Stallion Spotlight

Total Hope-11-18-09-3662

Real Estate Spotlight

Main-Barn-Bench-to-end2
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Rob Gage

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by DMK View Post
    RugBug not to my knowledge, but my post allowed for both types of banning, because I think if you couldn't enforce one, I'm not sure what you could do to enforce the other.
    Agree... I brought it up because I am unsure if previous lifetime bans (pre-SS or those outside of SS parameters) included any verbiage around that ban excluding activities outside of USEF shows.

    It matters to me for two reasons:

    1. Is it really okay that an SS ban can so readily be skirted? I think that is what the aiding and abetting section is trying to curtail. I really hate hearing people say 'it's only USEF shows. They can still teach, give clinics, go to non-USEF shows." That is a huge limitation of SS in my book. If someone deserves a ban, IMO, it should be from the entire industry. Abuse doesn't stop because you can't go to a USEF show. You want the ban to have teeth? Enforce 'aiding and abetting' rules. Fine people who train or clinic or show with permanently banned people.

    2. If the outside activities were not expressly prohibited in situations like PV, well, he's doing nothing wrong by having a business. Of course, there's the whole 'sending people to shows with other trainers', etc issue that is totally skirting the ban, but just the act of doing business is not prohibited.
    Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
    Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

    Comment


    • Originally posted by FiSk123 View Post
      [
      My first question is this: How are you (and the other moderators) addressing the spread of misinformation about constitutional rights, SafeSport policy and individual cases (such as Rob Gage's and John Coughlin's) within the group?
      The number of posts that state the accused does not know who is accusing them is just amazing.

      And the number of people who clearly do not understand that they are not going to prison, they are being kicked out of a club.

      Oy.
      *****
      You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by RugBug View Post

        Agree... I brought it up because I am unsure if previous lifetime bans (pre-SS or those outside of SS parameters) included any verbiage around that ban excluding activities outside of USEF shows.

        It matters to me for two reasons:

        1. Is it really okay that an SS ban can so readily be skirted? I think that is what the aiding and abetting section is trying to curtail. I really hate hearing people say 'it's only USEF shows. They can still teach, give clinics, go to non-USEF shows." That is a huge limitation of SS in my book. If someone deserves a ban, IMO, it should be from the entire industry. Abuse doesn't stop because you can't go to a USEF show. You want the ban to have teeth? Enforce 'aiding and abetting' rules. Fine people who train or clinic or show with permanently banned people.

        2. If the outside activities were not expressly prohibited in situations like PV, well, he's doing nothing wrong by having a business. Of course, there's the whole 'sending people to shows with other trainers', etc issue that is totally skirting the ban, but just the act of doing business is not prohibited.
        I completely agree regarding the skirting. I don't think that is OK. It's also a problem in racing-- racing hands out suspensions frequently. For the big operations, a suspension is almost a joke. The assistant trainer pulls a trainer's license and it's business as usual as all the horses run under the assistant's name while the trainer "disappears" for the duration. When the suspension is up, trainer steps back in and everything goes back to normal.

        Every time I consider solutions, the horse factor becomes the biggest issue. In racing, stricter polices could negatively impact innocent living animals.

        So I don't know what the answer is for USEF. What I have learned from this thread is how little impact SS bans are having on some people and their businesses. I find that most concerning and alarming and I don't know the best way to go about fixing it. I understand a lot of people think the solution is getting rid of SafeSport; I disagree there.
        Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

        Comment


        • Originally posted by RugBug View Post


          1. I think that is what the aiding and abetting section is trying to curtail. I really hate hearing people say 'it's only USEF shows. They can still teach, give clinics, go to non-USEF shows." That is a huge limitation of SS in my book. If someone deserves a ban, IMO, it should be from the entire industry. Abuse doesn't stop because you can't go to a USEF show. You want the ban to have teeth? Enforce 'aiding and abetting' rules. Fine people who train or clinic or show with permanently banned people.
          I don't disagree with you, BUT that it is actually being skirted is just an interpretation, and not even an interpretation made by the governing body. But two things that are absolute in this universe:

          1. Regulatory/legislative/rule wording is often not clear and almost as often is challenged on intent.
          2. if it is intended to act as a complete ban, it wouldn't be the first time a regulation/law/rule is unenforceable as intended/written.
          Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

          Comment


          • From USHJA:
            Dear Fellow USHJA Members,

            SafeSport: It can be the topic that divides us or brings us together. Amongst all the discussion and controversy, I believe that we can agree that youth must have a safe environment in which to learn and grow. It is also important to recognize that each member deserves fairness and integrity in all that our sport provides. Horses give riders wings and the opportunity to practice leadership, sportsmanship, empathy, compassion and teamwork.

            Amidst the many questions regarding SafeSport, I met with Michael Henry, acting chief officer for response and resolution from the U.S. Center for SafeSport (“The Center”). USHJA Executive Director Kevin Price, USHJA’s General Counsel Marianne Kutner, and I had a chance to ask Mr. Henry many questions regarding the processes that The Center has adopted.

            The Protecting Young Victims from Sexual Abuse and Safe Sport Authorization Act was signed into law in 2018, establishing the U.S. Center for Safe Sport. This came about after some National Governing Bodies were found to have turned a blind eye to sexual misconduct within their sports.

            SafeSport is a reality for the USHJA. We are bound under the Act for two reasons: the first is because Jumpers are part of the Olympic Movement; and second, we are an Amateur sports organization that participates in interstate athletic competition and our members include adults who are in regular contact with minor athletes.

            One of the greatest concerns expressed by our membership is the extent to which fair and adequate procedural safeguards are afforded in the SafeSport process. Mr. Henry said that the SafeSport code calls for “fair notice and an opportunity to be heard.” He described that process in detail and the information is also available on The Center’s website. We further questioned the extent of the procedures provided prior to issuing a Temporary Suspension and Mr. Henry described it as follows:

            When a complaint is received by The Center, a Temporary Suspension can be issued after an examination of three criteria:
            1. The severity of the accusation. Mr. Henry’s example was that “a pat on the butt,” although inappropriate, does not rise to this level. In general, this involves sexual abuse of a child and the sexual abuse is conducted in a way to put other minors at risk.
            2. The sufficiency of evidence. This often comes in the form of multiple claimants.
            3. Whether there is relative risk to the participants and/or the community. In general, this comes because the accused is continuing to interact with or train minors.


            If these three criteria are met, the Temporary Suspension is issued in the form of a notification to the respondent and their sport federation. At that time, the respondent is offered a 72-hour window to ask for a hearing.

            If a hearing is requested, it is typically conducted within 24 hours. The Center contacts JAMS (formerly known as Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) and an independent arbitrator is assigned to the hearing. The arbitrator is not connected to The Center. The Center’s attorney presents an opening brief and the respondent, or their attorney, testifies. The arbitrator makes the decision as to whether the Temporary Suspension is upheld.

            We asked Mr. Henry if The Center would consider a delay in adding a person to the list until after the hearing. His answer was that The Center, knowing that in their opinion the preponderance of the evidence supported a Temporary Suspension, would be uncomfortable having the respondent in the environment where they could potentially abuse another minor. The Center’s investigators are former FBI, Children’s Services, NCIS, and Title IX investigators, as well as judges and prosecutors. They receive additional training in sexual abuse cases.

            It is our understanding that the USEF has scheduled a meeting with The Center to explore modification of the process of placing individuals on the Temporary Suspension list. On the surface, that may feel more comfortable to some, especially when the violation occurred many years in the past.

            In the past 10 days, I have received several calls from people who as minors were victims of a sexual assault 20-plus years ago. To them, the assault is fresh in their mind and the trauma has had a profound effect on their life. It is possible that the person who assaulted them has become a better person and that they are no longer a threat to minors. However, if the respondent is still in a position where he or she poses a potential threat to minors, that postponement of publication to the Temporary Suspension list may have serious consequences.

            It is important for all of us to strike a balance for our sport. Mr. Henry has shown me that he is willing to listen to ways in which the SafeSport code can be improved. We will meet with The Center as necessary and will press for change where change is appropriate.

            As I continue to meet with The Center, I will keep you advised as to any further information or substantive changes. In the meantime, I hope that you will continue to send me feedback, concerns and questions regarding SafeSport at mbabick13@gmail.com. Please remember that reports of abuse should go either to The Center or to law enforcement.

            Serving you is our top priority, which means doing what's best for our members, supporters and our sport. Together, we can make sure that our sport is safe for all our members. Thank you for your membership. I truly appreciate it.

            Sincerely,
            Mary Babick
            USHJA President

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DMK View Post

              I don't disagree with you, BUT that it is actually being skirted is just an interpretation, and not even an interpretation made by the governing body. But two things that are absolute in this universe:

              1. Regulatory/legislative/rule wording is often not clear and almost as often is challenged on intent.
              2. if it is intended to act as a complete ban, it wouldn't be the first time a regulation/law/rule is unenforceable as intended/written.
              Had SS made a statement on what the 'aiding and abetting' interpretation is? I've seen people, including myself, hazard guesses, but what is the official stance? Because the interpretations have different ramifications...and for me, one of them I can support (full industry ban) vs. the other, while I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, so to speak, just makes me wonder what is really being accomplished.

              For those interested, below are the SS definitions of Participant and outline of Aiding and Abetting:

              If Safesport defines participant as:

              Originally posted by SafeSport Code for the USOPM

              J. Participant 1. Any individual who is seeking to be, currently is, or was at the time of the alleged Code violation:
              • a. A member or license holder of an NGB, LAO, or USOC;
              • b. An employee of an NGB, LAO, or USOC, and/or;
              • c. Within the governance or disciplinary jurisdiction of an NGB, LAO, or USOC.
              • d. Authorized, approved, or appointed by an NGB, LAO, or USOC to have regular contact with Minor Athletes.
              and considers Aiding and Abetting to be (bolding mine..and what I think become the crux):

              Originally posted by SafeSport Code for the USOPM
              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:
              • 1. 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.
              • 4. 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, inc
              Aside: for those that think I should email SS for a response, I feel like we've heard how overwhelmed they are with cases...and just saw some numbers surrounding the volume. I'm not going to take up their time with my inquiry just so I can feel better about something I by and large agree with.
              Last edited by RugBug; Jul. 3, 2019, 02:17 PM. Reason: getting all the list/B tags right
              Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
              Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

              Comment


              • Originally posted by khobstetter View Post
                At a recent show a child fell off her pony, she was not hurt but extremely upset and just wanted to be hugged. Her parents were in the stands and the first person she saw at the back gate was her trainer who she ran to...he held away her by her shoulders and tried to comfort her while she cried, finally a women trainer knelt down and hugged her. Back at the barn everyone and friends hugged her, she sat on someone lap and was sad. I had a conversation with the trainer and he said he was 'afraid' to hug her in case someone wanted to 'get at him' and falsely report to SS. He was not concerned about what happened - he was concerned he would be caught up in a mess that could cost him his career.
                Which one do you think will haunt the child further:

                not getting a hug after a fall

                or

                being molested without a safe venue to report the behavior ?

                It's rhetorical.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by khobstetter View Post
                  . He was not concerned about what happened - he was concerned he would be caught up in a mess that could cost him his career. We now have several documented situations where that happened, usually by false accusations.

                  Who has received a lifetime ban or "lost their career" for publicly hugging a child?

                  Or to address the real question, who has lost their career due to what you perceive to be false allegations through the safe sport process?

                  It is not rhetorical.
                  Last edited by ladyj79; Jul. 3, 2019, 02:57 PM.
                  Let me apologize in advance.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post


                    Who has received a lifetime ban or "lost their career" for publicly hugging a child?

                    Or to address the real question, who has lost their career due to what you perceive to be false allegations through the safe sport process?

                    It is not rhetorical.
                    Based on the posts I see, Rob Gage. Still just that one girl from 35 years ago when Rob was 20 and she was 17.
                    *****
                    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Midge View Post

                      Based on the posts I see, Rob Gage. Still just that one girl from 35 years ago when Rob was 20 and she was 17.
                      Midge, are you saying that in your estimation Rob Gage was banned due to a single consensual relationship he had at 20 with a 17yr old who has since accused him of sexual misconduct under safe sport? And also that those accusations have been documented as false?

                      Just making sure I'm understanding your comment.


                      Let me apologize in advance.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Midge View Post

                        Based on the posts I see, Rob Gage. Still just that one girl from 35 years ago when Rob was 20 and she was 17.
                        I read somewhere that he had just turned 18 and she was one month shy of turning the same. He was banned for holding her hand in public... At church. And SS banned him anyway!

                        (above mockery is directed at the nut job people on Facebook, not the survivors or the situation itself.)

                        The story of the trainer who refused to publicly console a crying child is moronic. Maybe if all the up-in-arms innocent people in horse sports spent a few more minutes reading the rules than spreading misinformation and gossip, they wouldn't have to worry about whether or not SS could wreck their lives. They'd see that they have nothing to worry about.

                        A mass of educated, rational people at horse shows or on social media? Dare to dream...
                        Last edited by Tiramit; Jul. 3, 2019, 09:56 PM.
                        "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right." -Henry Ford

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                          Midge, are you saying that in your estimation Rob Gage was banned due to a single consensual relationship he had at 20 with a 17yr old who has since accused him of sexual misconduct under safe sport? And also that those accusations have been documented as false?

                          Just making sure I'm understanding your comment.

                          It's sarcasm.
                          Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                          Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                            Midge, are you saying that in your estimation Rob Gage was banned due to a single consensual relationship he had at 20 with a 17yr old who has since accused him of sexual misconduct under safe sport? And also that those accusations have been documented as false?

                            Just making sure I'm understanding your comment.

                            It was sarcasm. But I understand not seeing that as so many people seem to believe stories like this to be true! When that happens one tends to turn off their sarcasm meter.

                            Comment


                            • Indeed, but the question to Kathy still remains.
                              Let me apologize in advance.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                                Midge, are you saying that in your estimation Rob Gage was banned due to a single consensual relationship he had at 20 with a 17yr old who has since accused him of sexual misconduct under safe sport? And also that those accusations have been documented as false?

                                Just making sure I'm understanding your comment.

                                Not what I think, but what most of the Safe Sport Overhaul group thinks. Nevermind that the math doesn't work, the four women who came forward after the Oaks GP, or that even his friends say he had issues.
                                *****
                                You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Midge View Post

                                  Not what I think, but what most of the Safe Sport Overhaul group thinks. Nevermind that the math doesn't work, the four women who came forward after the Oaks GP, or that even his friends say he had issues.
                                  which is why I quoted Kathy's post and asked her to clarify her statements regarding the multiple people who've lost their careers to false allegations lodged with safe sport. I suppose we'll all be waiting a good long while.
                                  Let me apologize in advance.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by RugBug View Post

                                    It's sarcasm.
                                    sarchasm, to be precise.
                                    Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by DMK View Post

                                      sarchasm, to be precise.
                                      That was my favorite Sniglet of all time.
                                      Oh, well, clearly you're not thoroughly indoctrinated to COTH yet, because finger pointing and drawing conclusions are the cornerstones of this great online community. (Tidy Rabbit)

                                      Comment


                                      • Categories: Attorney Discipline, Disbarments
                                        James Edward Kroetch [#95434], 68, of Orinda was disbarred effective August 22, 2018, ordered to notify clients of the discipline and perform other obligations under rule 9.20 of the California Rules of Court. Kroetch was convicted of a misdemeanor count of possession of child pornography, a crime involving moral turpitude. Kroetch was found to have possessed thousands of images and videos of sexual acts with children, which he shared online with others. Kroetch had no prior record of discipline.
                                        So for all those asking for more information on the exact meaning of "sexual misconduct with a minor" in order to determine the validity of the suspension - do you need to know exactly what type of porn this lawyer was found to have to know if his disbarment was "worthy"? No? Then why does it matter what the exact misconduct in RG's case was?
                                        Only two emotions belong in the saddle: One is a sense of humor. The other is patience.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by bugsynskeeter View Post

                                          So for all those asking for more information on the exact meaning of "sexual misconduct with a minor" in order to determine the validity of the suspension - do you need to know exactly what type of porn this lawyer was found to have to know if his disbarment was "worthy"? No? Then why does it matter what the exact misconduct in RG's case was?
                                          SS opponents on FB would probably argue the "child pornography" was just images of coaches hugging their students after they fell off their ponies.
                                          Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X