PDA

View Full Version : Fasten Your Seatbelts -- USA Eq Filed Its Demand for Arbitration



Portia
Aug. 29, 2002, 09:09 AM
The demand will be posted on the website later today, according to the news e-mail, along with maybe some other legal documents. It may even be posted already (I haven't checked yet).

The AAA Commercial Rules only require that the demand contain some very basic information, so it may be kind of skeletal. Sometimes for tactical reasons, however, a Claimant will make its demand far more detailed than the Rules require, so it may make for interesting reading.

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

Portia
Aug. 29, 2002, 09:09 AM
The demand will be posted on the website later today, according to the news e-mail, along with maybe some other legal documents. It may even be posted already (I haven't checked yet).

The AAA Commercial Rules only require that the demand contain some very basic information, so it may be kind of skeletal. Sometimes for tactical reasons, however, a Claimant will make its demand far more detailed than the Rules require, so it may make for interesting reading.

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

SGray
Aug. 29, 2002, 09:27 AM
haven't read it yet but it's 51 pages so there must be something interesting in there

DMK
Aug. 29, 2002, 09:30 AM
So I am going out on a limb and say that the option voted on at the USAEq meeting to continue mediation sans Leone and Balch didn't fly with the USET?

I am obviously overcome with optimism lately - I actually thought that a) sounded reasonable from both sides and b) might actually fly. I think I need to "rediscover" my cloak of pessimism and sarcasm... /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Sgray - the day "length of document" and "interesting" are achieved in a sentence discussing the American jurisprudence system, is the day a few million legal professionals start rolling in their graves... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

AnnM
Aug. 29, 2002, 10:48 AM
First of all, I know NOTHING about the whole governance controversy. I mean NOTHING. I realize that I could probably do a search on the BB and find some threads that explain it.

But as a curious law student, I have a question - who are the lawyers involved in this whole mess? Do the organizations employ outside law firms, and if so, which ones? Or do they have in-house counsel? I wonder what kind of qualifications one would need for this sort of work. Does knowledge of equestrian sports help?

After spending 12 weeks at a regular old commercial litigation law firm, the thought of being able to do legal work for a dispute between equestrian organization sounds pretty darn exciting! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ann

AnnM
Aug. 29, 2002, 10:52 AM
OK, I looked at some of the pleadings on USAEq's website, and that answers my questions about who represents everyone. I've never heard of these firms - any insight about who they are and what they do? And what makes them qualified to represent the parties?

Generally speaking, though, does USAEq have in-house counsel?

dublin
Aug. 29, 2002, 11:11 AM
I think I recall reading somewhere on the BB fairly recently that Armand Leone's lawfirm (Britcher, Leone and Roth, LLC) either has or will be doing some work on behalf of the USET?

I looked at their website and saw that their areas of expertise are listed as medical malpractice; birth injuries; pediatric malpractice; misdiagnosis; pharmaceutical product liability and medical device liability; vaccine injury claims; personal injury; auto accidents; and product liability, which at least to me don't seem very appropro to the type of litigation the USET and USAEq are involved in.

But perhaps I'm missing something here.

And yes, DMK, it certainly appears, unforunately, that the mediation proposal with neither Leone or Balch participating went nowhere with the USET after it was raised at the 7/9 USA Eq Board Meeting. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

~~~~~~~~
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
Proud member of the Thoroughbred Clique

[This message was edited by dublin on Aug. 29, 2002 at 02:01 PM.]

SGray
Aug. 29, 2002, 11:57 AM
I'm only to page 18 and I am so thoroughly APPALLED

looks like all of Snowbird's theories about the USOC are correct

I have to go to another meeting here at work so I won't be able to finish reading until tonight

dublin
Aug. 29, 2002, 12:07 PM
The legal documents which have been filed are not posted on their website yet, but I am sure will be shortly.

~~~~~

For Immediate Release August 29, 2002

DEMAND FOR ARBITRATION MADE
USA EQUESTRIAN RESPONDS TO FORMAL COMPLAINT

USA Equestrian, the National Equestrian Federation, announced today that a formal demand for arbitration has been made with the American Arbitration Association, relating to a recent United States Olympic Committee ruling on its status as the sport’s national governing body. The USOC board of directors affirmed its hearing panel report on the matter in early August, and under federal law, a demand for binding arbitration of such a decision, by any “aggrieved party,” must be made within 30 days.

Speaking for all six officers of USA Equestrian, its president, Alan F. Balch, commented, “USA Equestrian has come to the conclusion that arbitration is the best forum in which a full and independent hearing of all relevant facts can be achieved, absent an immediate mediated settlement. We are confident in this course of action for many reasons; but three essential issues are clear:

* USA Equestrian is inclusive, financially sound and well-managed; USET is not.
* USA Equestrian represents a broad cross-section of equestrian events and equestrian athletes; USET shares representation with us of only an athletic elite who compete in select international events.
* USA Equestrian is committed to broad, fair competition; USET's dependence on a very small group of supporters has raised questions about conflicts of interest and undue influence, and subjected it to constant fiscal uncertainty and distress.

We are committed to being heard fairly and independently on these core issues. While this is a sad day for the sport, we have come to this place only because the USET has declined any effort to continue to resolve the sport’s governance issues through mediation.”

In response to USET’s continuing claim of improper delegation of governance functions, USA Equestrian announced immediate steps to enhance its international activities and oversight.

Balch stated, “I am pleased to announce that USA Equestrian’s Planning Committee, its NGB Advisory Committee, its International High Performance Advisory Committee, its Budget and Finance Committee and its Officers will begin promptly a series of public, webcast meetings to plan and institute all the details to accomplish the implementation of the enhanced international programs and oversight for all post-World Equestrian Games activities. Therefore, beginning with any international events after the World Championships in September, no further financial, logistical, administrative, or other assistance from the USET will be accepted by our organization, except as specifically approved by our Executive Committee or Board following receipt of recommendations from the Officers and the appropriate Committees in the Federation.”

Reports on developments as well as information for joining the above webcasts will be available on USA Equestrian’s web site. All legal documents filed today will be available on the USA Equestrian website at http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/index.asp. Questions and comments should be made to gov@equestrian.org.

SGray
Aug. 29, 2002, 02:27 PM
Therefore, beginning with any international events after the World Championships in September, no further financial, logistical, administrative, or other assistance from the USET will be accepted by our organization, except as specifically approved by our Executive Committee or Board following receipt of recommendations from the Officers and the appropriate Committees in the Federation.�

SoEasy
Aug. 29, 2002, 02:38 PM
Go look now!!!

Guenter Seidel filed a new Complaint before the USOC. The Complaint and the USA Eq response are on the web site at http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/index.asp

/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

dublin
Aug. 29, 2002, 03:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> EEEEKKKKK

Go look now!!!

Guenter Seidel filed a new Complaint before the USOC <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Gee, and I'm just positive that he decided to file this entirely on his own volition.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

~~~~~~~~
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller
Proud member of the Thoroughbred Clique

SoEasy
Aug. 29, 2002, 03:17 PM
It would depend entirely on the number of functional brain cells available ... the Response filed by Ira Finkelstein and Peter Alkalay is worth the read

Now I have to go wade through the Demand for Arbitration - which, I notice, is filed against BOTH USET and USOC ... Portia??? is that normal??

SGray
Aug. 29, 2002, 03:34 PM
SoEasy - you'll enjoy the read (I just finished it) - fascinating synopsis of the "troubles"

SGray
Aug. 29, 2002, 03:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoEasy:
It would depend entirely on the number of functional brain cells available ... the Response filed by Ira Finkelstein and Peter Alkalay is worth the read

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ira and Peter (and of course Bill and Portia) - now there's a truckload of functional braincells!

Snowbird
Aug. 29, 2002, 03:39 PM
Anyone who wishes can email me and I will forward a copy of my request that Senator McCain take action based on his past concerns about both the IOC and our own USOC.

I have requested a new Presidential Commission be formed to investigate the influence of special interests in the USOC as it applies to Equestrian.

I think it would be very helpful if you all sent him a letter explaining your feelings and the impact on all of us.

I think it is time that we were heard by the very body of this government that created this monstrous situation.

I was informed that while emails are interesting he cannot take any action without a signature so a signed fax, or hard copy by snail mail is necessary if we expect him to be able to use such correspondence as a request for any action.

Ted Stevens is still a Senator and mail to him might also be helpful, both served on the original President Ford Commission which established and authorized the USOC.

I think this is now beyond the point of a couple of boys in the playground and requires intervention by the Congress.

poltroon
Aug. 29, 2002, 03:48 PM
Why did Gunter Seidel sign the complaint when it was clearly prepared by counsel? Shouldn't it more appropriately be signed by both counsel and Mr. Seidel?

I don't know whether to laugh or cry about adding more litigation complaining that there has been too much litigation. What a waste of everyone's time.

Does Seidel REALLY want the USOC responsible for paying the way of his horses to Greece, as he requests? Yep, THAT would be better.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I wish USA Eq was paying directly for sending the team to WEG. Would end this all right here.

SoEasy
Aug. 29, 2002, 04:03 PM
the Response has obviously been written by a collection of brain cells functioning at the very very highest levels ... the Complaint signed by Guenter Seidel shows a much lower functional level, IMHO /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

PMJ
Aug. 29, 2002, 04:25 PM
What kills it for me is the fact that GS actually voted for the USAE to go to arbitration then filed--doesn't seem too smart or credible.

poltroon
Aug. 29, 2002, 05:06 PM
Yes - and especially for his first peep of dissent to be a Complaint to the USOC, since the rules say you first have to complain to the NF.

(All that trouble getting him to the hearing to vote, too....)

Ruby G. Weber
Aug. 29, 2002, 05:28 PM
Good idea. Let's side track our government, in the middle of a war, or have we forgotten?

Great idea. Get the politicians involved in the politics of this petty little spittin' match.

I can only hope my Representatives have more important issues to consider than this one. I do not want one cent of my tax dollars devoted to this USAE/USET/USOC/IOC arbitration, mediation crap.

As a matter of fact, I think I'll go out and buy
John and George new shredders tomorrow. (That would be Allen and Warner.)

Great way to encourage IOC to keep 3DE part of the Olympics, too.

SoEasy
Aug. 29, 2002, 05:32 PM
Letter from Lori Rawls to the FEI.

Notice that the Fed intends to do the entire job of NGB/NF, and will not be accepting help from the USET. (and presumably telling FEI to stop talking to them)

Snowbird
Aug. 29, 2002, 07:48 PM
I really think that our government can do more than one thing at a time. Have you had the opportunity to read any of the papers by John McCain regarding the IOC and the USOC?

This is more than a spitting match when you stand to jeopardize an industry that provides $112.1 billion dollars into the national gross product and has 1 out every 3 households involved with horses.

Did you realize that 68% of all horse owners have a gross income of $68,000 a year and that 50% of those have an income of $50,000 a year. This is not a rich man's sport.

I hope our representatives will put a priority on the right of every little American to believe in the idea they might be an Olympian and win a gold medal that really means something.

You are of course entitled to your personal opinion and priorities. I hope that doesn't represent the majority opinion. It takes a lot to get me really depressed but that could do it!

There are people in the lands that are muslim who are very fond of horses and all horse sports. The Olympics is an opportunity for the young people from all these countries to meet our young people and learn that we are not "satan".

I think horses make good ambassadors and that through horses we may make friends of enemies.

So I do not think building a course for Combined Training is a waste of money, and I do think that the grassroots should be able to dream that some day they might be accepted into the Olympics.

The charter of the USOC guarantees every youngster that dream. The USET has not fulfilled that promise for our children and the USOC should be investigated for not seeing the truth and permitting this conflict of opinions to go this far.

The USAE may not be successful, but they will try and you will know all the plans as they go along because they are not sworn to silence and secrecy.

SGray
Aug. 30, 2002, 07:32 AM
read it last night

love footnote #3 - pretty well sums it up

favorite of all "more than passing strange"

Ruby G. Weber
Aug. 30, 2002, 07:40 AM
In reference to "one out of three households..." there are several ways to translate that demographic. If one takes your statistics literally it would indicate USAE represents a very small fraction of a fraction of the horseworld.

Looked at another way, assuming the pollster asked the questions in a way to get the desired result, that demographic includes everyone from the child with a Breyer horse to every patron of the local OTB parlor.

I don't doubt for one minute our government can deal with multitudes of issues at a time, however I repeat, this issue is not worthy of government intervention. It smells of "getting someone else to fight your battles," of which, in this case, I am not a proponent of.

This entire fiasco would never had made front page news if it had not, initially, involved the tip of the pyramid specifically the prestige the elite riders bring to USAE/USET and the money those elite riders generate for both organizations.

This entire fiasco has evolved into nothing more than several adults, on both sides, throwing their candy in the sand.

So, I won't be communicating with Senator McCain or any other Representative on an issue that doesn't amount to more than a hill of beans in the grand scheme of things.

marianne
Aug. 30, 2002, 08:00 AM
Why would Gunter Siedel of all people file this? Is is because of true heartfelt beliefs or is he a pawn of Robert Dover, the Browns and others? Is he a spokesman or a sacrificial lamb? It does seem pretty pinchy to vote one way in public and then turn around and be two faced about this. If he truly felt this way, then he should have voted against the resolution at the July 9 meeting. I wonder if he had any idea about the litigation filed the same day as the executive meeting.

As for all you lawyers who wade through this stuff every day, how do you keep from dozing off in all this legaleze?

Portia
Aug. 30, 2002, 08:08 AM
Gunter Seidel rides for the Browns (Dick Brown is USET Treasurer), and now for Jane Clark too, since Robert Dover's semi-retirement.

The only question is why he voted in favor of the arbitration at the board meeting. Ooops. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the legaleze -- we fall asleep too, though it is easier to stay awake when you fully understand the possible consequences of what is being said and the (sometimes obscure) reasons for saying it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Flashy Gray
Aug. 30, 2002, 08:28 AM
Commerce already held several very high-profile hearings in the wake of the Salt Lake scandal regarding bribery, etc. in the site selection process.

In fact, many here in D.C. are saying that the reason the USOC decided against D.C. as one of the two finalists for the 2012 games was the "unseemly" way in which Juan Antonio Samaranch (sp?) was hauled before the Sen. Commerce committee to testify on the whole Salt Lake mess.

Clearly, equestrian's undeniable and ridiculous conflicts of interest with regards to the NGB wars are a related issue. And Ruby, while I am just as concerned as you are regarding legislative intervention (with my tax $!) in this ugly little war, I believe the issue has already been broached in the Senate. So I don't have a problem with Snowbird's contacting key legislators on an issue they have been investigating anyway.

SoEasy
Aug. 30, 2002, 09:42 AM
I am interested in whether filing the arbitration the way it was done, naming both USET and USOC is normal, or was that done because of the (seemingly overwhelming) evidence of collusion between the two? USOC's impartiality is certainly called into question in the filing!

Portia
Aug. 30, 2002, 10:28 AM
So Easy, naming both the USET and USOC as parties was normal (as normal as these things can be, since there haven't exactly been too many of these NGB challenges to go to arbitration!)

The USOC is a necessary party, because it is the entity which issued the order and took the action that is being challenged. The USET is an appropriate party, because it is the entity which asserted the challenge in the first place and the order affects its status.

(Legal trivia -- Unlike at the courthouse, where you have a "plaintiff" and a "defendant," in arbitration the person/entity bringing the action is called the "claimant," while the party being complained about is called the "respondent.")

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

Snowbird
Aug. 30, 2002, 11:00 AM
Takes more than a difference of opinion to offend me

In reference to "one out of three households..." there are several ways to translate that demographic. If one takes your statistics literally it would indicate USAE represents a very small fraction of a fraction of the horseworld.

Looked at another way, assuming the pollster asked the questions in a way to get the desired result, that demographic includes everyone from the child with a Breyer horse to every patron of the local OTB parlor.

I don't doubt for one minute our government can deal with multitudes of issues at a time, however I repeat, this issue is not worthy of government intervention. It smells of "getting someone else to fight your battles," of which, in this case, I am not a proponent of.

I think one of the problems is that a lot of people believe this is just a "rich man's" problem and it doesn't affect anyone else. You're right of course and the NEW USAE is fully aware that they have a huge job to do including all those horse people who are not members. That is exactly the purpose of the Marketing half of the Marketing and Development Committees.

I think we tend to view things from a very short perspective limited by our own hunter/jumper experiences and shows.

However, as statistics go in this conflict there is no doubt that USAE has 8 members to every one that USET has. And, the charter of the USOC compells it to seek the largest numbers and not just the most elite.

You see the USOC was created so that everyone was included the original premise was one of inclusion. The USET even by it's insane "total silence" agreement proves it is not inclusive but wants to stay exclusive.

I think this fiasco is much more important tan it's effect on our hunters and jumpers and reflects the kind of "special interests" influence on what should be a national program and has been misused.

As already mentioned this is not a new issue for the Congress they are already working on it and there are committees and recommendations in place.

The reason I chose Senator McCain is because he has been most vocal in his concerns about the USOC and the way it "appears" to be in clusion with special interests and large donors. He has also not spared the IOC which apparently has problems of it's own.

As yet another sport that has problems due to the interventions of the USOC it is appropriate that the Congress look at the record.

I don't know if you have read the whole 51 page filing, I know I have only gotten half way through it myself and that alone convinces me that Congress does need to investigate. I simply feel that with the Olympics only two years away we should have a new Predidential Commission which could amend the rules and By-Laws to prevent an occurrance like this in other sports.

I think from what I've seen we to reidentify what the purpose of the whole Olympic program is supposed to be. I note that many sports indicate that they require the Olympic agenda in order to survive, so is the International program to motive interest in a broader sports program or to go to the common denominator of only the popular sports.

Certainly, I respect your opinion that this doesn't warrant the attention of Cngress but since this is their project I think they should be aware. The impact will be far greater than just to us a hunter/jumper people of even dressage and jumpers.

Statistically 50% of 68% that own horses have a median income of $50,000. That proves it is not just for rich people.

I remember when we got into skating and everyone said there was no chance to really move up unless you had your private ice rink. Well, then a lot of people got together and we built County owned and operated skating rinks, and with the associated clubs involved it became possible for some one from backwater newjersey to get to the Olympics.

I fully appreciate that you don't feel the same necessity as I do, and afterall we all have our own priorities.

His Greyness
Aug. 30, 2002, 12:36 PM
Having just read all 51 pages of the USAEq's Demand for Arbitration I am reminded of the chapter in Monty Robert's book The Man who listens to horses titled The Sandcastle Syndrome. In this chapter Monty describes his encounter with an affluent but manic-depressive sponsor. The chapter explains the syndrome as follows:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>A child takes great pleasure in building a magnificent sandcastle at the water's edge. But that child then reaches even greater heights of excitement when the tide comes in ... and destroys it.

And the larger the sandcastle, the more excitement there is for <the child> in seeing it destroyed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anybody else have the feeling that several of the players in this NGB fiasco might have a touch of the Sandcastle Syndrome?

Snowbird
Aug. 30, 2002, 12:42 PM
People in general will help you when you're down and out so you can get back on your feet, and they can knock you down again. It feels so good to be kind to those who are down and out.

SoEasy
Aug. 31, 2002, 05:50 PM
has anyone else received their September HODV???

"we" ((well, I am assuming this is the referenced site)) are infamous, or famous, or well known, or something, and apparently are to blame for Mclain not being on the WEG team. If I may quote a bit of p40 "... But then, after the fourth trial, it was reported on a well known equestrian web site that Viktor was being held for reinspection. ....... Even though it was obvious that Viktor was receiving the very best of care and was not harmed by competing, some USET officials feared that USA Equestrian President Alan F. Balch, who is embroiled in a fight with the USET for the title of National Governing Body, might make an issue out of it."

Well, "we" along with the evil one himself, Alan Balch.

canyonoak
Aug. 31, 2002, 06:00 PM
Yoo-Hoo, Towerheads is reporting that USET has filed its answer to USAEq's demand for arbitration.

PORTIA! SGRray!

what's going on?

(OK, I succumbed to this thread's pervasive tractor-beam influence, but it was a tough fight,and I almost throttled it to death before..it....took...control...of..me..and..here I am.)

SoEasy
Aug. 31, 2002, 06:22 PM
Don't know about the USET thing, but HODV is also reporting that AL requested that the NJ judge handling AB's case remove AB's attorney, saying that he, AL, has discovered the attorney has a conflict of interest in the case. .... He represented the USET officers in the Debbie Dolan lawsuit in 1990.

I am not sure how that really constitutes a conflict of interest, but, if it does - isn't there a statute of limitations on conflicts??? It also says the decision was to be handed down on 8/16.

His Greyness
Aug. 31, 2002, 06:31 PM
From www.uset.org, (http://www.uset.org,) the press release on this matter:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Marty Bauman,508-698-6810, uset.pr@verizon.net

USET Responds to Filing of Arbitration by USA Equestrian

Gladstone, NJ�August 30, 2002� As it has repeatedly threatened, on August 29, 2002, USA Equestrian filed for arbitration against the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the United States Equestrian Team (USET) in an attempt to overturn the USOC Board�s decision regarding the equestrian NGB challenge.

The USET�s officers, with authorization from the USET Executive Committee, have determined that the best interests of equestrian sport and the USET require that a protective demand for arbitration be filed solely to preserve the USET�s rights to present evidence of its preparedness and willingness to assume the responsibilities of NGB should USAE�s status as NGB be revoked, as recommended by the USOC.

�Sadly, USAE has made this step necessary in order for the USET to protect its right to make a defense and be able to re-argue the merits of the Challenge. It is unfortunate, but not unexpected, that USAE is even unable to accept the final recommendation of the USOC -- the very body to which USAE is responsible � in this matter. As the officers of USAE continue to defy the USOC and spend even more of its members� money on legal maneuvering, we are hopeful that USAE�s board will seize the opportunity finally to act in the best interests of our sport. The personal interests of one individual should not come at the expense of our athletes,� said USET President Armand Leone, Jr. �Because of the USA Equestrian action, we have no choice but to take this step.�

The United States Equestrian Team is a non-profit organization that selects, trains, equips and finances equestrians of the highest possible standard to represent our country in major international competition, including the Olympic Games and the World Championships. To accomplish this the USET seeks out and nurtures the development of talented athletes - riders, drivers, vaulters and horses - and provides the support and guidance they need to help them attain their fullest potential. For more information on the USET, please call (908) 234-1251, or visit USET ONLINE at www.uset.org (http://www.uset.org).

poltroon
Aug. 31, 2002, 06:57 PM
I am so sick of this "accept the USOC recommendation" propaganda from the USET - like it is even specific enough to just follow.

The recommendation states that the leaders should step down and the orgs should merge - essentially - "Y'all play nice now and leave Daddy alone."

If that could be done we'd already be there now.

poltroon
Aug. 31, 2002, 07:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoEasy:

"we" ((well, I am assuming this is the referenced site)) are infamous, or famous, or well known, or something, and apparently are to blame for Mclain not being on the WEG team. If I may quote a bit of p40 "... But then, after the fourth trial, it was reported on a well known equestrian web site that Viktor was being held for reinspection. ....... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Cool! COTH BBers have the power to warp time and space! (Why wasn't I informed of this earlier?)

SoEasy
Aug. 31, 2002, 07:06 PM
seems to me that once a Demand for Arbitration is filed, everybody gets their say, in front of the neutral Arbitrators .... what on earth is a protective demand for arbitration??????????

plus, I am amused by the continued assertions, here and in HODV, that NOW, USET has more money than USA Eq.

Wonder if, once the WEG is over, they will remove the part about training and selecting Teams?

JulieMontgomery
Aug. 31, 2002, 07:41 PM
that SC at the HODV writes exactly what she wishes to, regardless of the true facts.

It is common knowledge that she has been too close (pun intended) to at least one of the players involved to be objective......

No one that I know, and I mean NO ONE, takes her opinions seriously. She has her own agenda.

This has been referenced on a number of other threads prior to this one.

canyonoak
Aug. 31, 2002, 07:42 PM
"we" ((well, I am assuming this is the referenced site)) are infamous, or famous, or well known, or something, and apparently are to blame for Mclain not being on the WEG team. If I may quote a bit of p40 "... But then, after the fourth trial, it was reported on a well known equestrian web site that Viktor was being held for reinspection. ....... Even though it was obvious that Viktor was receiving the very best of care and was not harmed by competing, some USET officials feared that USA Equestrian President Alan F. Balch, who is embroiled in a fight with the USET for the title of National Governing Body, might make an issue out of it."



Am I reading this/understanding this?

the COTH BBs are now responsible for who got to finish the show jumping trials, let alone who is on the team..let alone helping Alan Balch to make as issue about a horse's welfare...???


Hey!

Just like the ad says:

I WANT WHATEVER SHE'S HAVING!
And double it!

This entire concept could almost be amusing if it wasn't so outasight bizarro.

I do believe this takes Tell a Big Lie and Just Keep Telling It to ,ah, new heights. or lows.

SoEasy
Aug. 31, 2002, 07:52 PM
I am well aware of the proclivities of the HODV /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I just could not believe that even there, when observers say the horse was not sound, it was somehow ALAN BALCH'S FAULT .... /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Weatherford
Sep. 1, 2002, 02:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Don't know about the USET thing, but HODV is also reporting that AL requested that the NJ judge handling AB's case remove AB's attorney, saying that he, AL, has discovered the attorney has a conflict of interest in the case. .... He represented the USET officers in the Debbie Dolan lawsuit in 1990. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AB's attourney has a Conflict of Interest? Didn't the USET's Ed Williams represent Kerry Milikin and a few others in THIER grievance proceedings??

Found the view /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

armandh
Sep. 1, 2002, 08:07 AM
consulted the horses through an AC and have determined that the AHSA [or whatever they are called now] will win. for everyone smarter than a bag of bricks by now knows who can afford the best lawyers.

duggieboyus
Sep. 1, 2002, 10:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
I am so sick of this "accept the USOC recommendation" propaganda from the USET - like it is even specific enough to just follow.

The recommendation states that the leaders should step down and the orgs should merge - essentially - "Y'all play nice now and leave Daddy alone."

If that could be done we'd already be there now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If the USET has accepted the recommendations of the USOC Hearing Committee, when did Leone, Lloyd, and all 14 officers of the USET resign?

Snowbird
Sep. 1, 2002, 12:55 PM
Isn't only talking the talk that matters? Are you supposed to also do the thing? Besides who would be likely to replace Armand? Peter?

duggieboyus
Sep. 1, 2002, 02:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Isn't only talking the talk that matters? Are you supposed to also do the thing? Besides who would be likely to replace Armand? Peter?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well I just get tired of hearing "we 100% accept the USOC Hearing Panel Recommendations" and then see no action that they do. If they do then all officers MUST resign. And, it doesn't matter that USAE officers have not - because they DON"T accept the Recommendations.

armandh
Sep. 1, 2002, 02:45 PM
that is the essence of the request for arbitration. uset had the fix in. [alleged]
now there will be an impartial determination according to us law, not a usoc determination.
we are sorry the uset is in the fiscal pits but hijacking the athority from the AHSA brought the spotlight in to the smoke filled room.

sp edit

[This message was edited by armandh on Sep. 02, 2002 at 07:06 AM.]

Snowbird
Sep. 1, 2002, 04:27 PM
It is a pleasure to read a point put so clearly and in so few words.

That's about it and when the USET starts weeping and wringing their hands then it is simply true, well you did it. AB didn't do it you did it to yourself.

SGray
Sep. 3, 2002, 07:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
AB's attourney has a Conflict of Interest? Didn't the USET's Ed Williams represent Kerry Milikin and a few others in THIER grievance proceedings??

_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ummm - didn't the uset fire Williams? I thought the Leone firm was now handling all matters in the "troubles"

SoEasy
Sep. 3, 2002, 08:18 AM
Yes, I believe it said pro bono, as part of the austerity measures USET is taking .... ah, what financial stability?

And, with their list of specialties concentrated in the medical law area, I am sure they are going to be right on top of this!

Beans
Sep. 3, 2002, 09:00 AM
I hate to see athletes put their names on the line in a "Clash of the Titans" - blood letting is distasteful. Also read and re-read the complaint and I must say - Law Schools need to set the bar higher - the language in this complaint is just plain terrible. But I guess it's time for everyone to keep pulling things out of their own individual bag of tricks.

We are well past reason and law and what's right or wrong for the sport. With each action and re-action we see these two organizations sink to yet another level that is well beneath the dignity of equestrian sport.

Stand back - it does appear that we are in the proverbial "s*** hitting the fan" phase and who knows how long this will last knowing the "supply" most of these people and their respective ambulance chasing lawyers have in their stores!!

Portia
Sep. 3, 2002, 09:35 AM
Yep, difficult though it may be to believe, /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif two out of my three specialties in my practice are arbitration and legal ethics/conflicts of interest. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif (The other specialty is energy litigation, but somehow I don't think even this tub of worms can expand to include a dispute over a natural gas pipeline, a power plant, or offshore drilling. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

There are two basic rules for conflicts of interest and disqualification of attorneys arising from current or past representation of others. While New Jersey may have its own nuances, these rules are essentially universal throughout the US (except in Texas, but that's another story. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

(1) Representation Adverse to a Current Client. The attorney or his/her firm currently represents a party whose interests are adverse to those of another client of the firm. In that case, the attorney should not accept or continue the concurrent adverse representation unless the adverse client has consented to the representation after full disclosure. The two matters do not need to be in any way related. This rule is designed to vindicate the attorney's duty of undivided loyalty.

(2) Representation Adverse to a Former Client. The attorney or his/her firm formerly represented a person or entity whose interests are now adverse to those of a present client of the firm. The attorney and firm may continue the representation without conflict and without the consent of the former client, unless the subject matter of the current representation is the same or substantially related to the subject matter of the prior representation. If the two matters are not substantially related, there is no conflict. This rule arises from the attorney's continuing duty to maintain the confidences of the former client, and is designed to protect the former client's confidences from disclosure or misuse by the attorney in favor of the firm's present client.

Here, we are definately talking about only former representation. From what I've read here, there should be absolutely no conflict justifying a motion to disqualify, much less the court actually granting the motion. IMHO, representation of some of the USET selectors in a complaint filed 12 years ago by an aggrieved athlete over team selection procedures is not substantially related to the current dispute over NGB status and the lack of propriety of the USOC order.

On top of that, any representation of the USET officers or selectors as individuals in that old athlete grievance would also have been representation for the benefit of the AHSA, because the athlete grievances were all brought against the AHSA as the NGB, in addition to the USET as an affiliate organization. The AHSA was (and is) the ultimate authority in such actions, and the USET people who were named as individualts also worked on the AHSA committees responsible for such decisions. I wouldn't be surprised if the AHSA paid for their defense, as would be common in such situations of individuals being sued for actions they took as part of their work for the organization. It appears that the lawyer did not "switch sides."

Also, add to all that the timing of the motion, brought very late in the game after the attorney has been representing USA Eq for over a year in the New Jersey litigation. The USET may claim to have just recently discovered the alleged conflict -- though if the prior representation were significant, the USET should have been aware of it all along -- but the later in the proceedings the motion to disqualify the opponent's chosen counsel is made, the more closely the court will scrutinize the motion to determine whether disqualification is truly needed to vindicate the former client's rights or whether it is simply a litigation tactic.

Notably, courts frequently warn against the all too common use of disqualification motions as a litigation tactic designed to disrupt the other party's representation, distract from the substantive issues, and increase the expense and effort of litigation. For that reason, courts look at disqualification motions closely to make sure that an genuine threat of a breach of the attorney's duties of confidentiality or loyalty is presented before granting such a motion.

End of Professional Responsibility 101. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Does anyone know whether Ed Williams and his firm -- who did indeed represent various athletes in actions against the USET and AHSA before the USET decided to hire him to represent it in the Challenge -- ever got paid for their work?

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

[This message was edited by Portia on Sep. 03, 2002 at 11:47 AM.]

SGray
Sep. 3, 2002, 10:20 AM
What is "protective demand for arbitration "?

Portia
Sep. 3, 2002, 10:51 AM
I haven't seen the pleading so I don't know its content or how it was styled, but it sounds like the USET filed their own arbitration demand after USA Eq filed its demand.

If all it was doing was saying that the USOC order is correct and should be upheld, there would be no need to file any kind of separate claim. So, it sounds like the USET may have wanted to assert its own affirmative claim that the USET is qualified to be the sole NGB. Such a claim may arguably have been beyond the scope of the issues presented in the USA Eq arbitration demand since it complained of the USOC order finding that neither the USET nor USA Eq is qualified, by themselves, to be NGB.

The USET may have asserted the claim(s) for affirmative relief as a counterclaim contained in its response to the USA Eq arbitration demand, although no response would be due yet. Or it may have filed it as a separate arbitration demand, independent of its response to the USA Eq demand. Leone may have felt such a filing was appropriate given the statute's requirement that any party aggrieved by the USOC's actions in connection with an NGB Challenge must assert its demand for arbitration within 30 days after issuance of the USOC final order or lose the right to complain of the USOC order.

In either event, both sets of claims will be heard in the same arbitration proceeding.

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

SGray
Sep. 3, 2002, 11:04 AM
thank you my learned colleague

SoEasy
Sep. 3, 2002, 11:28 AM
did the USET claim really get in inside the 30 days? and if it did not, will it be dismissed?

armandh
Sep. 3, 2002, 11:35 AM
after Salt Lake City
who would trust anything with the word olympic in its title?

SGray
Sep. 3, 2002, 02:01 PM
Rawls has formally requested that Satrom and his committee NOT hold a Compliance Review before all other matters are settled

any guesses as to what the Membership and Credentials Committee might do?

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 3, 2002, 02:35 PM
the selected mailing from USAE concerning all of this?

SGray
Sep. 3, 2002, 02:39 PM
Ruby - what are you referencing? mail, as in US Postal?

Snowbird
Sep. 3, 2002, 03:19 PM
I did print out he whole 51 pages and made an effort to understand them. This is the point at which I throw up my hands and call my lawyer.

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 3, 2002, 05:19 PM
Dated 8.14.02.

Basically the letter is a synopsis of the proceedings to date and the reasoning behind the demand for arbitration.

It is accompanied by a copy of the letter sent to the Secretary General of the FEI.

I must admit, I have only scanned both communications.

SoEasy
Sep. 3, 2002, 06:55 PM
that the USET has released text of a USOC letter ... dated 9/3 .... signed by the new President of USOC ....

In light of the Board�s decision, it is our expectation that USA Equestrian (�USAE�) and the United States Equestrian Team (�USET�) will maintain the status quo vis-�-vis the opportunity of athletes, coaches, trainers, managers and administrators to prepare for and participate in protected competitions, including World Championships and other international events. To that end, any funds provided by the USOC for the sport of Equestrian shall be sent directly to USET. Also, the USET will continue to maintain its current level of programming and activities, including but not limited to: 1) development and execution of selection procedures and trials for athletes and staff for competitions to include the World Championships, Pan American Games, Olympic Games and other official team competitions (i.e. CIO�s); 2) development and execution of all logistical preparation for the above mentioned international events; and 3) maintenance of current USET grievance procedures for athletes and staff for international competitions. Further, the USAE shall not interfere with the USET in its efforts to continue such program activities.


UMMMMM HELLO???? USOC???? did you guys READ the Demand for Arbitration?

SoEasy
Sep. 3, 2002, 07:00 PM
How much do we think THAT letter cost a big USET supporter? /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Duffy
Sep. 3, 2002, 07:03 PM
TOTALLY FRICKING ABSURD! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

"I can justify anything!"

Louise
Sep. 3, 2002, 07:07 PM
Duffy, I stand in total, 100 percent agreement with you. This is further descent into the Theater of the Absurd that this whole thing has become.

Grrrrrrrr

/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

---------------------------
"We are what we repeatedly do.
Excellence then, is not an act, but a habit.
Aristotle

SoEasy
Sep. 3, 2002, 07:42 PM
I have to ask if it is even LEGAL for USOC to send money directly to the USET, instead of through the NGB?

I am trying to wade through the Amateur Sports Act, and the USOC Constitution and Bylaws, all available by clicking on the "legal" link at http://www.olympic-usa.org/

Snowbird
Sep. 3, 2002, 08:10 PM
I do not believe that the USET received such correspondence from the USOC. I think they just think that's what will happen.

Portia is the expert, but I cannot see anyway it is legal for the USOC which did not make a ruling in favor of the USET to arbitrarily make such a judgement. The only authority they have is to declare the Equestrian spot vacant and then no one gets the money, and the USOC keeps it in trust.

Obviously at this point in time (wishes don't count)in fact USAE ie either the NGB or the spot is vacant. If vacant by what authority can they dispense the money, and they didn't declare it vacant as I read it.

I don't see how they can declare it vacant since the rules call for a right of arbitration. How can any decisions to the contrary be made?

His Greyness
Sep. 3, 2002, 08:27 PM
What follows appears to be a press release from the USET posted on the Saddletude.com web site. It is not yet posted on the USET site.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
09/04/2002

USOC REAFFIRMS USET�S RESPONSIBILITY FOR INTERNATIONAL EQUESTRIAN PROGRAMS

GLADSTONE, NJ�September 3, 2002--In a letter addressed to USA Equestrian (USAE) President Alan F. Balch and United States Equestrian Team (USET) President Armand Leone, Jr., the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) has stated that the USET will continue to be responsible for international equestrian competition.

The letter is dated September 3, 2002 and signed by USOC President Marty Mankamyer. It states that the USET and USAE are to "maintain the status quo vis-a-vis the opportunity of athletes, coaches, trainers, managers and administrators to prepare for and participate in protected competitions, including World Championships and other international events."

The letter states that all USOC funding for equestrian sport will be �sent directly to the USET� and that �the USET will continue to maintain its current level of programming and activities.�

The USOC's letter specifically directs that �USA Equestrian shall not interfere with the USET in its efforts to continue such program activities."

The letter comes on the heels of statements made by Balch in a USA Equestrian press release dated
August 29, 2002 that USA Equestrian plans to assume control of all details of international programs and oversight for all post-World Equestrian Games activities.

The full text of the letter from USOC President Mankamyer follows:

�As you are by now aware, the United States Olympic Committee (�USOC�) Board of Directors voted to adopt the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Panel appointed to consider the Article VIII proceedings involving your organizations.

In light of the Board�s decision, it is our expectation that USA Equestrian (�USAE�) and the United States Equestrian Team (�USET�) will maintain the status quo vis-�-vis the opportunity of athletes, coaches, trainers, managers and administrators to prepare for and participate in protected competitions, including World Championships and other international events. To that end, any funds provided by the USOC for the sport of Equestrian shall be sent directly to USET. Also, the USET will continue to maintain its current level of programming and activities, including but not limited to:

1)development and execution of selection procedures and trials for athletes and staff for competitions to include the World Championships, Pan American Games, Olympic Games and other official team competitions (i.e. CIO�s);

2) development and execution of all logistical preparation for the above mentioned international events; and

3) maintenance of current USET grievance procedures for athletes and staff for international competitions.

Further, the USAE shall not interfere with the USET in its efforts to continue such program activities.

If it appears that the sport of Equestrian is being adversely affected by the actions of either organization or the above stipulations are not being explicitly followed, the USOC will intervene as necessary.

We invite any athlete who believes he or she is being denied an opportunity to prepare for or participate in a protected competition to contact John Ruger. Likewise, an individual or organization that is adversely impacted by the way Equestrian is being governed is invited to contact me.�

Sincerely,

Marty Mankamyer

His Greyness
Sep. 3, 2002, 08:51 PM
In dispute resolution, before a court or otherwise, it's standard operating procedure for whatever processes were in place before the dispute arose to be continued until the dispute is settled. So if the USOC was funding the USET directly before all this foolishness began then it is quite acceptable for them to continue doing so until this dispute is resolved.

Personally I think this whole mess is going to end up in Federal Court because the USOC, in its past actions, has shown a very tenuous grasp of due process and the details of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Snowbird
Sep. 3, 2002, 08:55 PM
All that matters to the USOC is the "elite" athletes and grassroots programs be damned! The USET which is not the NGB is to be awarded funds meant for the NGB.
USAE which is the NGB and has not been proved as in violation, nor has it been suspended should not be recognized. Even though one of the choices is supposed to be to let them take over the authorities that have been delegated. Now the USOC says well but you can't do that because we will give the money to the USET to prevent you from being able to do your job as mandated. Then we can say see! they didn't do their job! Nevermind the rule of Law!

Charming admission that the USOC doesn't care about rules, constitutional charters, or even mandates from a Presidential Commission. Just when you thought it couldn't get worse it does!

yaya
Sep. 3, 2002, 09:19 PM
Doesn't this sound like an invitation for us to start a letter writing campaign?

We're all individuals, and we are all affected by this cr@p, so I think we should write and say who we think should be in charge of all this!

Snowbird
Sep. 3, 2002, 10:08 PM
That does sound like an invitation. Is that
Ms. Mr. Mrs. Marty ManKamyer?

And the address of the USOC please!

Weatherford
Sep. 3, 2002, 10:56 PM
That letter is posted on the USAEq's website, and has been there all along.

Letter writing (again) is a good idea.

Found the view, but too expensive

Weatherford
Sep. 3, 2002, 11:12 PM
USOC
National Headquarters
One Olympic Plaza
Colorado Springs, CO 80909
Tel: 719-866-4500

Found the view, but too expensive

SoEasy
Sep. 4, 2002, 05:00 AM
what happened up until now, was that the USOC gave whatever meager money they decided to allot to Equestrian to the NGB - USAE - who then passed it to the USET, which was supposed to account to both for the way they spent it to support Teams participating in Olympic or Pan Am Games.

This has me fuming

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 07:47 AM
see http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/USOC/letter-from-finkelstein-9-3-2002.pdf

interesting stuff - what's going on 'behind the scenes'

(oh, and the Marty M. letter is also posted there)

[This message was edited by SGray on Sep. 04, 2002 at 09:59 AM.]

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
That does sound like an invitation. Is that
Ms. Mr. Mrs. Marty ManKamyer?

And the address of the USOC please!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ms. would be safe

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 07:50 AM
I would 'bet the farm' that the NHJC has already signed a 'sport partnership agreement' with the uset

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 07:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
Dated 8.14.02.

Basically the letter is a synopsis of the proceedings to date and the reasoning behind the demand for arbitration.

It is accompanied by a copy of the letter sent to the Secretary General of the FEI.

I must admit, I have only scanned both communications.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I have received no such communication. (should I feel slighted?) Did you think it inaccurate?

1-800-Dial-A-Distance
Sep. 4, 2002, 08:46 AM
K, so I thought that I wanted to be a lawyer. By page 16, I think not... This just makes me ill...
1-800

Seen on a Centre College Democrats T-Shirt
"Because no one ever said they wanted a good piece of elephant."

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 4, 2002, 09:34 AM
Isn't it painfully obvious that this issue is now and has always been primarily about MONEY?

As I see it, when all is said and done, one of these two organizations faces extinction.

At this juncture, I believe both organizations are in a fight for their life and will use any and all means deemed necessary to win the war.

Only time will tell who has the better warriors.

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 4, 2002, 09:51 AM
In response to your question, I do know that usually when USAE sends anything to it's members, all members at the same address receive identical mailings. This was not the case with this mailing.

As far as the accuracy is concerned, I find nothing in either of the letters which causes me to dispute the stated facts however, I believe there may have been some important omissions.

As I said previously, this is all out war complete with propaganda from both factions. With that in mind, any letter, article or communication from either USAE or USET, must be read with a grain of salt.

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:

As I said previously, this is all out war complete with propaganda from both factions. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

just curious - have you received any missives from the uset regarding this dispute?

poltroon
Sep. 4, 2002, 12:50 PM
I wrote my letter to Ms. Mankamyer, and apparently my irritation nearly set the printer on fire. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 01:01 PM
share with us poltroon

armandh
Sep. 4, 2002, 01:40 PM
seems to be that with the usoc and uset narrow footing of supporters there is a fix in the selection process some what akin to ice skating judging. that the AHSA [now US equstrian] with a much wider support footing is by its very nature more democratic [less open to fiscal pressure] in the selection process.

Anne FS
Sep. 4, 2002, 02:07 PM
Coming in late to this thread:

do you think G. Seidel is told 'file this complaint or lose the rides'? I'm not being sarcastic here but something sure feels funny about it.

SGray
Sep. 4, 2002, 02:10 PM
too bad Dover doesn't have any of those rides anymore - he would have been a natural for it

poltroon
Sep. 4, 2002, 02:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
Coming in late to this thread:

do you think G. Seidel is told 'file this complaint or lose the rides'? I'm not being sarcastic here but something sure feels funny about it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would hesitate to believe that anything quite so bald has taken place. Rather, I tend to believe:

1. Seidel's sponsors talk about the issue, and have a clear opinion about it.
2. Seidel likely does not talk much to people of the opposing opinion.
3. Seidel is eager to assist his sponsors in any way he can, as indeed, we would generally urge him to do.

But then, I don't know any of the people involved personally.

I still don't get why he voted for going to arbitration, however.

Weatherford
Sep. 4, 2002, 04:16 PM
That vote was before he got those owners... /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Found the view, but too expensive

poltroon
Sep. 4, 2002, 04:26 PM
Seidel was already tight with the Browns and Jane Clark.... who is the new horse?

canyonoak
Sep. 4, 2002, 06:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
Seidel was already tight with the Browns and Jane Clark.... who is the new horse?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
_______________________________________

What new horse????

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 4, 2002, 07:22 PM
"...?just curious - have you received any missives from the uset regarding this dispute?"

No.

SGray
Sep. 5, 2002, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by armandh:
seems to be that with the usoc and uset narrow footing of supporters there is a fix in the selection process some what akin to ice skating judging. that the AHSA [now US equstrian] with a much wider support footing is by its very nature more democratic [less open to fiscal pressure] in the selection process.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does anyone know whether one could request from the USOC a list of major (say, $100,000 or more) donors?

SGray
Sep. 5, 2002, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
"...?just curious - have you received any missives from the uset regarding this dispute?"

No.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


thanks Ruby

Portia
Sep. 5, 2002, 09:39 AM
Some people have posted, and I've gotten several e-mails, asking about the procedure for selecting the arbitrators and how long the arbitration may take. So, here's my educated take on it.

Scheduling

For how long the entire arbitration will take, it's difficult to say. The Sports Act requires that the proceedings be conducted under the AAA Commercial Arbitration Rules. Those Rules set out some rough time schedules for certain things to get done, but those are fairly routinely changed by agreement of the parties and/or by the order of the Panel (the three arbitrators). Much of the scheduling is virtually entirely in the discretion of the Panel.

There is some question whether the proceeding would be done on a fast track (under the Expedited Procedures set out in the AAA Rules or even faster), the way the athlete grievances are generally handled. I can't see why it would be as a practical matter, but they may treat it that way just because it's a USOC dispute and that's the way they're used to dealing with disputes concerning the USOC or NGBs.

The parties will file pre-hearing briefs and much of their evidence in advance of evidentiary hearing, and then they will file reply briefs and evidence in response to what the other parties file. The AAA Commercial Rules provide for a certain amount of discovery, though typically much less than in a regular lawsuit. The amount and types of discovery, and the timing, will depend on what the arbitrators order.

Unless they decide that everything has to be done on a fast track, it's unlikely that the evidentiary hearing itself -- what many people think of as "the arbitration" but actually only a small part of the process -- will occur until after the new year, and maybe well into 2003. Then there is post-hearing briefing and the time for the arbitrators to deliberate and issue their written Award. It could be many months before it is over.

Arbitrator Appointment

Unless the parties agree to a different process of selection, the arbitrators will be selected from lists submitted to the parties by the AAA according to a procedure set out in the AAA Commercial Rules. It is a process of ranking by the parties and elimination of those with conflicts, then taking the highest ranked people on the list who don't have conflicts and who want the job.

The arbitrators are not required to be lawyers, but they will very likely all be, because the AAA panels from which the lists of potential arbitrators are derived are virtually all lawyers having expertise in a particular area of the law and with expertise in arbitration in general.

All three of the arbitrators will be required to be independent and unbiased, meaning they can't have any close ties to any of the parties, the parties' lawyers, or the likely witnesses, or to the specific subject matter of the dispute, that might reasonably create the appearance of bias. Before they are finally appointed, they will all have to make written disclosures of any such connections that might reasonably create the appearance of potential bias or lack of independence.

The parties can rank the arbitrators on the AAA list in the order of their preference based on what talents, traits, predilictions, tendencies, or leanings toward a particular way of thinking the parties think the individual may have, but none of the parties can stack the panel with cronies.

Selecting the arbitrators could take a few weeks, or I've seen it take several months. If they followed the AAA default selection procedure (the one set out in the Rules where the parties have not agreed upon an alternate method of selection), and if they don't agree to any extensions, and if the arbitrators selected don't have any conflicts and take the job, it should theoretically take 15 days -- but I've never seen it actually get done that fast.

Here's a link to the AAA Commercial Rules for those of you who are really masochistic:

AAA Commercial Dispute Resolution Procedures (http://www.adr.org/index2.1.jsp?JSPssid=13942&JSPsrc=upload\LIVESITE\Rules_Procedures\National_I nternational\..\..\focusArea\commercial\Commercial %20Rules.htm)

SGray
Sep. 5, 2002, 09:43 AM
once again we are grateful for your generousity with your time and knowledge

haligator
Sep. 5, 2002, 10:09 AM
Is it me, or is this very strange at this point in time?

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contact: Marty Bauman, (508) 698-6810, uset.pr@verizon.net

Booth M. Malone Named "Official Artist" of the USET

Gladstone, NJ�September 5, 2002�The United States Equestrian Team (USET) has commissioned artist Booth Malone to create a series of paintings depicting action specific to each of the Team�s seven disciplines. The paintings will be completed in 2003 and displayed at USET headquarters in Gladstone, NJ, site of the Bayer/USET Festival of Champions competitions each summer.

Malone, 50, of Midland, GA, is an internationally acclaimed equestrian artist. His work is appreciated and collected by horse lovers on both sides of the Atlantic. His work is on permanent display at the U.S. Pony Club headquarters, Lexington, KY. He is represented by Frost & Reed Gallery, LTD in London.

A graduate of Auburn University, he is an award-winning member of The American Academy of Equine Art (aaea.net) in Lexington, KY. Whether the subject is stakes racing at Saratoga Springs or a local Pony Club meet, Malone's forte is horses in motion. He is adept at depicting the athleticism and nuance found in all varieties of equestrian sport. The next exhibition of his work is November 12, at Frost & Reed Gallery, St. James', in London.

The United States Equestrian Team is a non-profit organization that selects, trains, equips and finances equestrians of the highest possible standard to represent our country in major international competition, including the Olympic Games and the World Championships. To accomplish this the USET seeks out and nurtures the development of talented athletes - riders, drivers, vaulters and horses - and provides the support and guidance they need to help them attain their fullest potential. For more information on the USET, please call (908) 234-1251, or visit USET ONLINE at www.uset.org (http://www.uset.org).

Snowbird
Sep. 5, 2002, 02:11 PM
BUT...if I had to try and turn the USET into a legal NGB I really don't think an artist would be on the top of my agenda.

But, as has been suggested if they have signed a contract with TS maybe they don't think they have to do anything to get ready.

SGray
Sep. 5, 2002, 02:37 PM
You mean that there isn't an official artist requirement for NGBs?

[This message was edited by SGray on Sep. 05, 2002 at 04:59 PM.]

Weatherford
Sep. 5, 2002, 03:08 PM
What a great way to get a potrait done - tax-deductible... Or maybe they are planning to sell prints or posters as fund-raisers...

Found the view, but too expensive

duggieboyus
Sep. 5, 2002, 05:10 PM
The are simply trying to "paint a pretty picture"

Lashkari
Sep. 5, 2002, 08:46 PM
The disciplines are begging for funding, the USET is going broke, and the USET is spending its money to decorate its walls with pretty pictures. All they had to do was ask if they could borrow some art from the museum in Cooperstown.

armandh
Sep. 6, 2002, 06:27 AM
is this to be a painting of a horse pushing a cart? If it quacks like a scam....

SGray
Sep. 6, 2002, 10:38 AM
sorry - hit post too soon - so deleted repetition

SGray
Sep. 6, 2002, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Anyone who wishes can email me and I will forward a copy of my request that Senator McCain take action based on his past concerns about both the IOC and our own USOC.

I have requested a new Presidential Commission be formed to investigate the influence of special interests in the USOC as it applies to Equestrian.

I think it would be very helpful if you all sent him a letter explaining your feelings and the impact on all of us.

I think it is time that we were heard by the very body of this government that created this monstrous situation.

I was informed that while emails are interesting he cannot take any action without a signature so a signed fax, or hard copy by snail mail is necessary if we expect him to be able to use such correspondence as a request for any action.

Ted Stevens is still a Senator and mail to him might also be helpful, both served on the original President Ford Commission which established and authorized the USOC.

I think this is now beyond the point of a couple of boys in the playground and requires intervention by the Congress.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


after reading
http://www.usawaterpolo.com/manual_news/001026-NATfrustrated_blake_quits_usoc_post.htm
I think that Ben Nighthorse Campbell might be another one interested - he seems very involved

Snowbird
Sep. 6, 2002, 02:23 PM
With a middle name like "Nighthorse", I'll bet he's native American. Remember the wonderful exhibition they gave in Utah with the horses?

OK! I just read the article he's from Colorado. The people from Colorado are great. They were the first ones to write an Equine Activity Law.

He's definitely on my list. Anyone who reads anything from the Senate that shows an interest in the USOC problems please let me know.

It would be really nice if they got mail from someone besides this little old mountain lady.

SGray
Sep. 6, 2002, 02:47 PM
hey Snow -- wanna save us some time and give us addresses for the folks you have written to?

SGray
Sep. 6, 2002, 02:53 PM
oh, question: did you cc the USOC on the letters? I strongly encourage that - they need to know that Congress will know that they are not following the law.

Snowbird
Sep. 6, 2002, 03:49 PM
From what I've seen it would be a waste of time to CC the USOC, they probably just junk complaints. That's why they're so out of touch with reality. Rather like USET hiring an artist to paint pretty pictures while the roof is leaking and the basement is flooding.

OK! here are the two buzz words for the letters that I've sent

Power to the People (got that from a John Lennon memorial show they had on) just an old flower child at heart.

Inclusion and Not Exclusion Amplification:
Inclusion of the grassroots and not exclusion by the elite.

I'm thinking Marie Antoinette when she heard the people were complaining because there was no bread and she is supposed to have said let them eat cake.

Who else has some good buzz words for our campaign?


I just got the addresses here off the web at Congress US, then Senators. I will be glad to copy and post for you all over the week-end.

SGray
Sep. 6, 2002, 03:52 PM
that'd be great -- ideas helpful

gotta leave work and batten down the hatches now

Snowbird
Sep. 6, 2002, 08:48 PM
The Congress responded well to Bill Clinton's ability to reduce a problem to a four or five word slogan. We need to think about a campaign they can understand in simple language because they don't have time to read a whole bunch.

They have clerks who read for them, and as you may have noticed every law written has a paragraph summary. That's what they read, what's the purpose in simple phrases in the summary.

So we have lots of bright people out here let's give it a go! We can't be worse off and if we try we might be better off.

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 7, 2002, 07:13 AM
"I didn't inhale."

Snowbird
Sep. 7, 2002, 10:05 AM
It's the economy stupid

We could transpose that to

It's the MEMBERS stupid

Of course if I were on the other side then the classic was

I never had sex with that lady

or

it depends on what IS is

but those were not campaign slogans.

Snowbird
Sep. 7, 2002, 12:54 PM
U.S. Senate, 107th Congress
<http://www.ask.com/i/pixl.gif> -This official United States Senate web site for the 107th Congress provides a gateway to the ... List Senators Alphabetically List Senators by... <http://www.ask.com/i/pixl.gif> From: http://www.senate.gov/ 107th Congress Senate Listing (http://www.senate.gov/)

Snowbird
Sep. 8, 2002, 01:12 PM
It's the horses STUPID!

SGray
Sep. 9, 2002, 01:21 PM
sooo SnowB I went to the website listings and when I hit the name of one of my senators I was taken to her website - the below message was there


284 Russell Senate Office Building � Washington, DC 20510 � 202-224-5922
http://hutchison.senate.gov

IMPORTANT NOTICE: Due to security precautions, mail delivery including Federal Express, UPS, etc. to the U.S. Senate may be delayed by several weeks. We apologize if there is a delay in receiving and responding to your mail. You may still send correspondence via e-mail by using the webform found in the How to Contact Me section of this website. However, all flag requests must still arrive via regular postal mail.

SGray
Sep. 9, 2002, 02:19 PM
USA Equestrian, Inc.
4047 Iron Works Parkway, Lexington, KY 40511-8483 Tel: (859) 258 2472 Fax (859) 231 6662
Web site: www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org)

NEWS RELEASE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release September 3, 2002
GRANTS APPROVED FOR INTERNATIONAL ATHLETES AND ORGANIZATIONS


USA Equestrian�s Executive Committee met on Tuesday, August 27, 2002 and approved $97,600 in grants for international competition purposes. Drivers who participated in the World Singles Driving Championship in Conty, France held August 31 - September 1, 2002, as well as athletes and organizations participating in the World Equestrian Games in Jerez de la Frontera, Spain, September 10 - 22, 2002, were recipients.

The grants were approved after consideration of applications, based on need, and ranged from $2,500 to $5,000 per athlete. Included is a $32,600 grant to reimburse the Reining Horse Sports Foundation for investment of personal capital to facilitate Reining�s inclusion in the World Equestrian Games and $5,000 raised by the USA Equestrian Vaulting Committee to reimburse the United States Equestrian Team (USET) to cover housing expenses for the members of the vaulting team participating in the World Equestrian Games. The vaulting team, Free Artists Creative Equestrian (F.A.C.E.) received $5,000 and the individual vaulters received $2,500 each.

Kevin Burns, Assistant Executive Director, Development said, "USA Equestrian is grateful for the generosity of its members and sponsor family, without whom Torchbearer grants to USA's most promising athletes would not be possible."

The following athletes received grants:
Driving: Eleanor Gallagher; Nancy Johnson and Fred Merriam
Endurance: Katherine Brunjes and Cia Reis
Reining: Shawn Flarida; Craig Johnson; Scott McCutcheon; Tom McCutcheon and Craig Schmersal
Vaulting Individuals: Bethany Rose Haas and Samantha Smith
Vaulting Team: Free Artist Creative Equestrian (F.A.C.E.)



ENDS

For more information, please contact Sarah Holt, Public Relations on (859) 225 6974 or via email at sholt@equestrian.org. USA Equestrian press releases are available on our web site - www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org).
USA Equestrian, Inc., as the National Equestrian Federation of the U.S., is the regulatory body for the Olympic and World Championship sports of dressage, driving, endurance, eventing, reining, show jumping, and vaulting, as well as 19 other breeds and disciplines of equestrian competition. As the country�s largest multi-breed organization, the Federation has over 80,000 members and recognizes more than 2,800 competitions nationwide each year. It governs all aspects of competition, including educating and licensing all judges, stewards, and technical delegates who officiate at these shows.

Snowbird
Sep. 9, 2002, 02:37 PM
That sure doesn't confirm the statements by the USET that they are the only ones who aid our athletes.

All together now...Thank you USA Equestrian!

SGray
Sep. 9, 2002, 02:57 PM
"and $5,000 raised by the USA Equestrian Vaulting Committee to reimburse the United States Equestrian Team (USET) to cover housing expenses for the members of the vaulting team participating in the World Equestrian Games. "

now that just doesn't seem kosher - having to reimburse the uset for expenses related to participation in the WEG

Snowbird
Sep. 9, 2002, 03:47 PM
Our own USET would they do something like that? I thought they were the experts on funding everyone all these years. Does make me wonder?

Isn't the big issue supposed to be good management and fiscal responsibilites for the USOC?

SGray
Sep. 9, 2002, 03:54 PM
at 7/09 meeting Armand only promised the 3 Olympic disciplines would be funded - the other FEI disciplines were on there own

Weatherford
Sep. 9, 2002, 04:03 PM
I have to laugh - at my booksale, a woman & I were talking about this whole fiasco, and she was saying how she stopped sending the USET money when she read in one of their fund raising flyers how much it cost to send one horse to the Olympics or somesuchplace - She said, I can ship SIX HORSES AROUND THE WORLD for what they spent on ONE!!!!

I said, so write them a letter and clue them in. Then make the letter public.

Well, she never did the latter, but definitely did the former. Surprise, surprise, everyone was THRILLED that one of the USET staffers saved over $100,000 in shipping costs going to WEg this year... Yup, right, he figured that out on his own.

(Thank you, Tiff!!)

Found the view, but too expensive

haligator
Sep. 11, 2002, 02:39 PM
BUMP!

SGray
Sep. 11, 2002, 03:19 PM
For Immediate Release September 11, 2002
USA EQUESTRIAN PLANNING MEETING AVAILABLE VIA LIVE AUDIO WEBCAST

A conference call scheduled for Tuesday, September 17, at 2:00 PM Eastern Standard Time, between the USA Equestrian Planning Committee, International High Performance Committee, NGB Advisory Committee and the executive directors of USA Equestrian affiliated associations, will be available via live audio webcast. This will be the first in a series of open planning meetings and forums and will be devoted to reporting on current affiliate relationships within the Federation and discussing steps to further evolve and improve the sport�s interdependent approach of governance consistent with federal law. The webcast can be reached by logging on to the USA Equestrian web site at www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org).
Questions and comments may be directed to gov@equestrian.org.



ENDS

For more information, please contact Sarah Holt, Public Relations on (859) 225 6974 or via email at sholt@equestrian.org. USA Equestrian press releases are available on our web site - www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org).
======= so that ANYONE with web access can hear what is being discussed, how situations are handled, etc

poltroon
Sep. 11, 2002, 03:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
I have to laugh - at my booksale, a woman & I were talking about this whole fiasco, and she was saying how she stopped sending the USET money when she read in one of their fund raising flyers how much it cost to send one horse to the Olympics or somesuchplace - She said, I can ship SIX HORSES AROUND THE WORLD for what they spent on ONE!!!!

I said, so write them a letter and clue them in. Then make the letter public.

Well, she never did the latter, but definitely did the former. Surprise, surprise, everyone was THRILLED that one of the USET staffers saved over $100,000 in shipping costs going to WEg this year... Yup, right, he figured that out on his own.

(Thank you, Tiff!!)

_ Found the view, but too expensive _ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a good thing they have all that specialized expertise in house.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

When the eventers last year were selected for Burghley, they had to come up with $15,000 each to pay "part of their expense" - and I was desperately trying to figure out how it could cost much more than that to ship horses to England and back and house and compete for a month.

So, they really WERE spending that much on shipping horses? I always assumed they were paying going rates and then just sending a lot of drapes and assistants via first class...

Not sure which makes me feel better! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Weatherford
Sep. 11, 2002, 03:29 PM
Oh, both, Poltroon, both.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Found the view, but too expensive

SGray
Sep. 17, 2002, 08:05 AM
NEWS RELEASE


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Immediate Release September 16, 2002
USA EQUESTRIAN OPEN FORUM AGENDA AVAILABLE

The agenda for the joint forum among the USA Equestrian Planning Committee, International High Performance Committee, NGB Advisory Committee and the executive directors of USA Equestrian affiliated associations is now available.

The agenda is as follows:

2:00 - 2:15 pm - Report on Status of Equestrian Sport Governance



2:15 - 2:30 pm - Report on Meeting with Affiliate Leadership Group



2:30 - 2:45 pm - Discussion of Pending Matters before Planning Committee



2:45 - 3:00 pm - Open Discussion and Next Steps



The meeting is scheduled as a conference call to be held Tuesday, September 17, at 2:00 PM Eastern Time, and is available for auditing via live Internet audio web cast. The webcast can be reached by logging on to the USA Equestrian web site at www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org).
Please direct questions and comments to gov@equestrian.org.



ENDS

For more information, please contact Sarah Holt, Public Relations on (859) 225 6974 or via email at sholt@equestrian.org. USA Equestrian press releases are available on our web site - www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org).
USA Equestrian, Inc., as the National Equestrian Federation of the U.S., is the regulatory body for the Olympic and World Championship sports of dressage, driving, endurance, eventing, reining, show jumping, and vaulting, as well as 19 other breeds and disciplines of equestrian competition. As the country�s largest multi-breed organization, the Federation has over 80,000 members and recognizes more than 2,800 competitions nationwide each year. It governs all aspects of competition, including educating and licensing all judges, stewards, and technical delegates who officiate at these shows.