It is a sign of the times, perhaps, that the United States Equestrian Federation has implemented the USEF SafeSport Policy, including the recently-announced USEF Minor Athlete Abuse Prevention Policies. Equestrian Canada already has an existing Code of Ethics, Harassment Policy, and Responsible Coaching Movement Pledge; however, officials tell me that new SafeSport-type policies will soon be arriving north of the border as well.
While nobody disputes the need to protect our coaches, trainers and athletes, I have to wonder if sport governing bodies are really equipped to take on a role previously left to police. And do these new policies really offer equal protection to everyone?
Of course trainers, coaches, and all educators must understand the vulnerability of their staff and students and conduct themselves with a moral standard that is correct and clean. This, in the end, means that our instructors, coaches, etc. must be “good” people; their ethics must be intact, and they must not have lost their innate ability to know right from wrong and to act accordingly.
Let’s be very clear: there is no place in our sport for bad behaviour based on colour or creed. There is no place for sexual misconduct against males or females. There is no place for abuse against any person, or any animal, period. However, there is also no place for those wishing to hurt their opponents or to eliminate the competition by making false accusations.
In the #MeToo era, the burden of proof has shifted. Instead of innocent until proven guilty, one is often found guilty in the court of public opinion as soon as an accusation is made. Even if the accusations are later proven to be unfounded, the harm to a professional’s reputation can never truly be repaired. What mechanisms do SafeSport policies provide to protect the privacy of both the accused and their accusers before investigations are complete?
And speaking of privacy, where is the line to be drawn between how someone acts in their professional capacity and how they behave in their private life? How far back should we dig into someone’s past? Should we hold people accountable to today’s standards for alleged acts that occurred in a different era? Should accusations against people no longer alive and unable to defend themselves be made public? The answers to these questions are not simple. The USA is having some very serious issues with their SafeSport program and the tragic suicide of show jumping trainer and clinician Robert Gage in June might be the final straw. The recent resignations from the board suggest there are very deeply conflicted viewpoints. Let EC and other Canadian sport federations be very careful as to how they move forward.
Life, unfortunately, is not always as clearly black or white as we would like, and trying to rule on the private lives of all members in an association is a difficult undertaking. Many situations are open to interpretation. Consider the following hypothetical events that could be considered questionable behaviour under SafeSport:
• We saw coach “so and so” at a party; he had a few too many drinks and was clearly “happy” or in the view of some, inebriated. Some of his minor students were also there without their parents.
• A teenage girl receives a pat on her thigh from her trainer as she finishes an exercise. She has to make a judgement call; was it a friendly pat of encouragement, or was it a caress that was sexual in nature?
While the intent of SafeSport and similar policies is undeniably to protect everyone, the unintended consequence may be a chilling effect in which professionals feel compelled to stifle all spontaneity in case it’s taken the wrong way. Even the most innocuous comment or casual physical contact can easily be misconstrued. The onus is upon each of us – riders, owners, coaches, trainers, students and parents – to ensure that doesn’t happen.
