Sport Horse Spotlight

Sandro Hit Standa Eylers

Real Estate Spotlight

Hart_Barn 1

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • 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

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

  • And the score is TheMoo 2 and Packy 0

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Groom&Taxi View Post

      I am glad you pointed out that the Pony Club safe sport requirement does not apply to ALL volunteers as I would hate to be the source of a rumor/myth.

      It happens that I am a senior member as well as DC of a very small pony club. In terms of national dues and fees, it costs $155 for my personal senior membership and another $60 for the corporate membership that the DC has to have (club typically pays if funds available). That already feels like double dipping to me - so to get hit with another $20 really did not sit well.
      And don't forget the $30 background check every three years! That's a total of $230 to be a DC or Jt-DC over the course of three years (3x $60 corp, plus $20 SS and $30 background). It's already the most thankless job around, and having to pay to do this volunteer job just adds insult to injury. Luckily, my club makes it a given that the club will pay these costs, but I'm sure that's not the case everywhere. There's also a $100 "club fee" to the national office. If using club funds, multiply that times all the members of the club board, and that's a good chunk of money that could otherwise be going to use by the members.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post


        I am struck that people are giving SafeSport the full force and credit of a court of law when it is the farthest thing from it. Simply put, SafeSport determines who may and may not participate in specific USOC sports when they have been accused of misconduct that threatens athletes. Safesport does not have the authority to place a person on the sexual offender registry for very good reasons. The accused are not found guilty or innocent of a crime. Rather, Safesport's investigators determine that a person probably did what they are accused of doing. And that something need not necessarily be a crime for SafeSport to render your right to compete forfeited for life.
        Bold mine - could you shout this out to the folks on FB who are saying that SS is taking away all the accused's rights and destroying them forever because they are being tried without due process??!! Because they're just not getting it in the back... This is not a criminal proceeding and does not follow criminal process. It is akin to a civil proceeding or an HR proceeding.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

          It's not that you can't be friends with them, go out to dinner with them, marry them, etc. It's just that you can't use your name to hide the fact that the banned individual is actually the person training the students.

          Lots of people manage to run their businesses, horse and otherwise, without the input of their spouse.

          Let's remind ourselves of a situation where this might happen.

          Say your brother owns a gymnastics facility and was found to have molested athletes. He sells it to you.

          Now, if you take over the training and hire assistants, that's all fine. You can own and operate the gym.

          If instead you own it as a figurehead and he's the one actually coaching the kids, you're enabling him to molest more children. That's not fine.
          Just thinking about this, and maybe this is out of safe sport's jusrisdiction, but hypothetically, if someone is banned for abuse of a minor/misconduct and they sell their business to a spouse/family member but their primary residence is still on property, how does that affect? Is that ok in safe sport's eyes? It would seem athletes could still be potentially at risk. I know this is probably unique to equestrian sports, because hopefully your gymnastics trainer is not living in the gym.

          Are they still allowed to be present in the barn as a non-employee?

          Comment


          • It is shocking that people in the industry of the stature of GM and others are being investigated, found culpable and being banned for such behavior. But this is what happens when an organization begins to address a serious problem that has been in existence for a long time and was never adequately managed in the past. The dam bursts. There is a flood of allegations of very old situations -- *because* those situations weren't addressed in the past.

            That need didn't fade or vanish with time. It just built into a bigger and bigger problem affecting more and more people.

            That's where we are now. Had the organization handled all this properly back in the early days of the problem, it wouldn't have come to this now. We can only hope that these current high-profile cases discourage others from assuming that they too can get away with things, as they did under the old model.

            It takes time to clear the backlog of unmet needs from so long ago. Once this very difficult transition is processed, the number of cases will ease to a flow of just the more recent incidents, so long as the process continues to be in force in a consistent manner. Much earlier intervention will help stop these situations before they can build and fester for so long.

            Someone can be good with horses and bad with minors (and/or adults as well). That's why we are so in need of the enforcement that the NGB's in so many sports have shown they are incapable of performing.

            Do those who object to Safesport think there has not been a problem with sexual misconduct in this industry?
            Do they think that all of the accusers are liars and there is no foundation to any of it?
            Or do they think that yes something bad happened, but that it's not worth going after, and the victim is less important than maintaining the status quo?
            What do they think that the accusers get out of making accusations that can ruin their own lives as well as the accused?
            Just wondering.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post
              I

              Do those who object to Safesport think there has not been a problem with sexual misconduct in this industry?
              Do they think that all of the accusers are liars and there is no foundation to any of it?
              Or do they think that yes something bad happened, but that it's not worth going after, and the victim is less important than maintaining the status quo?
              What do they think that the accusers get out of making accusations that can ruin their own lives as well as the accused?
              Just wondering.
              It is eyeopening to read what people believe. Most feel that all of this "was so long ago it doesn't matter anymore" and that the victims should "get over it". And then they start blaming the victims for bringing things to light because they should have spoken up as children. Because everyone believes children... It's really bringing to light just how corrupted the industry really is.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by PalmPony View Post

                Just thinking about this, and maybe this is out of safe sport's jusrisdiction, but hypothetically, if someone is banned for abuse of a minor/misconduct and they sell their business to a spouse/family member but their primary residence is still on property, how does that affect? Is that ok in safe sport's eyes? It would seem athletes could still be potentially at risk. I know this is probably unique to equestrian sports, because hopefully your gymnastics trainer is not living in the gym.

                Are they still allowed to be present in the barn as a non-employee?
                According to the SafeSport code:

                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, including Minor Participants, engages in Aiding or Abetting.

                SafeSport did go after the wife of a banned taekwondo coach after he sold the gym to her. She continued to run the business and he did coach there. So, I would say selling the business to a spouse who continues to conduct activities as usual, it is not okay. (but I am not a lawyer).
                The banned trainer is Massachusetts has removed his name from their website and the property is no longer under his name, but if he is at all involved in the training of students, he and his spouse are in violation of the code. If he trains his daughter at the farm, they both are in violation. The vocal lawyers on FB have said SafeSport cannot control what you do at home, so I am sure no one will stop their behavior until it is reported and given some punishment. No remorse for the wrongs they committed, no amends to the victims, just continue to live in denial and be a self-centered, entitled person a ignoring the consequences of your actions; that seems to be the MO for banned individuals. Just try to figure a way around the rules, that is pretty typical of the equestrian world whether it involves the medication rule, green status, sexual misconduct, sales commission, etc. It definitely is not the posterchild sport for ethics.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tackpud View Post

                  It is eyeopening to read what people believe. Most feel that all of this "was so long ago it doesn't matter anymore" and that the victims should "get over it". And then they start blaming the victims for bringing things to light because they should have spoken up as children. Because everyone believes children... It's really bringing to light just how corrupted the industry really is.
                  The most surprising comment I saw was a very prominent female trainer publicly defending Jimmy Williams on FB by saying "you should have seen the way those girls threw themselves at him!" as if an adult male is incapable of, you know, NOT having sex with a minor if she flirts with him.
                  "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu
                  Semantics

                  Comment


                  • Could you imagine if a teen was to step forward with allegations? The victim shaming from all sides would be Unbelievable. Peers would be taking, peers parents, the victims parents would be upset, other barns, the entire show community, the Internet. Many wouldn’t believe them & blame the victim.

                    It would be more then a teen might be able to handle. This is why children wait till adulthood to come forward. To a teen, it’s almost better to live in silent shame then be the talk of the town.
                    This is why safe sport is needed.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                      The banned trainer is Massachusetts has removed his name from their website and the property is no longer under his name, but if he is at all involved in the training of students, he and his spouse are in violation of the code. If he trains his daughter at the farm, they both are in violation. The vocal lawyers on FB have said SafeSport cannot control what you do at home, so I am sure no one will stop their behavior until it is reported and given some punishment. No remorse for the wrongs they committed, no amends to the victims, just continue to live in denial and be a self-centered, entitled person a ignoring the consequences of your actions; that seems to be the MO for banned individuals. Just try to figure a way around the rules, that is pretty typical of the equestrian world whether it involves the medication rule, green status, sexual misconduct, sales commission, etc. It definitely is not the posterchild sport for ethics.
                      It is an interesting wrinkle that some horse trainers live on the farms where they also run their business. Most other sports don't usually run into this problem. But I can't imagine that the "people get to do what they want because it's their HOME" will fly. After all, no one ever said you had to/were entitled to living where you work. Make your home elsewhere and train your kids there if you want to.
                      The armchair saddler
                      Politically Pro-Cat

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post

                        Many lawyers working in this area of law believe that if challenged in court, the aiding and abetting rule would not hold up to scrutiny if applied to those who sponsor clinics or hire banned individuals to teach them.
                        Please identify these "many lawyers" and provide examples of their legal opinions with regard to SS.

                        I am seriously so very tired of the "many people say" argument and how often it goes unchallenged.
                        "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu
                        Semantics

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tackpud View Post

                          Bold mine - could you shout this out to the folks on FB who are saying that SS is taking away all the accused's rights and destroying them forever because they are being tried without due process??!! Because they're just not getting it in the back... This is not a criminal proceeding and does not follow criminal process. It is akin to a civil proceeding or an HR proceeding.
                          I think you missed the point. It is not a trial and does not employ any of the safegaurds we require to ensure a fair process. There is no right to review, no right to confront the accuser, and the standard of proof is not of a certainty but only that one person finds it probable based on the evidence only they have gathered and seen in full. So we are allowing SafeSport to brand people as sexual predators without due process. SafeSport's punishments are sometimes far more severe and lasting than those a court would impose on the same evidence. And it does this with no accountability.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 2bayboys View Post

                            Please identify these "many lawyers" and provide examples of their legal opinions with regard to SS.

                            I am seriously so very tired of the "many people say" argument and how often it goes unchallenged.
                            Seriously? I haven't the time or patience to give you a constituional law education. Let it suffice to say that it is my opinion, having worked in the law for 30 years, that SafeSport is on shaky legal ground here. Many lawyers agree with me. Some don't. But that is why we would mark this issue as an "unsettled question".

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

                              As to your last few sentences, it’s always been a crime to sexually assault, molest, or rape kids. So not sure what you think could get you a life time ban that’s not necessarily a crime.

                              And again, instead of continually ranting about Safe Sport, please start laying out possible solutions. It’s all well and good to complain and ask for change but no one cares if you also don’t have solutions.
                              I am not ranting. As I have said in my written commentary and on the Chronicle podcast on this subject, there is no question that a person who is guilty of rape or child molestation is not welcome in sport. But the process we use to take away the right to attend sporting events and effectively take away someone's livelihood should be based on the same rights and protections used in a court of law. I have been an advisor to NGBs on how to reform the process to make it better, and am not asking for SafeSports destruction. I have been working to institute positive change for the last year. It is vital that the process improves before it is completely discredited and dismantled by law suits. There are many people like me working together to make this happen.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post

                                Seriously? I haven't the time or patience to give you a constituional law education. Let it suffice to say that it is my opinion, having worked in the law for 30 years, that SafeSport is on shaky legal ground here. Many lawyers agree with me. Some don't. But that is why we would mark this issue as an "unsettled question".
                                I am not asking for constitutional law education thank you. And providing that education would not answer the very simple request I made.

                                I asked you to identify these "many lawyers" you have now twice claimed agree with your opinion about SafeSport.
                                "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu
                                Semantics

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post

                                  ......... I have been an advisor to NGBs on how to reform the process to make it better, and am not asking for SafeSports destruction. I have been working to institute positive change for the last year. It is vital that the process improves before it is completely discredited and dismantled by law suits. There are many people like me working together to make this happen.
                                  No question that this is a worthy effort.

                                  However, it leaves open the question of why you seem to feel that SafeSport is off the rails in its actions regarding George Morris and perhaps others as well. Is it truly that you just don't agree with the SafeSport process? Or do you also doubt the truth of the allegations, even after a long investigation by experienced professionals?

                                  There is a disconnect between people such as yourself who don't find SafeSport's investigations to be credible, and SafeSport's description of these investigations as conducted by experienced, diligent professionals. Why do you find the investigations and resulting information not to be credible (aside from the rest of the process)?

                                  Do you think *any* of those making allegations against any of those on the banned list are truthful, or are you of the position that most of those allegations are doubtful?

                                  Hypothetically, if you feel an accuser is probably truthful, what should happen then?

                                  This is what I don't get. Maybe I am misreading what you and others seem to be implying, but there seems to be a default assumption that most accusers are lying. I am just wondering why that is. Especially when the accusers seem to have nothing to gain and a lot to lose by coming forward. Especially if they go public.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post

                                    Seriously? I haven't the time or patience to give you a constituional law education. Let it suffice to say that it is my opinion, having worked in the law for 30 years, that SafeSport is on shaky legal ground here. Many lawyers agree with me. Some don't. But that is why we would mark this issue as an "unsettled question".
                                    In this case, given your long and expert experience, you know that the courts have not delivered justice to victims of sex crimes. What do you want to do about that? If your answer is "nothing," then there has to be another institution and avenue for gaining that justice. But, again, being all expertly legal and all, you can't possibly argue that the best system of justice is one that categorically screws over a whole class of people. I think society at large is now deciding that the justice system has, indeed, demonstrated a shocking inadequacy when it comes to this class of crimes and it has had enough. I think the legal systems is just going to have to play some catch up, that's all.

                                    In the USEF's case, I think a more comprehensive ban than "just can't come to USEF shows" is required because of the way banned individuals are still in the business (which is what you want), but also still in the position to harm horses as they did (killing them in order to defraud insurance companies). I can't imagine defending the idea that a pro who has molested children *not necessarily at horse shows; most likely at a home barn* ought to have a ban that still allows him/her to train kids at a home barn.

                                    This is, I believe, a situation that happened and was considered in the Gymnastics world and a reason for the broader, Aiding and Abetting part of SafeSport's ban. And let's not lose sight of this: The person who had his paychecks signed by the parents of kids only had to not sexually molest them. That's all. Not hard and not an unreasonable nor unknown requirement of being in the profession.
                                    Last edited by mvp; Dec. 4, 2019, 07:42 AM.
                                    The armchair saddler
                                    Politically Pro-Cat

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post
                                      SafeSport argues that it has very broad authority to control people. It wants sexual predators completely out of the sports it oversees and for us to have no contact whatsoever with them for the rest of their lives. They do not have jurisdiction to control those they ban outside of the NGB context. Instead, they threaten the NGB members with sanctions unless we all actively shun the banned individual. That is how they further their cause.

                                      Many lawyers working in this area of law believe that if challenged in court, the aiding and abetting rule would not hold up to scrutiny if applied to those who sponsor clinics or hire banned individuals to teach them.

                                      The jurisdiction of SafeSport begins and ends with the organizations and competitions as defined in the Ted Steven's Act. Private activities that have no nexus to the USEF other than that the actors are members should not be covered. So simply sponsoring a lesson or clinic opportunity should.not put the member at risk.

                                      For rule to apply, there would most likely have to be some improper contact between a banned individual and a student facilitated by a USEF member. In that way the non banned person would be an accessory to further misdeeds and could be sanctioned by the USEF for their part in making the act possible. So if the person banned is still in a position to harm athletes through abusive training or sexual misconduct, a USEF member shires them atbtheirnown risk. But if the banned person is not a threat to anyone or the facts of their case do not relate to the job they have been hired to do, there should be no issue.

                                      I am struck that people are giving SafeSport the full force and credit of a court of law when it is the farthest thing from it. Simply put, SafeSport determines who may and may not participate in specific USOC sports when they have been accused of misconduct that threatens athletes. Safesport does not have the authority to place a person on the sexual offender registry for very good reasons. The accused are not found guilty or innocent of a crime. Rather, Safesport's investigators determine that a person probably did what they are accused of doing. And that something need not necessarily be a crime for SafeSport to render your right to compete forfeited for life.
                                      You may not have read it, but I did consider the situation of a USEF member hiring the proverbial Perpy Pro (who has been banned by the USEF) to come teach a weekend. The unimaginable happens after the clinic on that Saturday night. In this case who cares about whatever fine or unhappiness the USEF delivers? The real problem for the clinic host and non-banned USEF host of the clinic is defending her choice of clinicians in the civil suit.

                                      For anyone who wants to put some skin in the game and explain why the USEF and/or SafeSport are overstepping their bounds and should not be allowed to interfere with some barn owner's commerce in hiring Perpy Pro, I want to watch the trial.
                                      The armchair saddler
                                      Politically Pro-Cat

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by mvp View Post

                                        You may not have read it, but I did consider the situation of a USEF member hiring the proverbial Perpy Pro (who has been banned by the USEF) to come teach a weekend. The unimaginable happens after the clinic on that Saturday night. In this case who cares about whatever fine or unhappiness the USEF delivers? The real problem for the clinic host and non-banned USEF host of the clinic is defending her choice of clinicians in the civil suit.

                                        For anyone who wants to put some skin in the game and explain why the USEF and/or SafeSport are overstepping their bounds and should not be allowed to interfere with some barn owner's commerce in hiring Perpy Pro, I want to watch the trial.
                                        The unimaginable might not even have to happen in that situation. All it would take is one parent who wasn't aware of the SafeSport charges/ban to find out that their child attended a clinic with Pervy Pro and was willing to go to the media and make a stink about the BO inviting this person to teach children. The bad PR could snowball and really take a lot of people down, especially since the parents would be talking to the outraged general public and not to the portion of the H/J crowd who doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that situation.
                                        "Dogs give and give and give. Cats are the gift that keeps on grifting." —Bradley Trevor Greive

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by chestnutmarebeware View Post

                                          The unimaginable might not even have to happen in that situation. All it would take is one parent who wasn't aware of the SafeSport charges/ban to find out that their child attended a clinic with Pervy Pro and was willing to go to the media and make a stink about the BO inviting this person to teach children. The bad PR could snowball and really take a lot of people down, especially since the parents would be talking to the outraged general public and not to the portion of the H/J crowd who doesn't seem to think there's anything wrong with that situation.
                                          I also think the H/J crowd's singular and very public push-back against SafeSport will be distasteful to most people. The industry at large has a habit of not being brought to heel very readily, whether you look at the horse-killing pros still making a living just outside the bounds of USEF shows, or the way it's Just.So.Hard to keep the horsey set from cheating. To wit: look how baroque the amateur rules have to be. That's because those rules had to be modified over and over and over to fill in some new gap someone insisted on finding. Or look at the constant work needed to develop new tests for drugged horses because the general prohibition of anything given with the intention to enhance performance doesn't stop us.

                                          Presumably, this is a sport and all who are in it love the animals (as well as competition in the purest sense of that word). Clearly, however, we do not like to be regulated AND no amount of common decency or common sense will stop us. Now consider the public comments and the indifference to victims' suffering shown by this same group of people who will readily cheat amongst themselves and kill horses once in a while in pursuit of winning.

                                          If you read the public responses to the information coming out about horse racing right now, whether about the deaths at Santa Anita, or the people talking about the extensive drugging in that sport (which is arguably better-regulated than ours), I think you can predict the public's reaction to a clinic host who decided that no set of rules-- ones of common sense or common decency, nor those of the USEF and not even the ones of an organization like SafeSport need apply to her.
                                          The armchair saddler
                                          Politically Pro-Cat

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X