Sport Horse Spotlight

BushyGeneology copy

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

People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

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

  • #61
    Originally posted by BeeHoney View Post
    The pushback over Safe Sport is astounding to me. Sadly, it is driven by people like BN who truly is a bottom feeder.

    Anyone can look back through all of my posts on this forum and see that it is not my style to use such labels and I do not do so lightly. It is one thing to defend child molesters. In our country everyone has the right to legal counsel, and someone needs to do that job. It is perfectly honorable to provide legal counsel and defense to even the most heinous of criminals because it is a necessary part of how our system works.

    What I have a problem with is the use of social media and websites to discredit and undermine Safe Sport through carefully worded inflammatory misinformation intended to mislead the public. Safe Sport was created because youth sports in our country have long been a rich hunting ground for sexual predators. For years, sexual predators have been able to prey on children in plain sight in youth sports organizations. Relying on our criminal justice system has been completely ineffective in protecting children from abuse.

    NOT ONCE have I seen one of these "we need to reform Safe Sport" folks put forward a SPECIFIC, REALISTIC suggestion that includes references to how Safe Sport actually works or it's actual policies.

    Here's a link to current Safe Sport policy. Read the policy. What exactly would you change and how? No, the hearings can't be made public to satisfy everyone's salacious curiosity. No, the names of victims cannot be released to the public so that they can be harassed and intimidated. Yes, the process allows for multiple hearings with ample opportunity to present evidence and testimony. And finally, YES, there is outside oversight as the final binding arbitration is conducted by an INDEPENDENT arbitrator.

    https://uscenterforsafesport.org/wp-...yperlinked.pdf
    I support safe sport. And here's what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the "continuing violations doctrine."

    If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I'd like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it's that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago--where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)--is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind--maybe that's pie in the sky, but "no current predators/violators" seems like something almost everyone would support). I'd much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

    I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It's more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

    And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by TheMoo View Post

      But there has been overt victim blaming on Facebook. I don’t think Packy’s post is victim blaming but when people post comments calling HR a murderer..... you can’t deny there IS victim blaming.

      Even on CoTH. At the beginning of the GHM thread someone expressed doubt about the claims against GHM because a minor could have gotten something out of it. Granted the person knows nothing about GHM beyond his name but that is victim blaming under the guise of not knowing.
      Oh, please. "She was wearing a mini-skirt" is the oldest, favorite and sometimes effective defense of a sexual perpetrator. That argument is a defense by way of an ad hominem attack on the victim.

      I don't know what rock packy mcgaughan has been living under, but he's dead wrong with respect to his claims that no victim shaming happens around this.
      The armchair saddler
      Politically Pro-Cat

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by BITSA View Post

        I support safe sport. And here's what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the "continuing violations doctrine."

        If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I'd like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it's that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago--where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)--is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind--maybe that's pie in the sky, but "no current predators/violators" seems like something almost everyone would support). I'd much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

        I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It's more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

        And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.

        Hmmm, well I can tell you that I was involved in a Safesport case where there were many victims who came forward to Safesport and gave statements. So many people here and on FB ranted about how long ago it all was. He was no present danger, so leave him alone. This included many of my long time friends and acquaintances. Here’s the thing, sexual predators don’t grow out of it and, in this case, I stumbled over more current evidence. I came across a photo taken two years ago of this person having inappropriate contact with a 14 year old. Normalizing inappropriate contact is part of grooming. You can bet that after talking to the mother, I turned the photo over to Safesport. I also gave USEF a cropped version of the photo hiding the victim’s identity. And no, neither you nor anyone else will ever know who was in that photo. The adult was already well on the way to being sanctioned and the child is a minor and a victim.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by BITSA View Post

          I support safe sport. And here's what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the "continuing violations doctrine."

          If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I'd like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it's that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago--where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)--is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind--maybe that's pie in the sky, but "no current predators/violators" seems like something almost everyone would support). I'd much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

          I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It's more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

          And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.
          So a couple of things. First, in criminal law, statutes of limitations have been removed in many jurisdictions for sexual abuse of a minor. This is not generally retroactive so even if a jurisdiction has no time limit now, it may have when an event occurred. But, this change is due to recognition that often people do not come forward until they are 50, and that unfortunately even with that passage of time many of the abusers are in fact still active.

          Second, I think with your emphasis on *protective* you're completely backwards on how to apply the statute of limitations and most likely what investigators are looking at. That is, you're thinking that SafeSport is punishing people for violations that occurred decades ago and then the individual saw the light and stopped.

          SafeSport has the discretion and the data to make a judgement about that. Was it one incident that happened in a misguided youth? Or is it the only survivor who is willing to testify but investigators have strong suspicion that there are multiple more recent survivors who are unwilling to testify? In both the recent high profile equestrian cases, we have public whispers of people witnessing questionable behavior with minors within the last 5 years. The SafeSport investigators would have been in a position to follow up on those whispers and decide if they were credible. I don't know either way. But I doubt that what many people seem to fear is true: that SafeSport would ban someone for having a teen-teen relationship 50 years ago* if that's all there was in the case file, and if the person seems to have led a scandal-free life since.

          The only person who said that the allegations are only from a four year period 50 years ago is GM. No one else has agreed that's all they have. We know a second person testified and we don't know the time period for that person.

          One of the longstanding problems with these cases has been exactly the situation where we had many decades of abuse, with current victims, but the old cases were too old to try and the new cases wouldn't testify. And so these people - priests and coaches among them - got shuffled around where no one knew of the previous accusations.

          It does require putting trust in the SafeSport investigators to do their job - just as our criminal justice system requires trust in police and district attorneys to do theirs. The investigators are drawn from the same pool. If SafeSport needs better people, I'm down for figuring out how to advocate for that. It sounds like they need more people, and I'm down for that too. If you look at the cases that have resulted in Permanent Ineligibility, I haven't seen even one that looked inappropriate. Even the ones that were public that were overturned on appeal look like the investigators called it reasonably, from the accounts I read in the press.

          --
          Edited to add this asterisk:
          * I don't mean to imply as you might casually read it, that the GM case involves two teens. The public survivor would have been 13 when GM was 30 in 1968.
          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


          • #65
            Originally posted by BITSA View Post

            I support safe sport. And here's what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the "continuing violations doctrine."

            If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I'd like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it's that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago--where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)--is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind--maybe that's pie in the sky, but "no current predators/violators" seems like something almost everyone would support). I'd much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.
            So because you come to this as someone with a vested interest in protecting your kid now and you "can't imagine" what it's like to be a victim of a sexual abuse, you think the Statute of Limitations is a good idea? With all due respect, I don't think you are actually on the victims' side. And what happens if your kid takes, say, 25 years to come forward with the information that she was a victim? Perhaps then you will feel compelled to imagine.
            The armchair saddler
            Politically Pro-Cat

            Comment


            • #66
              packy mcgaughan thank you for your thoughtful post. I disagree with your argument regarding the "weaponization" of Safe Sport. In real life, many rules can be weaponized. In fact, accusing competitors of rule breaking is an age old trick, it didn't suddenly appear with Safe Sport. Look at the drugs and medications rules. Given the public and low security nature of a show grounds, it would be a simple matter in many cases to administer medication to a competitor's horse and then watch them be set back for a D&M infraction. There are even cases where it's tough to tell if a positive test might be the result of a groom's mistake or even environmental contamination. Should we just do away with the D&M rules? Of course not! We have decided as a community that equine welfare and fair sport are priorities that transcend the discomforts and difficulties of rule implementation. Providing a safe environment for youth sports participants is an even more important priority.

              I'd also like to point out that receiving a temporary suspension from Safe Sport is hardly equivalent to being "branded" a child molester. It's SOP in many jobs to be suspended or put on some type of administrative leave when an accusation of inappropriate behavior is made in order for an investigation to take place. Safe Sport probably offers additional protection beyond many workplaces in that Safe Sport specifically penalizes accusers who make deliberate false complaints.

              And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I'm not seeing that connection.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post

                No one who speaks out against the process of how people are banned for life is engaged in victim shaming.
                I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. The victim shaming on FB has been horrific and has been done by many of the people that say they are supporting a reform to SS. Some of the following are written by persons involved in the new "Athletes for Equity" group.

                Direct quotes from FB without names:

                "this is his two seconds of "fame" because he never made it as a trainer, a rider nor an actor. I had heard that his brother swore to bring George down. Well, they succeeded. And funnily enough, he still thanks George for his training as an instructor on his sites. I knew JS. I put this in the past tense as I want nothing to do with him ever again. I have zero respect for him now."

                "'No one will ever again think that sex with an underage student is no big deal. And that is progress' REALLY Jonathan??"

                "Are we supposed to have sympathy for her?"

                "Perhaps Safesport ought to ban people convicted of child porn."

                "You have got to be kidding me that we are now going to put a registered sex offender up on a pedestal"

                "So kids can go train with a convicted pedophile, but not the former coach of the US equestrian team?"

                Just a small list of things that people who say they are working to change the process have put out on FB. And those sure aren't the worst things I could find. I didn't even look at what is posted on individual's pages, this is just from the group pages. So don't tell me there's no victim shaming going on - it's all over the place and you're incredibly dense if you deny it.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by BITSA View Post

                  I support safe sport. And here's what I would change. The statute of limitations. I think it should be similar to what is used for sex harassment cases. There is a specific SOL, but if you can show a pattern you get to reach farther back under the "continuing violations doctrine."

                  If we are trying to keep our kids safe (and I have a vested interest in this having a 13 year old daughter who rides), it seems safe sport needs to decide at some level whether it is trying to be punitive or protective. I'd like to see the focus on protective. We cannot right the wrongs of the distant past through safe sport. This is not to diminish what victims went through at all, I cannot imagine being a victim or having my daughter be a victim of some of the horrific things I read about. My $.02 it's that we need to make sure there are not future victims and to care for current victims. I think focusing on allegations from 25+ years ago--where there is no intervening, continuing violation(s)--is not the best use of resources, does not flesh out child predators, and fosters ill will (which our kids hear about; it would be much better to have a united front we could all get behind--maybe that's pie in the sky, but "no current predators/violators" seems like something almost everyone would support). I'd much rather see time and money put into keeping current violators and predators out of the organization and educating parents and kids about what to look for and what their rights are.

                  I also think there should be three member arbitrator panels for lifetime ban cases. It's more than just being excluded from a club in reality given the aiding and abetting rules.

                  And better discovery, if not depositions, at least written interrogatories. The purpose of discovery is to obtain facts and information that will reveal the truth in a matter. Again, maybe this could be limited to lifetime ban cases.
                  Here's my 2 cents....

                  People say there needs to be a statute of limitations in these cases. NJ DOES NOT have a statute of limitation for sexual assault. Hunterdon was in NJ, so if someone wanted to press criminal charges against George for an assault that occurred at his NJ home/barn they could. There is another person on the interim suspension list now that was facing charges from the 80's by a woman in NJ. He agreed to having a judgement entered against him. When the report was made against a Massachusetts trainer on the banned list, the stature of limitation had NOT expired for civil charges. So here are 3 examples of people with either lifetime, or temporary bans that do fall within the statute of limitations.

                  I vehemently disagree that sexual misconduct with a minor should be similar to sexual harassment cases. I was assaulted at 15 by a trainer. I was sexually harassed by a boss and I will say they are not even in the same ballpark. Sexual assault of a minor destroys trust, makes you feel dirty, embarrassed, alone, depressed, guilty and a multitude of other feelings. It affects you for the rest of your life, as well as any future relationships you have (boy/girlfriend, parents, children, friends, trainers) Sexual harassment is unpleasant, but please, do not consider them equal.

                  Protective vs punitive. That is the point of punishment; it acts a deterrent. Current trainers pay attention; if you prey on minors, the punishment will be a lifetime ban. You do not know if there are other, more recent victims. Most women do not address their childhood sexual abuse until they are in their 50s. (I will try to find a case study or reference of this statistic). You are also making assumptions on these old cases - you do not know if it was he said/she (he) said. Those banned may not have denied it occurred, There could be many victims or witnesses that testified. There could be many more that chose not to participate. People say "they didn't see anything" or he didn't abuse me. All that could be true, but in most cases the assaults did not happen during a lesson or in the public eye. If you know of "current violators" than do something about it. Don't stand by and ignore it; you are not helping change the culture of the sport.

                  I don't understand your comment about it being more than exclusion from a club given the aiding and abetting rules. It is not a civil right to be a part of the USEF or any other NGB. Perhaps if the equestrian world required licensure like other professions, people would understand penalties and accept a ban as a proper penalty. If a doctor/teacher/therapist/lawyer has sex with a patient/student/client, they can lose their license.

                  If you had the opportunity to be involved in a SS case, you would see that there is an opportunity to obtain evidence. The accused can present ANYTHING they want when interviewed. They can present character statements, letters from doctors, forensic psychologists, etc. And contrary to what is splashed all over social media, they do know who reported it so they can tell their version of the events in question. And if you have a full merit hearing, both sides get to present evidence, witnesses and cross examine. The Responding Party does not get to talk to the Reporting Party before arbitration, but they do not get that opportunity when facing sanctions in other professions either. You do not know the facts that were presented in any of the cases unless you are the Reporting or Responding Party (and their advisors), so perhaps the facts were presented and the truth was revealed. Just because people do not like the outcome of the arbitrations, it does not mean the truth was not revealed. In fact, I think the truth has been revealed and that is why the arbitrator came to the conclusion the did.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                    Here's my 2 cents....

                    People say there needs to be a statute of limitations in these cases. NJ DOES NOT have a statute of limitation for sexual assault. Hunterdon was in NJ, so if someone wanted to press criminal charges against George for an assault that occurred at his NJ home/barn they could. There is another person on the interim suspension list now that was facing charges from the 80's by a woman in NJ. He agreed to having a judgement entered against him. When the report was made against a Massachusetts trainer on the banned list, the stature of limitation had NOT expired for civil charges. So here are 3 examples of people with either lifetime, or temporary bans that do fall within the statute of limitations.

                    I vehemently disagree that sexual misconduct with a minor should be similar to sexual harassment cases. I was assaulted at 15 by a trainer. I was sexually harassed by a boss and I will say they are not even in the same ballpark. Sexual assault of a minor destroys trust, makes you feel dirty, embarrassed, alone, depressed, guilty and a multitude of other feelings. It affects you for the rest of your life, as well as any future relationships you have (boy/girlfriend, parents, children, friends, trainers) Sexual harassment is unpleasant, but please, do not consider them equal.

                    Protective vs punitive. That is the point of punishment; it acts a deterrent. Current trainers pay attention; if you prey on minors, the punishment will be a lifetime ban. You do not know if there are other, more recent victims. Most women do not address their childhood sexual abuse until they are in their 50s. (I will try to find a case study or reference of this statistic). You are also making assumptions on these old cases - you do not know if it was he said/she (he) said. Those banned may not have denied it occurred, There could be many victims or witnesses that testified. There could be many more that chose not to participate. People say "they didn't see anything" or he didn't abuse me. All that could be true, but in most cases the assaults did not happen during a lesson or in the public eye. If you know of "current violators" than do something about it. Don't stand by and ignore it; you are not helping change the culture of the sport.

                    I don't understand your comment about it being more than exclusion from a club given the aiding and abetting rules. It is not a civil right to be a part of the USEF or any other NGB. Perhaps if the equestrian world required licensure like other professions, people would understand penalties and accept a ban as a proper penalty. If a doctor/teacher/therapist/lawyer has sex with a patient/student/client, they can lose their license.

                    If you had the opportunity to be involved in a SS case, you would see that there is an opportunity to obtain evidence. The accused can present ANYTHING they want when interviewed. They can present character statements, letters from doctors, forensic psychologists, etc. And contrary to what is splashed all over social media, they do know who reported it so they can tell their version of the events in question. And if you have a full merit hearing, both sides get to present evidence, witnesses and cross examine. The Responding Party does not get to talk to the Reporting Party before arbitration, but they do not get that opportunity when facing sanctions in other professions either. You do not know the facts that were presented in any of the cases unless you are the Reporting or Responding Party (and their advisors), so perhaps the facts were presented and the truth was revealed. Just because people do not like the outcome of the arbitrations, it does not mean the truth was not revealed. In fact, I think the truth has been revealed and that is why the arbitrator came to the conclusion the did.
                    Matches my experience exactly. Thank you, I couldn’t agree more with you.

                    Comment

                    • Original Poster

                      #70
                      Originally posted by Tackpud View Post

                      I'm sorry, but I have to disagree with this statement. The victim shaming on FB has been horrific and has been done by many of the people that say they are supporting a reform to SS. Some of the following are written by persons involved in the new "Athletes for Equity" group.

                      Direct quotes from FB without names:

                      "this is his two seconds of "fame" because he never made it as a trainer, a rider nor an actor. I had heard that his brother swore to bring George down. Well, they succeeded. And funnily enough, he still thanks George for his training as an instructor on his sites. I knew JS. I put this in the past tense as I want nothing to do with him ever again. I have zero respect for him now."

                      "'No one will ever again think that sex with an underage student is no big deal. And that is progress' REALLY Jonathan??"

                      "Are we supposed to have sympathy for her?"

                      "Perhaps Safesport ought to ban people convicted of child porn."

                      "You have got to be kidding me that we are now going to put a registered sex offender up on a pedestal"

                      "So kids can go train with a convicted pedophile, but not the former coach of the US equestrian team?"

                      Just a small list of things that people who say they are working to change the process have put out on FB. And those sure aren't the worst things I could find. I didn't even look at what is posted on individual's pages, this is just from the group pages. So don't tell me there's no victim shaming going on - it's all over the place and you're incredibly dense if you deny it.
                      Thanks for this post, and being firm in terms of pushing back on the notion that there is no victim shaming going on.

                      I will add two more to your list of HORRIBLE things said about victims on Facebook by actual people following high profile cases...

                      1. Following the story the articles that were published about Williams in 2018, and the decision to ban Gage in early summer, one particularly well known figure in the hunter jumper community came out and commented that teenage girls from the 1970’s routinely were “screwing for the blue.”

                      2. Following Gage’s suicide, Steve Bostwick actually left a comment on AK’s professional Facebook page, accusing her of being a “murderer” who was responsible for his death, because she had spoken up about her own experiences as a victim. By AK going public with her own experiences, and then choosing to be a leader with respect to changing the culture in our sport, others felt comfortable coming forward to and working with Safe Sport. Blaming a victim of childhood abuse for Gage’s tragic decision to take his own life? That’s an insane, sick thing to do. Period.

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        #71
                        Keep it Simple

                        Thanks for your last few posts. You have done an awesome job at clarifying the process of a Safe Sport investigation, and highlighting misinformation that is obviously spreading.

                        I’m tired of seeing the same misinformation repeated over and over and over again by well known professionals throughout the industry. It’s disappointing and sad. Folks, you destroy your own credibility when you obviously stand by a small circle of friends, and don’t bother to thoroughly examine the published details of the Safe Sport process, and details about specific cases, before going out and repeating the same old arguments.

                        I have no problem with people being concerned about Safe Spirt, examining individual cases and the process, and attempting to improve it. But it’s tome to get real... that is not what the vast majority of the groundswell in hunter jumper land is doing right now. The anti Safe Sport sentiment is all about protecting the old guard, and sucking up to big names who have very strong public opinions because close associates and friends have been caught up in a Safe Sport investigation... and it’s sad. The situation is obvious.

                        I can understand folks struggling with some of the ugly revelations... I can understand folks supporting long time friends, teammates, family members, mentors, etc... but once it’s obvious that allegations are likely accurate... what is the continued noise about Safe Sport reform REALLY all about?

                        At what point do we decide that this behavior is bad... and always was bad? It’s time to say that. I’m sorry friends and cons are dealing with the consequences of bad choices. It IS sad. But sweeping these things under the rug is WORSE. Support change. Encourage people like me to dial back their rhetoric and speak with compassion about individual cases... that’s fair... but don’t attack the change that is happening in the sport. This change is a good thing for young people, and for the future of the sport.

                        poltroon - thanks for going back and finding the statistical information FiSk123 shared in another thread concerning statistics related to Safe Sport cases across multiple sports. It helps put things in perspective, for sure. I wish FiSk would pop back into multiple threads now. She/he contributed a lot to discussions.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                          I have no problem with people being concerned about Safe Spirt, examining individual cases and the process, and attempting to improve it. But it’s tome to get real... that is not what the vast majority of the groundswell in hunter jumper land is doing right now.
                          Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

                          There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

                          There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by MHM View Post

                            Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

                            There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

                            There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.
                            On your last point: I don't think anyone believes that sexual exploitation happens in the H/J world more frequently than anywhere else. Rather, I thought that the point was that we are (disappointingly) unique in our push-back against SafeSport. At least, that's what I see from my corner of the world, though I am not well-informed about sports at large.

                            I am surprised by the callousness and entitlement exhibited by "my betters' in this industry who are ill-informed about the SafeSport process or the experience of victims, but quite sure of the validity of their opinions. And at bottom, these folks are making an argument against preventing sexual abuse of children. This feels like yet more way in which I'm finding myself at odds with the sport I grew up loving. This branch of the high-end H/J world are not my people.
                            The armchair saddler
                            Politically Pro-Cat

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by MHM View Post

                              Are you saying the “vast majority” of hunter jumper people are anti-safe sport? I would not say that is accurate. At all.

                              There is a very vocal group that is anti-safe sport, but they are a small, small minority of the whole discipline. Note how little money has actually been raised for that cause.

                              There also seems to be a perception that this is largely a hunter jumper issue among horse sports, but the safe sport suspension list suggests otherwise.
                              Check out @JudgeThree on Twitter for an interesting cross sport perspective. He/She is from figure skating but also has had direct contact with Safesport and connections to people in other sports.

                              Comment


                              • #75

                                And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I'm not seeing that connection. [/QUOTE]


                                Bonnie will not tell you this but I will. She has never charged any of the nearly two dozen clients she has represented a dime for her services. She, more than any other lawyer working on these issues, understands how most equestrian professionals live hand to mouth. We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.

                                Comment


                                • #76
                                  When people say, "Shouldn't the court system handle this?"



                                  "A rape kit wasn’t tested for 23 years. Police just matched the DNA — to a man suspected all along."


                                  https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/s...45627236782081
                                  *****
                                  You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                  Comment


                                  • #77
                                    Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post

                                    Bonnie will not tell you this but I will. She has never charged any of the nearly two dozen clients she has represented a dime for her services. She, more than any other lawyer working on these issues, understands how most equestrian professionals live hand to mouth. We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.
                                    Oh, she told us.
                                    *****
                                    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                    Comment


                                    • #78
                                      Originally posted by Midge View Post

                                      Oh, she told us.
                                      thank you for beating me to this. What the heck? She says this repeatedly. And please, I think it's great that this one person wants to defend all the dopers and kiddy rapers. Congrats on finding your folks.
                                      Let me apologize in advance.

                                      Comment


                                      • #79
                                        Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post
                                        We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.
                                        Well, those of us who don't rape children don't need a lawyer at all, let alone one who will happily defend child rapists at no charge.

                                        Comment


                                        • #80
                                          Originally posted by packy mcgaughan View Post
                                          And lastly, I think it is a bit disingenuous to imply that a lawyer who is earning money (and publicity) defending and doing PR work for high profile child molesters is somehow working for the common good trying to improve the Safe Sport process. I'm not seeing that connection.

                                          Bonnie will not tell you this but I will. She has never charged any of the nearly two dozen clients she has represented a dime for her services. She, more than any other lawyer working on these issues, understands how most equestrian professionals live hand to mouth. We should all have a lawyer like Bonnie in our corner.
                                          Since I won't be raping children or drugging horses for competition, I won't be in need of "a lawyer like Bonnie" in my corner.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X