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

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

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.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our 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:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- 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.

Services -- 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.

Products -- 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.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

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

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

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.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full 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

Safesport - Aiding and Abetting

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

    #21
    Ages ago I found and linked this article on the main GM thread, from a sports insurance company advising its clients on SafeSport compliance.

    https://www.sadlersports.com/new-saf...organizations/

    Which non-NGB sport organizations are required to comply?


    Non-NGB sports organizations include those teams, leagues, camps, sports facilities, tournament hosts, churches, and schools that participate in interstate or international amateur athletic competitions, and whose membership includes any adult who is in regular contact with an amateur athlete who is a minor.

    The reach of the federal act is limited to organizations that are engaged in interstate or international commerce or activities. Interstate competition refers to sports organizations that travel across state lines to compete. But even those that do not travel across state lines are indirectly impacted by the act because it sets a new standard of care that will likely apply to all organizations. Most states will also move to pass state-specific legislation that directly applies to sports organizations that do not cross state lines.
    Direct application includes mandatory reporting, mandatory prevention training, and mandatory prevention policies.

    They have additional advice for their non-NGB clients:

    The Safe Sport Act has been criticized for not requiring other prevention procedures for non-NGB sports organizations. However, in addition to limiting one-on-one interactions, a well-written child abuse/molestation risk management program will incorporate other more specific prevention policies such as:
    • Requiring the presence of more than one adult at every activity
    • Having a take-home/pick-up policy to prevent one-on-one situations with a child who was not picked up by parents after practice
    • Defining appropriate touching of a child
    • Avoiding socialization with participants outside of sponsored activities
    • Avoiding overnight sleepover social functions.
    They make available several sample policies and handouts, free by the way; you don't have to be their client. But they're putting people on notice that these are now the new expectations and standards of care likely to be applied to any organization that includes youth, interstate or not.

    Quite simply, failure to comply with a federal statute meant to protect the public safety is negligence per se and an easy win for the claimant. Under the Act, the claimant may bring a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court. They can recover actual damages or liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000 and the costs of the action including reasonable attorney’s fees. The court may also allow punitive damages.

    Insurance carriers offering coverage for sex abuse / molestation may demand compliance with the Safe Sport Act as an underwriting requirement as a pre-condition of coverage.
    If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

    Comment


      #22
      Here’s another HYPOTHETICAL scenario about how aiding and abetting someone like GM (who is now on the permanently banned list with USEF and Safe Sport might play out if HYPOTHETICAL uber wealthy, and prominent hunter jumper world personality and barn owner “Jane Doe” from my other example decides to host a bunch of clinics and continue leading her own personal ISWG rebellion.

      Let’s say Jane hosts her clinics with GM, and the BNT who she personally bankrolls and ALL of that trainers clients are happy and participate. No one sits off to the side quietly grinding their teeth, and no one rats anyone out. And it’s all really fun and successful and boy are they sticking it to USEF. So they actually start hosting 4 clinics a year to support GM. And other ISWG people quietly attend... because the clinics are so so awesome. And they are all fighting the good fight. Plus, they’re at the top of their game, and the coaches and riders involved in Jane’s Farm’s discreet clinics are all winning everything. Absolutely everything. Maybe it’s because of the great coaching... or maybe it’s because they are CRAZY rich and just buy the best horses and can afford to show a ton... regardless... no one cares. They are just self-satisfied and having an awesome time, and “know” that they are just the BEST.

      And USEF is sitting off to the side, doing nothing. Because honestly? The BNTs, and their respective clients involved in Jane’s clinics are all active USEF members, but Jane is VERY powerful, and Jane and all the clients involved have A LOT of money... and sanctioning them under the aiding and abetting provision of Safe Sport for these clinics with GM is a total NIGHTMARE for USEF. So, someone calls Jane and says, “Look. Do what you want. Just quit making noise on social media. Don’t advertise it. And if anyone asks you, say that we warned you, but you willfully ignored us, and at this point we will just pretend that we are unaware that you willfully ignored the verbal warning we gave you. And this way, we will all just go forward with our happy little hunter jumper world, with business as usual. And oh yeah, thanks for that donation to USEF you made recently Jane.” So Jane and her friends settle down and stop publicly talking about Safe Sport being bad all over social media. But they also continue to do their “discreet” clinics with their hero, GM, and it’s awesome, and they feel SUPER empowered. and they complete their token mandatory Safe Sport training online, each year, right on schedule, and maintain their USEF memberships without any hiccups... and after all who cares?!? Right?

      Well ... let’s say in this HYPOTHETICAL example, that’s WRONG. Because the HYPOTHETICAL reality is that there are a NUMBER of people who rode at Hunterdon in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. And a lot of them know each other. And are still in touch with one another. And a lot of them were actually victims. And in this scenario, let’s say they start talking to one another about how all this nonsense with Jane Doe is nasty, disrespectful BS. And they are sick of going to shows, and taking students to shows, and seeing Jane Doe and her BNT and their clients, and other trainers and clients - who all participate in these clinics with GM... that everyone knows are going on... laughing and flaunting that they are not subject to the rules, and competing and winning and celebrating and suffering ZERO repercussions for this. These victims are actually suffering emotionally because of this climate at horse shows that the whole ISWG crowd has created. And let’s say that 5 of these victims eventually have had enough, are emotionally fried by it all, and decide to band together and contact a lawyer. And the lawyer meets with them, and then contacts USEF... and says, “Guess what? My clients, who are all homosexual men and a protected class, in case everyone has forgotten about that, and who were also were all sexually abused as minors, are experiencing SEVERE emotional distress. Because of the climate created by USEF members at recognized horse shows, which these men actually do need to attend and participate in to earn a living in their chosen profession. And the distress impacts their ability to attend shows and coach clients and be successful. And aside from Jane Doe... this really is all because you, USEF, as an organization, are knowingly turning a blind eye to behavior that a group of VERY wealthy, white, heterosexual women are engaging in that is openly hostile people who happen to also be substantially LESS wealthy, and homosexual, and victims of childhood sexual abuse. And as if that isn’t reason enough for a lawsuit... oh yeah... You guys are NOT compliant with Safe Sport.”

      So what then? Well... USEF likely will need to negotiate with that lawyer and pay out millions to make it go away. Or, they can try and fight it, and risk being decertified as the governing body of the sport because they are NOT actually Safe Sport compliant. And likely, the more immediate risk than decertification is that equestrian sports will be dropped from the Olympics because this whole thing is a truly STUPID PR nightmare, and the USOPC thinks equestrian sports aren't worth the headaches involved. Not that many viewers even watch them!

      This is a very REAL possibility folks. Because that’s how things work in the real world when people like Jane Doe decide that no one tells her what to do, and she’s going to continue to stand with GM , and to hell with these supposed victims who didn’t speak up way back when they were little boys, etc etc etc , because she doesn’t think they are REALLY victims. And oh yeah - USEF is a Gestapo like organization and she is going to enjoy using her money, and her industry influence to bully them into letting her do what she wants with who she wants, and win blue ribbons at recognized shows ANYWAY.

      Just my opinion on how this could very well play out in the real world. Honestly... I don’t know what the solution is. But I do know that this all is a serious problem, and it could very well get worse before it gets better if people continue to freak out and say STUPID things all over the place on social media and not consider the bigger picture.
      Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Nov. 23, 2019, 01:15 PM. Reason: typos and spelling errors

      Comment


        #23
        poltroon - an excellent and timely post and link. Hopefully people will read it and take note.

        Comment


          #24
          I think it's indeed the liability angle that will ultimately force people to stop hosting clinics with banned individuals. If your insurance company says they won't touch you, not many people will be willing to risk it.

          As far as going to a clinic given by a banned individual, that's a little trickier. in GM's case, I don't think "Gee I had NO IDEA he was banned" will fly, but there are plenty of lesser-knowns. I doubt that an individual would get much of a suspension for attending a clinic given by a banned person. And remember, you have to be a USEF member to be sanctioned at all. The sanction would likely fall on the person or organisation hosting the clinic. I imagine they would be expected to do due diligence and investigate the creds of any clinician they are hiring.

          We'll see if these GM clinics scheduled for this fall actually go forward and if so, what happens.

          Comment

            Original Poster

            #25
            Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
            I think it's indeed the liability angle that will ultimately force people to stop hosting clinics with banned individuals. If your insurance company says they won't touch you, not many people will be willing to risk it.

            As far as going to a clinic given by a banned individual, that's a little trickier. in GM's case, I don't think "Gee I had NO IDEA he was banned" will fly, but there are plenty of lesser-knowns. I doubt that an individual would get much of a suspension for attending a clinic given by a banned person. And remember, you have to be a USEF member to be sanctioned at all. The sanction would likely fall on the person or organisation hosting the clinic. I imagine they would be expected to do due diligence and investigate the creds of any clinician they are hiring.

            We'll see if these GM clinics scheduled for this fall actually go forward and if so, what happens.
            I don't believe that you have to be a USEF member to be sanctioned. There are individuals that have been sanctioned that didn't renew their membership, thinking that would "save" them from Safesport sanctions.

            The sanctions are to protect athletes involved with USEF (or other organizations that fall under SafeSport) leaving the requirement of the abused being a USEF member, not the accused.

            Comment


              #26
              Originally posted by equestrian_mom View Post

              I don't believe that you have to be a USEF member to be sanctioned. There are individuals that have been sanctioned that didn't renew their membership, thinking that would "save" them from Safesport sanctions.

              The sanctions are to protect athletes involved with USEF (or other organizations that fall under SafeSport) leaving the requirement of the abused being a USEF member, not the accused.
              If the incident happened while the person was a member I can see a sanction happening despite the person not renewing. I’m not sure the people you are referring to in your posts are as slick as they think they are.

              However, if a person who has never been a member and/or is new rides with a banned person, they probably won’t face a sanction. I’m sure they will be given a verbal warning and informed about their trainer.

              Where did this banned stuff come from anyway? Sure, a person could get banned for continuously flaunting the rules, but I doubt a non member or even a member will be sanctioned for just not knowing or a first time offense.

              And yes one has to be a member of the organization in order for the sanctions to matter. If I got banned by the USEF today, I wouldn’t care. I’m not a member and I do not plan on being a member in the near future.

              Comment


                #27
                Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                You did a better job than I have so far of bringing the BO angle into focus with respect to aiding and abetting.

                I brought up the John Geddert situation, his now disbanded Gym that his sister in law bought, Twistars, the insurance payout to the Nassar victims, and USA Gymnastics also getting swept up in it all... because I think that is a VERY relevant case. This is how aiding and abetting a known abuser can play out in the real world, where victims get lawyers and insurance companies have to pay big settlements, and governing bodies of sports who did turn a blind eye get caught up in lawsuits and almost decertified (these are ongoing issues for USA Gymnastics, but bankruptcy and decertification are very real risks).

                It’s all a VERY cautionary tale that folks in our sport would do well to pay attention to. IMMEDIATELY.

                I went back and looked up recent reports on it, and the best I found was published by ESPN in April of this year. But I still can’t post links from my account here... maybe someone else can.

                Anyway, in a nutshell, USA Gymnastics was on the verge of permanently banning Geddert in early 2018, when he announced his “retirement.” The Nassar victims were dealing with all sorts of legal stuff that year, , and lawsuits were flying all around. In early 2019, it was announced that Geddert’s gym, Twistars, Inc, had been sold to ... his sister in law. But he’s “retired” and the way she is running matters is TOTALLY different. Ok. Whatever - who knows. I certainly don’t. But it sure seems like BS. Anyway, shortly thereafter, a settlement was reached between attorneys representing 200 Nassar victims, and the now non-existent (in the legal and financial sense) Twistars, Inc.

                Guess what? The settlement was for the maximum allowable under the Twistars Inc insurance policy - about $2.1 million. But there were over 200 gymnasts who were victims. So that’s actually not much... at all. By way of comparison... when the group of victims sued Michigan State University for covering up the Nassar issue and ignoring reports and turning turning a blind eye... the award was reportedly almost $500 million.

                So so shortly after the settlement was reached, the lawyers for the victims announced that they would be joining lawsuits, and going after USA Gymnastics itself. And USA Gymnastics is at very real risk of bankruptcy given the situation... and it’s an ongoing complicated ugly thing.

                As for Gedderts sister in law running that gym? As Irmtioned in the other post, it is rumored that they are keeping gymnasts as clients simply by virtue of intimidation tactics within the Gymnastics community. Time will tell, but at present it does not appear that the attempt to start fresh at this gym is succeeding.
                Thanks for bringing up the events and instructive precedent offered by Geddert's gym and family, vis-a-vis Michigan State University and USA Gymnastics.

                It seems to me that in our scenario-- BO who Will Not Be Denied Her Clinician-- that the deep pocketed parties that a suing victim could name would the clinician (of course), and the BO who will use her insurance policy. Whether she is a member of USEF or not, I don't see how that organization could be named. After all, it publicly banned Perpy Pro and offered a (presumably) known and non-trivial set of consequences that anyone ignoring the ban would face. That, I think, is what it would mean to prevent aiding and abetting in the way SafeSport has in mind.

                I suppose, however, that the angry victim and lawyer could name the USEF in this suit, arguing that the organization is guilty of offering only the most spotty and weak attempts to curb members' aiding and abetting. By doing that, and demonstrating to members that this rule (imposed by SafeSport) was not take up in any but a pro forma way, the USEF sent signals to that USEF member BO who Will Not Be Denied Her Clinician that the USEF was not, in fact, an obstacle to her.

                I think it would be harder argument to make, but you can look back all the way to the notorious insurance fraud cases of some 40 years ago; or the conveniently-timed D&M suspensions; getting grooms to sign entry forms as the Trainer for horses that will be drugged at horse shows; other instances of wide- and widely-and-continuously exploited loopholes to see an organization that is reluctant to use its power to effectively punish, stop or deter members, even in situations that are serious and obviously within its wheelhouse. Here, I'm thinking of the pros involved in cruelly killing horses for insurance fraud still, somehow, able to make a good living within the industry, even if not within the sport.

                Because the USEF does not have a specific prohibition of aiding and abetting banned people, that behavior has been allowed to stand. Seems to me, then, that:

                1. the additional, aiding and abetting, element handed down from SafeSport is needed because, history has shown, we will not adequately police ourselves. I mean, the governing body of the sport has nothing to say about clients who wish to leave their insured and valuable horses with pros who have killed others for a payout. I think this is akin to the supporters of George yelling "no one is going to tell me who I can't send my teenage son off to ride with! I don't care who else became bedfellows with him in the past or said they did!"

                2. The USEF and our industry has a pattern of BOs Who Will Not Be Denied (in various ways), so SafeSport and the USEF have only to wait until one of George's staunch supporters gives lawyers an opportunity to figure out try the theory I presented here and asks the USEF Why TF it seems to systematically demur from punishing members in an effective way, or really, making punishments bad enough and known enough that that behavior is effectively discourages in the first place.

                Because it is highly unlikely that one of these Perpy Pros banned (as of yet) by the USEF for SafeSport reasons will be caught molesting a participant at a weekend clinic, it could take a long, long time to arrive at the "perfect storm" of people and events such that this kind of lawsuit happens. But the because the USEF has not had an Aiding and Abetting rule and because that, in turn, might have had a big part in creating our history of bad actors being merely inconvenienced by the fines, suspensions and bans that all stop short of limiting their ability to do business, I think the USEF would do well to consider creating and Aiding and Abetting rule ahead of having a lawsuit where the problem involved sexual abuse or a person as opposed to mere harming of horses.
                Last edited by mvp; Nov. 24, 2019, 08:51 AM.
                The armchair saddler
                Politically Pro-Cat

                Comment


                  #28
                  Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                  I think it's indeed the liability angle that will ultimately force people to stop hosting clinics with banned individuals. If your insurance company says they won't touch you, not many people will be willing to risk it.

                  As far as going to a clinic given by a banned individual, that's a little trickier. in GM's case, I don't think "Gee I had NO IDEA he was banned" will fly, but there are plenty of lesser-knowns. I doubt that an individual would get much of a suspension for attending a clinic given by a banned person. And remember, you have to be a USEF member to be sanctioned at all. The sanction would likely fall on the person or organisation hosting the clinic. I imagine they would be expected to do due diligence and investigate the creds of any clinician they are hiring.

                  We'll see if these GM clinics scheduled for this fall actually go forward and if so, what happens.
                  A minute into this, however, a BO's insurance company will include a line on the application that says, "Are your instructors members of the USEF"? In other words, insurance companies are going to try to limit their exposure up front by requiring their insureds to have would-be instructors be safe bets themselves. Someone "going rogue" and not being a member of some organization that limits bad behavior.
                  Last edited by mvp; Nov. 24, 2019, 09:05 AM.
                  The armchair saddler
                  Politically Pro-Cat

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                    Here’s another HYPOTHETICAL scenario about how aiding and abetting someone like GM (who is now on the permanently banned list with USEF and Safe Sport might play out if HYPOTHETICAL uber wealthy, and prominent hunter jumper world personality and barn owner “Jane Doe” from my other example decides to host a bunch of clinics and continue leading her own personal ISWG rebellion.

                    Let’s say Jane hosts her clinics with GM, and the BNT who she personally bankrolls and ALL of that trainers clients are happy and participate. No one sits off to the side quietly grinding their teeth, and no one rats anyone out. And it’s all really fun and successful and boy are they sticking it to USEF. So they actually start hosting 4 clinics a year to support GM. And other ISWG people quietly attend... because the clinics are so so awesome. And they are all fighting the good fight. Plus, they’re at the top of their game, and the coaches and riders involved in Jane’s Farm’s discreet clinics are all winning everything. Absolutely everything. Maybe it’s because of the great coaching... or maybe it’s because they are CRAZY rich and just buy the best horses and can afford to show a ton... regardless... no one cares. They are just self-satisfied and having an awesome time, and “know” that they are just the BEST.

                    And USEF is sitting off to the side, doing nothing. Because honestly? The BNTs, and their respective clients involved in Jane’s clinics are all active USEF members, but Jane is VERY powerful, and Jane and all the clients involved have A LOT of money... and sanctioning them under the aiding and abetting provision of Safe Sport for these clinics with GM is a total NIGHTMARE for USEF. So, someone calls Jane and says, “Look. Do what you want. Just quit making noise on social media. Don’t advertise it. And if anyone asks you, say that we warned you, but you willfully ignored us, and at this point we will just pretend that we are unaware that you willfully ignored the verbal warning we gave you. And this way, we will all just go forward with our happy little hunter jumper world, with business as usual. And oh yeah, thanks for that donation to USEF you made recently Jane.” So Jane and her friends settle down and stop publicly talking about Safe Sport being bad all over social media. But they also continue to do their “discreet” clinics with their hero, GM, and it’s awesome, and they feel SUPER empowered. and they complete their token mandatory Safe Sport training online, each year, right on schedule, and maintain their USEF memberships without any hiccups... and after all who cares?!? Right?

                    Well ... let’s say in this HYPOTHETICAL example, that’s WRONG. Because the HYPOTHETICAL reality is that there are a NUMBER of people who rode at Hunterdon in the 60’s, 70’s, and 80’s. And a lot of them know each other. And are still in touch with one another. And a lot of them were actually victims. And in this scenario, let’s say they start talking to one another about how all this nonsense with Jane Doe is nasty, disrespectful BS. And they are sick of going to shows, and taking students to shows, and seeing Jane Doe and her BNT and their clients, and other trainers and clients - who all participate in these clinics with GM... that everyone knows are going on... laughing and flaunting that they are not subject to the rules, and competing and winning and celebrating and suffering ZERO repercussions for this. These victims are actually suffering emotionally because of this climate at horse shows that the whole ISWG crowd has created. And let’s say that 5 of these victims eventually have had enough, are emotionally fried by it all, and decide to band together and contact a lawyer. And the lawyer meets with them, and then contacts USEF... and says, “Guess what? My clients, who are all homosexual men and a protected class, in case everyone has forgotten about that, and who were also were all sexually abused as minors, are experiencing SEVERE emotional distress. Because of the climate created by USEF members at recognized horse shows, which these men actually do need to attend and participate in to earn a living in their chosen profession. And the distress impacts their ability to attend shows and coach clients and be successful. And aside from Jane Doe... this really is all because you, USEF, as an organization, are knowingly turning a blind eye to behavior that a group of VERY wealthy, white, heterosexual women are engaging in that is openly hostile people who happen to also be substantially LESS wealthy, and homosexual, and victims of childhood sexual abuse. And as if that isn’t reason enough for a lawsuit... oh yeah... You guys are NOT compliant with Safe Sport.”

                    So what then? Well... USEF likely will need to negotiate with that lawyer and pay out millions to make it go away. Or, they can try and fight it, and risk being decertified as the governing body of the sport because they are NOT actually Safe Sport compliant. And likely, the more immediate risk than decertification is that equestrian sports will be dropped from the Olympics because this whole thing is a truly STUPID PR nightmare, and the USOPC thinks equestrian sports aren't worth the headaches involved. Not that many viewers even watch them!

                    This is a very REAL possibility folks. Because that’s how things work in the real world when people like Jane Doe decide that no one tells her what to do, and she’s going to continue to stand with GM , and to hell with these supposed victims who didn’t speak up way back when they were little boys, etc etc etc , because she doesn’t think they are REALLY victims. And oh yeah - USEF is a Gestapo like organization and she is going to enjoy using her money, and her industry influence to bully them into letting her do what she wants with who she wants, and win blue ribbons at recognized shows ANYWAY.

                    Just my opinion on how this could very well play out in the real world. Honestly... I don’t know what the solution is. But I do know that this all is a serious problem, and it could very well get worse before it gets better if people continue to freak out and say STUPID things all over the place on social media and not consider the bigger picture.
                    I can see some version of this happening, too. I think the class-action lawsuit about homosexual male horse trainers unable to make a living in their work place because of the way that heterosexual rich women make that unbearably uncomfortable would take quite the attorney to argue! But I'd get a huge bucket of popcorn and watch that trial from beginning to end.

                    Two more minor thoughts come to mind:

                    1. Yanno, someone would do well to start that "Studio 54 Horse Shows" governing body. Just as the name implies, all the sex, drugs and rock-and-roll you can imagine on horseback are welcome. HITS shows and certainly WEF could be in there. Screw being an Olympic sport; let those guys fend for themselves and let's have the lucrative, happy horse show industry go ticking along without those higher standards that are imposed from the top down. The Studio 54 shows could hold all the Grands Prix it likes and Olympic hopefuls could come and practice there. My point is that there are some compelling reasons to do this-- there is money to be made and rules to be evaded, and that could all be evaded getting out from under the Olympic umbrella. As you point out, Olympic organizers would be only too happy to have our sport go extinct there.

                    2. Reading the comments of those die-hard ISWG folks, I think you are right (in a way that surprises me, given their wealth: These folks are very sure, but not always right and well-informed, thoughtful or circumspect. I always wonder how they got to where they are or hang on to what they have by being so half-assed and careless. And I don't know jack about their full nature, but I am reading what they feel safe putting out in public on the interwebz. If I were going to public spout off about things like how much "transparency" (read: letting me read about the sex crimes such that I'll judge them) would improve upon what SafeSport did, I might learn more about SafeSport's actual process. My point is that I can see that No One Tells Me What To Do mentality helping one of these people get into trouble in the way you imagine. I mean, the trait has been amply displayed in those public comments already. I don't get it because I live a more constrained life, but it seems to be real.
                    The armchair saddler
                    Politically Pro-Cat

                    Comment


                      #30
                      Ah - the Studio 54 show circuit. That’s about right. Where anything goes, and no rules apply. Except for one... no BNT shall approach another BNT’s undocumented immigrant grooms and hire them away for a few dollars more per week, or other unnecessary perks. No sirree. BNTs will all have to be willing to collude ... ooops.... COOPERATE... in order to keep wages low for grooms and make sure there aren’t better paying employment opportunities readily available to them.

                      Sounds like a wonderful idea. Horse show heaven. Or maybe... where horse shows go to die.

                      This could make for a good Saturday Night Live skit. Sort of like the one they had years ago about the “All Drug Olympics”

                      It’s almost funny. Almost. If it wasn’t so sad and bizarre.

                      Comment


                        #31
                        I’ll be super surprised if anyone is looked at for association. Last I remember from WEF was that banned trainers (for drugging/animal welfare/fraud) would set up just off the show grounds and warm their riders up there, send them to the ring with a groom or assistant.

                        Granted, that was back in 2009, so maybe things have tightened up, or maybe Safe Sport violations will be taken more seriously. But winning is so important in this industry, that trainers that can produce those results have been allowed to do so by any means necessary. It’s one of the reasons these Safe Sport regulations were put into place.

                        If I were doing National level medals and my trainer wanted to have GHM come in and give me a tune up the week before finals, would I have the strength of character to turn him away? Idk.

                        I certainly would not expect to be sanctioned for it.

                        Comment


                          #32
                          Originally posted by jonem004 View Post
                          If I were doing National level medals and my trainer wanted to have GHM come in and give me a tune up the week before finals, would I have the strength of character to turn him away? Idk.

                          I certainly would not expect to be sanctioned for it.
                          wow

                          really???

                          Gross.

                          And again, why we cannot be trusted to police our own sport.
                          Let me apologize in advance.

                          Comment


                            #33
                            Originally posted by jonem004 View Post

                            I certainly would not expect to be sanctioned for it.
                            To follow up, you are being told in the rules of your organization that you could be sanctioned.

                            Please expect it. this should not be a case where people go "oh I had no idea!"

                            And again, ugh, this is really a slap in the face to victims and people who are not awful at being human.
                            Let me apologize in advance.

                            Comment


                              #34
                              You forget that Jane Doe in this story is married by Mr Doe, who has a real job and maybe a professional license. Mr Doe holds the purse strings and has not one care for any horse trainers. Maybe there is Doe Jr who has many show horses. All assets in joint business for taxes. If she gets in trouble, no more horses, no more farm. I know this sounds sexist, and I believe it is unhealthy marriage myself, but it is the truth for many people saying they will do this and that. They will do nothing when their husbands or parents find out the whole story.

                              Some truly independent people will do what they want but the Safe Sport will go after them too and the media. They are joking themselves if they think supporting a child molester will not hurt them. Too much time with horse people, not enough in the real world.

                              Comment


                                #35
                                Originally posted by charlieTBD View Post
                                You forget that Jane Doe in this story is married by Mr Doe, who has a real job and maybe a professional license. Mr Doe holds the purse strings and has not one care for any horse trainers. Maybe there is Doe Jr who has many show horses. All assets in joint business for taxes. If she gets in trouble, no more horses, no more farm. I know this sounds sexist, and I believe it is unhealthy marriage myself, but it is the truth for many people saying they will do this and that. They will do nothing when their husbands or parents find out the whole story.

                                Some truly independent people will do what they want but the Safe Sport will go after them too and the media. They are joking themselves if they think supporting a child molester will not hurt them. Too much time with horse people, not enough in the real world.
                                Exactly. And Mr. Doe probably has been looking to get said horses off his payroll for years. Mr. Doe likely doesn't enjoy covering the carry costs of trying to keeping up with the Jones's - the likes of Bloomberg, Gates and Springsteen. Mr. Doe would more likely tell Mrs. Doe "If you so much as even think about doing this, it's all over!" Sighing a breath of relief that he's finally found a way out of this ongoing financial trainwreck of months of WEF, GLEF, HITS... Mr. Doe, and the Mr. Does of the sport, are not idiots and are well aware of the stakes as they are true businessmen. Not horse professionals. They know HR law and are well versed in the issues of #metoo. Mr. Doe will not tolerate Mrs. Doe making a fool out of him or his children, or putting his assets and children at risk.

                                I would be more interested in the ongoing and future behavior of former of-age boyfriends. Will they still feel compelled to support this man as they have done all these years? Then you have homosexual men supporting a homosexual offender who abused boys. Totally different scenario, but far more likely to occur IMHO.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  Originally posted by jonem004 View Post
                                  I’ll be super surprised if anyone is looked at for association. Last I remember from WEF was that banned trainers (for drugging/animal welfare/fraud) would set up just off the show grounds and warm their riders up there, send them to the ring with a groom or assistant.

                                  Granted, that was back in 2009, so maybe things have tightened up, or maybe Safe Sport violations will be taken more seriously. But winning is so important in this industry, that trainers that can produce those results have been allowed to do so by any means necessary. It’s one of the reasons these Safe Sport regulations were put into place.

                                  If I were doing National level medals and my trainer wanted to have GHM come in and give me a tune up the week before finals, would I have the strength of character to turn him away? Idk.

                                  I certainly would not expect to be sanctioned for it.
                                  I think this is exactly the situation that would invoke a sanction. Textbook example of what the rules say.

                                  Comment


                                    #37


                                    A ban on being involved/training/coaching or simply being present at any shows/sponsored events etc by USEF will depend a lot on available staff to check the spectator crowds but if Safesport was primarily designed to protect youngsters then it would probably be easier to enforce a ban on all contact/clinics/lessons/coaching etc with under21s/25s or the like & penalize any persons/farms that facilitated any such contact.

                                    Unless someone is actually incarcerated in jail, they will have contact with other people---if they have to earn a living, then someone is going to have to pay them to do something whether it is teaching riding lessons or working as a landscaper/painter/store clerk/waiter/mechanic--whatever. It's all well & good to say you'd not give them any business in which case their existence in the horse sport arena may gradually dwindle away but that will be very difficult to actually police.

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      The comments about the hypothetical Mr. Doe’s reaction to Jane’s decision to be a leader when it comes to ISWG and host clinics, risk their insurance policy, and create a big freaking nightmare for many others has me laughing out loud.

                                      But seriously, I actually know more than one potential Mr. Doe who would have EXACTLY that reaction.

                                      jonem004 - from your comment, I assume that you are not as old as I am (40), and did compete as a junior within the last 20 years. Forgive me if my assumptions are incorrect... but those are my assumptions.

                                      Last time I checked, Medal classes were for riders 18 and under. And competitors had to be USEF members in good standing.

                                      So in your example, if your hypothetical trainer wanted you to ride with GM for a tuneup in the lead up to national Medal Finals...

                                      who is paying the bill to ride with GM? I would assume that you do not pay your own way at that age. Your parents pay the bills. Horse showing at that level is CRAZY expensive these days. Most parents I know (I am one - my kids are younger though) would look at a trainer who wanted their teenager to ride with a coach who had recently been put on the Safe Sport banned list, and think about two things. They’d definitely think about the fact that riding with GM was a serious risk to the teenager’s status as a USEF member in good standing. And the parent has already shelled out crazy money on horse shows up until this point... that’s a stupid risk to take. All that money would be just passed away if USEF enforces the aiding and abetting rule. More importantly though, the bill paying parent would also HOPEFULLY think about whether or not riding with GM... or one of a few other people on the banned list... was a risk to the teenager... their CHILD t(after all... let’s consider WHY many of these folks were permanently banned).

                                      So frankly, your character shouldn’t be a factor here. You should be able to beg and plead and scream and demand for your parents to pay the bill so that you have the chance to ride with GM, because your trainer thinks it will give you an edge, and because it’s NATIONAL MEDAL FINALS and your whole world revolves around horse showing. And then someone else... possibly the person paying the bill to ride with GM, most likely your parents... should think about it, look at the Safe Spoet banned list... and then say to you ...

                                      NO.

                                      And then hopefully, the person footing the bill for all this and your horse showing in your teenage years goes a step further, again... likely your parents... and looks at the trainer who suggested this, the trainer who obviously only cares about winning and not about the junior’s safety or well being (that junior being THEIR CHILD) or the ethical and moral message that is being sent to the junior (THEIR CHIKD) that this trainer is coaching

                                      hopwfully the person footing the bill - the rich parent- fires the idiot trainer who suggested it all as well.
                                      Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Nov. 24, 2019, 06:00 PM. Reason: typos, and posted too early

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        Originally posted by jonem004 View Post
                                        I’ll be super surprised if anyone is looked at for association. Last I remember from WEF was that banned trainers (for drugging/animal welfare/fraud) would set up just off the show grounds and warm their riders up there, send them to the ring with a groom or assistant.

                                        Granted, that was back in 2009, so maybe things have tightened up, or maybe Safe Sport violations will be taken more seriously. But winning is so important in this industry, that trainers that can produce those results have been allowed to do so by any means necessary. It’s one of the reasons these Safe Sport regulations were put into place.

                                        If I were doing National level medals and my trainer wanted to have GHM come in and give me a tune up the week before finals, would I have the strength of character to turn him away? Idk.

                                        I certainly would not expect to be sanctioned for it.
                                        Well, thank God you have SafeSport to make that decision for you, then.

                                        Is the conflict of interest that you want the coaching Morris can offer, but wish it didn't come attached to his sexual exploitation of people, including minors? Or is it that he has a great deal of power in the sport such that, banned by SafeSport or not, neither you nor your trainer has the balls to not hire him?

                                        I can understand a pro not wanting to poke the (entitled) bear who thinks he's owed work despite the ban. But I can't understand why an amateur has to do that.

                                        Again, it doesn't matter: SafeSport will do that for you. And because the USEF has failed to do that with other banned, bad actors, the feelings of entitlement go on.
                                        Last edited by mvp; Nov. 25, 2019, 05:06 PM.
                                        The armchair saddler
                                        Politically Pro-Cat

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          Wow lots of attorneys taking the time to post legal advice

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X