well and at no point did Tommy recommend drugging or lunging to death. In fact, my older trainer even asked it there was something we could give my horse that wasn’t yet deemed to be illegal. Tommy said no. I also spent some time around Tommy in Florida. I have never seen him to be anything but a gentleman and consummate horseman. My big question is would he risk his livelihood and life for drugging or dalliances? I think not.

I mean, it’s entirely possible he didn’t want to risk his livelihood for 2 shows on a ship-in client’s OTTB with behavioral problems.

[BAC]

@dags

I mean, it’s entirely possible he didn’t want to risk his livelihood for 2 shows on a ship-in client’s OTTB with behavioral problems.

Exactly what I was thinking, most pros don’t even want an OTTB in their barn, much less one with behavioral issues.

[Midge]

@BAC

Exactly what I was thinking, most pros don’t even want an OTTB in their barn, much less one with behavioral issues.

Tommy actually likes TBs.

[Bascule_Baby]

Would a catch pro rider be in trouble if they rode a horse that the regular trainer drugged?

[ladyj79]

@Bascule Baby

Would a catch pro rider be in trouble if they rode a horse that the regular trainer drugged?

I believe tori was not sanctioned but bridget was?

But I think that took a hearing?

this is why some of “these people” try to not have their name on entry forms, like they were putting grooms names down as trainers so that when they got busted they could say what?! Nope, I would never! That shady groom!

[staceymc]

@Bascule Baby

Would a catch pro rider be in trouble if they rode a horse that the regular trainer drugged?

Not that I’ve ever seen. One of the horses at Derby Finals failed a drug test last year. The horse does not live with the rider - it’s stabled with its trainer and I believe the pro just rides it at shows. I saw the hearing results where the trainer was fined, etc. and the owner had to return all prizes and monies. But as far as I am aware there was no repercussions for the rider.

[YankeeDuchess]

@ladyj79

I believe tori was not sanctioned but bridget was?

But I think that took a hearing?

this is why some of “these people” try to not have their name on entry forms, like they were putting grooms names down as trainers so that when they got busted they could say what?! Nope, I would never! That shady groom!

  On the dressage entry forms, the owner, rider and trainer must sign. The “trainer” is the person responsible for the horse on the show grounds, so when I show, I sign as rider, owner, and trainer. My actual trainer would sign as “coach”, but that is optional. But we dressage prople are really not into drugging horses. If there were an issue, I assume whoever signed as “trainer” takes the heat.

[poltroon]

@Bascule Baby

Would a catch pro rider be in trouble if they rode a horse that the regular trainer drugged?

It used to be whoever signed as trainer was considered responsible, and no one else. USEF changed that rule when they were getting a distinct sense that some riders and owners were aware of and/or directing cocktails as well as the fact that it had become a dodge to get an assistant or someone less critical to the operation to sign in that spot on the form. Now USEF can go after anyone that the evidence suggests played a role.