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

    #61
    Mention PV and the Jaynes and Barney Ward pop into mind. Bad people.
    Courageous Weenie Eventer Wannabe
    Incredible Invisible

    Comment


      #62
      Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

      PV has been banned for ages and doesn’t participate in USEF sanctioned events. He does not come on the show grounds, he does not sign as trainer, he plays by the rules of his suspension. The fact that he still has clients is mind boggling but he is also proof that being banned by the USEF or safe sport has no impact on ones ability to continue holding clinics, running a barn and training riders. They just can’t do so under the auspices of the USEF or on property owned or leased by the USEF. Tom Navarro is another person who still runs a barn and coaches, Mitch Steege is another. Both banned by Safe Sport.
      Wait a sec. Hold up! Can you please unpack this paragraph? I think it gets to the heart of what this thread is about.

      1. Valliere is banned by the USEF and not by SafeSport, correct?

      2. Valliere plays within terms of his long-standing USEF ban by not coming on USEF show grounds. But! Because the ban does not limit his off-the-show-grounds activity, the guy can still do all the business he likes, with anyone, including USEF members, so as it's elsewhere.

      3. It seems to me, then, that Valliere is not a "test case" for the Aiding and Abetting rule because that involves a SafeSport ban and not a USEF ban.

      If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.

      The armchair saddler
      Politically Pro-Cat

      Comment


        #63
        Originally posted by mvp View Post

        Wait a sec. Hold up! Can you please unpack this paragraph? I think it gets to the heart of what this thread is about.

        1. Valliere is banned by the USEF and not by SafeSport, correct?

        2. Valliere plays within terms of his long-standing USEF ban by not coming on USEF show grounds. But! Because the ban does not limit his off-the-show-grounds activity, the guy can still do all the business he likes, with anyone, including USEF members, so as it's elsewhere.

        3. It seems to me, then, that Valliere is not a "test case" for the Aiding and Abetting rule because that involves a SafeSport ban and not a USEF ban.

        If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.
        Yes sorry. I did not mean to imply that PV was a test case for Safe Sport. Just an example of people needing to have rules like the ones created by Safe Sport to install a moral compass.

        Steege is actually the best test case since despite being removed from the farm website, still is heavily involved.

        Comment


          #64
          Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

          Yes sorry. I did not mean to imply that PV was a test case for Safe Sport. Just an example of people needing to have rules like the ones created by Safe Sport to install a moral compass.

          Steege is actually the best test case since despite being removed from the farm website, still is heavily involved.
          Is Mitch Steege married to Amanda Steege who is one of the donors to the Sports Equity (sorry to murder the name)-- the SafeSport reform group?

          We seem to be a rather lawless and amoral lot, those of us who employ who we want (dead horses and molested children be damned). That's not how I roll. Rather, I want to keep track of which pros in the industry live by decent values and which do not so that I can direct my money in the right direction.
          The armchair saddler
          Politically Pro-Cat

          Comment


            #65
            That s her dad
            "You can't really debate with someone who has a prescient invisible friend"
            carolprudm

            Comment


              #66
              Originally posted by mvp View Post

              Is Mitch Steege married to Amanda Steege who is one of the donors to the Sports Equity (sorry to murder the name)-- the SafeSport reform group?

              We seem to be a rather lawless and amoral lot, those of us who employ who we want (dead horses and molested children be damned). That's not how I roll. Rather, I want to keep track of which pros in the industry live by decent values and which do not so that I can direct my money in the right direction.
              Amanda is his daughter. Kathy is his wife and runs an IEA program out of their farm. I just can’t even with people sometimes.

              I’m with you. I actually left my last trainer and refuse to ride with another one over their posts about “OMG we are being targeted as trainers!” Pretty sure it’s not hard to avoid compromising situations that involve allegations of molestation. Both those trainers are women by the way which I also find fascinating. Women are freaking out the most.

              But what do I know. I’m not a pro.

              Comment


                #67
                Originally posted by mroades View Post
                That s her dad
                Thanks for explaining. I always want to be accurate and fair with praise or blame, money, and my words in public. I appreciate it when people who know more than I do help me be that decent citizen.
                The armchair saddler
                Politically Pro-Cat

                Comment


                  #68
                  Why do these trainers think anyone with a grudge is going to be able to take them down if they're not molesting kids? If they follow the SS guidelines and aren't alone with a minor in the barn, then it'll be pretty easy for the allegation of someone vindictive (if that's really even happening) to be proved false, the false reporter may be in trouble, and everyone goes on their merry way.

                  I was under investigation for how a call was handled at a previous job, (9-1-1 dispatch) and some coworkers were going on about how they were going to pull and listen to the call. I was anxious for them to please, please, pull the call and listen.... because I know I did my job properly. A slight annoyance to be temporarily suspended from my job while investigated, sure, but I'm not going to gripe about being checked. We need checks and balances in every workplace. I was reinstated w/in 48 hours with back pay and received a letter of praise for what I did.

                  Comment


                    #69
                    Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
                    Why do these trainers think anyone with a grudge is going to be able to take them down if they're not molesting kids? If they follow the SS guidelines and aren't alone with a minor in the barn, then it'll be pretty easy for the allegation of someone vindictive (if that's really even happening) to be proved false, the false reporter may be in trouble, and everyone goes on their merry way.

                    I was under investigation for how a call was handled at a previous job, (9-1-1 dispatch) and some coworkers were going on about how they were going to pull and listen to the call. I was anxious for them to please, please, pull the call and listen.... because I know I did my job properly. A slight annoyance to be temporarily suspended from my job while investigated, sure, but I'm not going to gripe about being checked. We need checks and balances in every workplace. I was reinstated w/in 48 hours with back pay and received a letter of praise for what I did.
                    I have no idea why they think as horse trainers they should be exempt from the same procedures that investigations that other occupations undergo when there is any type of allegation made.

                    Comment


                      #70
                      Gabriel Belluomini is also now on the list. But he still has an appeal opportunity. It seems like his program is also family oriented, with a daughter and granddaughter involved, and the grand daughter shows.

                      How are they going to address family owned farms like this, where multiple family members coach? It’s messy for sure.

                      Comment


                        #71
                        Originally posted by mvp View Post


                        If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.
                        This is where the USEF membership need to step up at do what is right. If you have knowledge, information and/or proof that a banned person is participation or training a USEF member, than it needs to be reported. History has shown people looked the other way when they knew young girls and boys were assaulted. Safesport did its job to ban these people. Now help them enforcing the ban. Do the right thing. Show these people they are not entitled to do whatever they want. They should accept the consequences of their actions. Instead, they continue to think they won't be touched and are entitled to teach, etc.
                        You are doing a disservice to the victims if you continue to look the other way.

                        Comment


                          #72
                          Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
                          Why do these trainers think anyone with a grudge is going to be able to take them down if they're not molesting kids? If they follow the SS guidelines and aren't alone with a minor in the barn, then it'll be pretty easy for the allegation of someone vindictive (if that's really even happening) to be proved false, the false reporter may be in trouble, and everyone goes on their merry way.
                          It's a great question. Do they feel this way about the USEF Hearing Committee? Also secret, also a big potential hassle. If they don't drug horses or assault people at shows, are they worried that they're one phone call away from losing everything? I just don't get it.

                          (FWIW I actually *have* gotten a letter from the Hearing Committee before, charging me with acting as a trainer without paying my membership fees ... in New York. I told them that it wasn't me, that I hadn't even been in NY at a horse show ever, and that was the end of it.)

                          Also, in case this wasn't obvious, for those trainers who are worried, if you want to continue to be welcome in a sandbox with rules, I suggest *not* writing an autobiography (or for that matter a blog post) about how you're above the rules, how you had thousands of sexual partners, how you took underage students out clubbing, how you got away with a drug infraction when you were on the D&M committee, etc. I'm not a lawyer, but friendly advice that I used to think we all knew.
                          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


                            #73
                            Soooo, does anyone know whether the GHM clinic that Diane Carney was officially organizing is happening today in Illinois (I think)? Or was it canceled?

                            Comment


                              #74
                              Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                              Soooo, does anyone know whether the GHM clinic that Diane Carney was officially organizing is happening today in Illinois (I think)? Or was it canceled?
                              I've been dying to know that too.
                              "You can't really debate with someone who has a prescient invisible friend"
                              carolprudm

                              Comment


                                #75
                                Originally posted by mvp View Post

                                Wait a sec. Hold up! Can you please unpack this paragraph? I think it gets to the heart of what this thread is about.

                                1. Valliere is banned by the USEF and not by SafeSport, correct?

                                2. Valliere plays within terms of his long-standing USEF ban by not coming on USEF show grounds. But! Because the ban does not limit his off-the-show-grounds activity, the guy can still do all the business he likes, with anyone, including USEF members, so as it's elsewhere.

                                3. It seems to me, then, that Valliere is not a "test case" for the Aiding and Abetting rule because that involves a SafeSport ban and not a USEF ban.

                                If this is right so far, perhaps that means that Steege and Navarro are the appropriate test cases, being USEF members AND having been banned by SafeSport, not merely the USEF.
                                I have suspected that Valliere et. al. have served as the example of what SafeSport does *not* want as an outcome, what they had to find a way to prevent. That the ban hammer is lowered but the banned person is not smushed and is still out there as a part of the sport, even if at arm's length. There may be cases in other sports as well, but I can't imagine that any case is more definitive than the long-term outcome of Valliere & the horse-killer team.

                                I would not be surprised to find out that the 'aiding & abetting' clauses were crafted against the horse-killer case. To pass the quality test, it had to have hypothetically kept those gents out of the league (although of course their crime wasn't SafeSport territory).

                                I have no idea if that is the way the rule was created, but it just seems to me that those were the holes that were plugged with the aiding and abetting rules. Including that what had to be stopped was outside of the USEF system.

                                Comment


                                  #76
                                  I doubt they were thinking about Valliere. Alas there have been many cases over the years in other sports where people looked the other way to get coaching from a BNT or to allow the family business to continue.
                                  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


                                    #77
                                    Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                                    I doubt they were thinking about Valliere. Alas there have been many cases over the years in other sports where people looked the other way to get coaching from a BNT or to allow the family business to continue.
                                    If Valliere et. al. weren't on the list, that would have been a hell of an oversight.

                                    Comment


                                      #78
                                      Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post

                                      If Valliere et. al. weren't on the list, that would have been a hell of an oversight.
                                      Remember, SafeSport was initially created because of high profile issues in gymnastics and swimming and there were high profile sexual abuse cases in other sports as well, like taekwondo, and in non-olympic sports like football. Equestrian isn't front of mind.
                                      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


                                        #79
                                        Lisa Hammerschemidt is on the list as well but is subject to appeal.

                                        Comment


                                          #80
                                          Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                                          Remember, SafeSport was initially created because of high profile issues in gymnastics and swimming and there were high profile sexual abuse cases in other sports as well, like taekwondo, and in non-olympic sports like football. Equestrian isn't front of mind.
                                          And for that reason, I'm not sure that the Aiding and Abetting rule, which comes from SafeSport and not the USEF will be applied to all members banned from the USEF for any reason. It would be shocking (and awesome) if the USEF took up the Aiding and Abetting prohibition, such that you could have your business destroyed for killing horses to collect insurance money. And it would be an impressive miracle indeed if that were applied to those old-time guys like Valliere starting now.
                                          The armchair saddler
                                          Politically Pro-Cat

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X