PDA

View Full Version : Latest NGB Developments!!



MHM
Jun. 9, 2002, 04:07 PM
Have you heard the latest? Remember the sealed envelope the USOC was holding in case our powers that be couldn't sort out the NGB issue?

Apparently the envelope has been opened, and the decree is that the current heads of USET and USAE must resign and let in some fresh blood to sort things out. I heard it from a friend, and it was also mentioned by KK on Towerheads (in the forums, which are open to all).

Very interesting. Hopefully this will finally result in some progress.

MHM
Jun. 9, 2002, 04:07 PM
Have you heard the latest? Remember the sealed envelope the USOC was holding in case our powers that be couldn't sort out the NGB issue?

Apparently the envelope has been opened, and the decree is that the current heads of USET and USAE must resign and let in some fresh blood to sort things out. I heard it from a friend, and it was also mentioned by KK on Towerheads (in the forums, which are open to all).

Very interesting. Hopefully this will finally result in some progress.

Merry
Jun. 9, 2002, 04:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> ..."let in some fresh blood..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This sounds more like a blood-letting! As you said, MHM, if this comes to pass, it could be interesting. But, ignorant as I am, I don't see how the USOC could force such an issue.

Could they? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I read recipes the same way I read science fiction. I get to the end and think to myself, "Yeah, right. That just ain't gonna happen."

MHM
Jun. 9, 2002, 04:38 PM
I don't know all the details yet. Let's say it's probably a safe bet that the phone lines are burning up with conference calls this weekend, and some of the calls may just possibly include a few members of the legal profession.

JMO. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

JustJump
Jun. 9, 2002, 05:49 PM
THIS going to cost us????????? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Weatherford
Jun. 9, 2002, 05:58 PM
My question exactly - and WHAT NEW BLOOD is there?? We are pretty firmly entrenched in the two camps - and, I for one, am unabashedly in favor of the USA Eq, and the DIVERSE, strong, committed and ETHICAL group of people now in place.

Will report when I find out more.

Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

canyonoak
Jun. 9, 2002, 06:01 PM
Then I vote that all the sane horse people who care IMMEDIATELY vote Alan Balch and the Executive Board back into action.

Oh how deep the corruption of USOC goes.

Would just LOVE to know which of them have been paid off.

And if this sounds harsh--it is not nearly harsh enough.

Intemperate: yes.

Unobliging: definitely.

Harsh: No.

NOT NEARLY HARSH ENOUGH.

And as no one in any of the organizations can say any of this--Im saying it.

USOC. An organization that has corruption running right through it.

cheers to all.

Weatherford
Jun. 9, 2002, 06:05 PM
Speaking of which - the July meeting of the USA Eq Board (remember last July - it was online?) will be on the second Tuesday of the month (11th, I think) in Lexington, KY.

Who else will be there??

Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

Portia
Jun. 9, 2002, 06:31 PM
Let's wait until we get some details so we can evaluate it properly.

If the part about changing the leadership is true, remember that Alan Balch offered as part of the proposed compromise not run for the leadership of the new organization, if Armand Leone would do the same. Leone and the USET refused that offer.

OK, I just read the Towerheads thing. I can be pretty sure that, whatever the hearing committee said, nothing is going to be done "immediately." Under the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and the USOC Constitution, either or both parties have the absolute right to challenge any decision in arbitration. Nothing is final until either (a) the parties decide not to pursue arbitration or (b) if they do pursue arbitration, the arbitrators issue their final award. (And then even that final award is subject to review by the federal courts on limited grounds.)

Also, we don't know whether whatever the Hearing Committee ordered is considered the final ruling of the USOC, or whether the USOC Board of Directors has to take some action to confirm the Hearing Committee opinion. If it is the latter, then until the USOC Board of Directors acts, the Hearing Committee opinion does not have any binding effect.

Finally, it would be the height of stupidity for the USOC to order the entire Executive Committees of both orgs to resign immediately. Talk about leaving a power vacuum! Telling two or three people to get lost is one thing, but telling everybody to go so that nobody is left in charge? Nope, I don't believe it.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

[This message was edited by Portia on Jun. 09, 2002 at 08:50 PM.]

His Greyness
Jun. 9, 2002, 09:18 PM
According to the USOC Constitution and ByLaws it can only do one of four things with respect to the challenge by the USET to the AHSA/USAEq status as NGB. This is a reiteration of what was said in previous threads as well as my interpretation of the USOC Constitution and ByLaws.

(1)Confirm the USAEq as NGB and reject the challenge.

(2)Uphold the challenge and declare the USET the NGB.

(3)Place the USAEq on probation for 180 days to allow them to fix the deficiencies raised in the challenge.

(4)Declare a vacancy, in which case neither the USAEq or USET would be the NGB. Any qualified organization could then apply to become the NGB.

A directive to the leaders of both organizations to get lost (resign) does not fit into any of the four alternatives above (unless included as an editorial comment to one of them). The USOC would not be following its own rules and would itself be the target of a legal challenge by either or both parties.

Only the lawyers will get rich /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Portia
Jun. 9, 2002, 10:35 PM
By statute, the USOC has four choices of what it has the authority to order: "a," "b," "c," or "d."

There is no "e, none of the above."

But, I've now read the order, and that is exactly what the Hearing Committee has purported to do. More information:

The finding and recommendation of the Hearing Committee was that neither organization meets all of the requirements for being the NGB and they have effectively shared the duties between them, with the USET handling the elite and USAEq handling the grassroots. It also found that neither org alone was or is qualified to be the NGB by itself.

It then decided that what the situation really presents is not a Challenge under one section of the Amateur Sports Act and USOC Constituion (which is what the USET filed), but instead, it's really a Complaint under a different section of the ASA and USOC Constitution that deals with an NGB not fulfilling its responsibilities. (I don't have the ASA in front of me to give you the cites, sorry.)

Having decided that the whole proceeding is a different animal from what everyone thought it was, the hearing committee then found that both organizations should be put on probation for 180 days and that during that period, the two organizations must merge or consolidate their functions so that one org does everything, or the USOC will declare a vacancy in the NGB position.

They also found that the ill-feelings between the leaderships of the organization have exacerbated the problems between the orgs, so Balch, Leone, and Lloyd must be removed from their positions and may not have any position in the governance of the sport for at least 6 years.

To me, that pretty much looks like they chose "e, none of the above."

It will be interesting to see how the parties react.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

His Greyness
Jun. 10, 2002, 12:09 AM
Thank you, Portia, for that explanation.

It would appear to me that the USOC, in its quasi-judicial function, has just screwed up royally from a procedural perspective.

Without even considering the merits of the case what was filed by the USET was a challenge. Procedurally the USOC should deal with just that. If the USOC believes that the situation merits only a complaint, then the USOC should reject the challenge and tell the USET to file a complaint.

In my speed reading of the USOC Constitution or ByLaws I don't see anywhere the authority for the USOC to tell anybody to resign or to dismiss entire executive boards. That is, unless those individuals have violated the USOC's Code of Ethics.

In the past the USOC strongly encouraged the cohabitation arrangement between the USET and AHSA even though it violated the intent of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act.

Lawyers, line up from the left. This gravy train is good for a long long time.

jgrass
Jun. 10, 2002, 12:25 AM
I don't suppose it would ever occur to anyone to apply solution "f": stop worrying about how the sport in all of its manifestations has to drag itself through knotholes to comply with a set of rules that seem to exist only for the purpose of stuffing horse sports into some one size fits all Olympic mold by: *HORRORS!* not sending teams to the Olympics?

Goodbye USOC, Goodby Ted Stevens Act, goodbye a lot of wierd and barely applicable rider drug use rules (Beta-blockers? Albuterol? some of us getting up in years can't live without 'em) and then we could get along with regulating the sport for the vast majority of the folks that engage in it. There'd still be the World Cup and Pan Am games.

Bethe Mounce
Jun. 10, 2002, 07:01 AM
goes, I'll be happy to step in and put my 17 years of accounting experience on the line! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif If nothing else, I would at least be able to keep memberships informed about how $$$ is being spent and future budget predictions! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

JustJump
Jun. 10, 2002, 07:12 AM
If nothing else, it would be great to know what percentage of our membership fee is being funnelled towards the legal expense of being unable to resolve this mess after....how many years has it been??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

SGray
Jun. 10, 2002, 08:18 AM
USOC seems to be lean on integrity but overflowing with hubris

Bethe Mounce
Jun. 10, 2002, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JustJump:
If nothing else, it would be great to know what percentage of our membership fee is being funnelled towards the legal expense of being unable to resolve this mess after....how many years has it been??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmmmmm......no telling how much has been spent on legal fees on both sides.......would be nice to know.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 08:39 AM
Here's a link to Nancy Jaffer's article on it, on Equisearch

Jaffer -- USOC Decision article (http://horses.about.com/cs/news/a/equsoc2260.htm)

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

DMK
Jun. 10, 2002, 08:48 AM
I can find no argument with that statement...

But I confess I am just blown away by that decision! And here I thought a general lack of business sense was, ummm, "not uncommon" in just the horse industry. Now I am left wondering if this trait is peculiar to the sporting world in general?

I mean in what scenario in the real world can you see a governing body "approving" (for lack of a better term) a merger/consolidation, with the requirement that the leadership from both companies step down before the merger/new structure is completed (or even started)?????? Can you honestly see the shareholders of EITHER such companies standing by for this if we were talking about the Real World? Can you see any positive return on shareholder dollar? Or is it just chaos and anarchy that leaps to mind?

I find this decision especially troubling when the (almost) mutually agree upon discussion put on the table by the parties in question DID require that both leaders not run for re-election the next time. That time being presumably after some general operating structure was in place so a new person had something better than a snowball's chance in hell of success. Even then, it wasn't going to be an easy task.

Yeesh. A decision that neither organization liked, but was a suitable compromise for the good of the sport is one thing. Point Blank Stupidity is something else, altogether.

Methinks the USOC is engineering a way to get horse sports out of the Olympics, or it least if you can't get rid of all those pesky Europeans who actually LIKE the stuff, they won't have to bother with a home team. OK, that was sarcasm. I don't think that they are plotting that, but they could very well achieve that end. Or maybe it's just that the USOC isn't clever enough to know how to achieve this end, but managed to stumble on to it anyway. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

SGray
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:07 AM
Is the recommendation/order/decision by the USOC available online?

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:08 AM
My favorite part is the USOC Hearing Committee morphing the challenge into a complaint so they could apply different standards and remedies.

It's kind of like somebody organizes a show with an open jumper class, everybody enters the open jumper class, they run the entire competition on the basis of it being an open jumper class -- then at the end, the judge announces that he really thinks it's more like a working hunter class, so he's going to pin it on that basis. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Charis
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:46 AM
I have kept quiet on these threads waiting to see what the USOC would do. I am amazed that now the USOC is under attack.

I think the USOC has described quite accurately the hi-jinks, shenannigans and general IMMATURITY demonstrated by BOTH sides in this sorry state of affairs.

To paraphrase that famous statement from the McCarthy hearings:
"AT LAST SIRS, HAVE YOU N0 SHAME?"

The winners: the lawyers.
The losers: the riding public.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:50 AM
For reference, below are the relevant provisions from the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and the USOC Constitution regarding Complaints (TSA sec. 22057, USOC Const. Article VIII, sec. 1) and Challenges (TSA sec. 22058, USOC Const. Art. VIII, sec. 3). As you can see, they're a bit different.

TED STEVENS AMATEUR SPORTS ACT

Section 220527. Complaints against national governing bodies

(a) GENERAL.

(1) An amateur sports organization or person that belongs to or is eligible to belong to a national governing body may seek to compel the national governing body to comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title by filing a written complaint with the corporation. A copy of the complaint shall be served on the national governing body.

(2) The corporation shall establish procedures for the filing and disposition of complaints under this section.

(b) EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES.

(1) An organization or person may file a complaint under subsection (a) of this section only after exhausting all available remedies within the national governing body for correcting deficiencies, unless it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that those remedies would have resulted in unnecessary delay.

(2) Within 30 days after a complaint is filed, the corporation shall decide whether the organization or person has exhausted all available remedies as required by paragraph (1) of this subsection. If the corporation determines that the remedies have not been exhausted, it may direct that the remedies be pursued before the corporation considers the complaint further.

(c) HEARINGS.

If the corporation decides that all available remedies have been exhausted as required by subsection (b)(1) of this section, it shall hold a hearing, within 90 days after the complaint is filed, to receive testimony to decide whether the national governing body is complying with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title.

(d) DISPOSITION OF COMPLAINT.

(1) If the corporation decides, as a result of the hearing, that the national governing body is complying with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title, it shall so notify the complainant and the national governing body.

(2) If the corporation decides, as a result of the hearing, that the national governing body is not complying with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title, it shall:

(A) place the national governing body on probation for a specified period of time, not to exceed 180 days, which the corporation considers necessary to enable the national governing body to comply with those sections; or

(B) revoke the recognition of the national governing body.

(3) If the corporation places a national governing body on probation under paragraph (2) of this subsection, it may extend the probationary period if the national governing body has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, through no fault of its own, it needs additional time to comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title. If, at the end of the period allowed by the corporation, the national governing body has not complied with those sections, the corporation shall revoke the recognition of the national governing body.

Section 220528. Applications to replace an incumbent national governing body

(a) GENERAL.

An amateur sports organization may seek to replace an incumbent as the national governing body for a particular sport by filing a written application for recognition with the corporation.

(b) ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURES.

The corporation shall establish procedures for the filing and disposition of applications under this section. If 2 or more organizations file applications for the same sport, the applications shall be considered in a single proceeding.

(c) FILING PROCEDURES.

(1) An application under this section must be filed within one year after the final day of-

(A) any Olympic Games, for a sport in which competition is held in the Olympic Games or the Paralympic Games, or in both the Olympic and Pan-American Games; or

(B) any Pan-American Games, for a sport in which competition is held in the Pan-American Games but not in the Olympic Games.

(2) The application shall be filed with the corporation by certified mail, and a copy of the application shall be served on the national governing body and with any other organization that has filed an application. The corporation shall inform the applicant that its application has been received.

(d) HEARINGS.

Within 180 days after receipt of an application filed under this section, the corporation shall conduct a formal hearing open to the public to determine the merits of the application. The corporation shall publish notice of the time and place of the hearing in a regular issue of its principal publication at least 30 days, but not more than 60 days, before the date of the hearing. The corporation also shall send written notice, including a copy of the application, at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing to all amateur sports organizations known to the corporation in that sport. In the hearing, the applicant and the national governing body shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence supporting their positions.

(e) STANDARDS FOR GRANTING APPLICATIONS.

In the hearing, the applicant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that:

(1) it meets the criteria for recognition as a national governing body under section 220522 of this title; and

(2)(A) the national governing body does not meet the criteria of section 220522, 220524, or 220525 of this title; or

(B) the applicant more adequately meets the criteria of section 220522 of this title, is capable of more adequately meeting the criteria of sections 220524 and 220525 of this title, and provides or is capable of providing a more effective national program of competition than the national governing body in the sport for which it seeks recognition.

(f) DISPOSITIONS OF APPLICATIONS.

Within 30 days after the close of the hearing required by this section, the corporation shall:

(1) uphold the right of the national governing body to continue as the national governing body for its sport;

(2) revoke the recognition of the national governing body and declare a vacancy in the national governing body for that sport;

(3) revoke the recognition of the national governing body and recognize the applicant as the national governing body; or

(4) place the national governing body on probation for a period not exceeding 180 days, pending the compliance of the national governing body, if the national governing body would have retained recognition except for a minor deficiency in one of the requirements of section 220522, 220524, or 220525 of this title and notify such national governing body of such probation and of the actions needed to comply with such requirements.

(g) REVOCATION OF RECOGNITION AFTER PROBATION.

If the national governing body does not comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title within the probationary period prescribed under subsection (f)(4) of this section, the corporation shall revoke the recognition of the national governing body and either:

(1) recognize the applicant as the national governing body; or

(2) declare a vacancy in the national governing body for that sport.

?220529. Arbitration of corporation determinations

(a) RIGHT TO REVIEW.

A party aggrieved by a determination of the corporation under section 220527 or 220528 of this title may obtain review by any regional office of the American Arbitration Association.

(b) PROCEDURE.

(1) A demand for arbitration must be submitted within 30 days after the determination of the corporation.

(2) On receipt of a demand for arbitration, the Association shall serve notice on the parties to the arbitration and on the corporation, and shall immediately proceed with arbitration according to the commercial rules of the Association in effect at the time the demand is filed, except that:

(A) the arbitration panel shall consist of at least 3 arbitrators, unless the parties to the proceeding agree to a lesser number;

(B) the arbitration hearing shall take place at a site selected by the Association, unless the parties to the proceeding agree to the use of another site; and

(C) the arbitration hearing shall be open to the public.

(3) A decision by the arbitrators shall be by majority vote unless the concurrence of all arbitrators is expressly required by the contesting parties.

(4) Each party may be represented by counsel or by any other authorized representative at the arbitration proceeding.

(5) The parties may offer any evidence they desire and shall produce any additional evidence the arbitrators believe is necessary to an understanding and determination of the dispute. The arbitrators shall be the sole judges of the relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered. Conformity to legal rules of evidence is not necessary.

(c) SETTLEMENT.

The arbitrators may settle a dispute arising under this chapter before making a final award, if agreed to by the parties and achieved in a manner not inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.

(d) BINDING NATURE OF DECISION.

Final decision of the arbitrators is binding on the parties if the award is not inconsistent with the constitution and bylaws of the corporation.

(e) REOPENING HEARINGS.

(1) At any time before a final decision is made, the hearings may be reopened by the arbitrators on their own motion or on the motion of a party.

(2) If the reopening is based on the motion of a party, and if the reopening would result in the arbitrators' decision being delayed beyond the specific period agreed to at the beginning of the arbitration proceedings, all parties to the decision must agree to reopen the hearings

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

[This message was edited by Portia on Jun. 10, 2002 at 12:05 PM.]

SGray
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Charis:
I have kept quiet on these threads waiting to see what the USOC would do. I am amazed that now the USOC is under attack.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I cannot think of a legal proceeding in which a plaintiff would file under one statute and have the judge/jury come back with a ruling under an entirely different statutue - and the USOC hearing was supposed to be held under rule of law (at least I thought that it was.......)

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:58 AM
USOC CONSTITUTION

ARTICLE VIII - COMPLAINT, MEDIATION, CHALLENGE AND ARBITRATION PROCEDURES

Section 1. Complaints against a National Governing Body

(A) Any amateur sports organization or person which belongs to, or is eligible to belong to, a National Governing Body, or any member of the Board of Directors, may seek to compel such National Governing Body to comply with the requirements of Article IV, Section 4(C) and Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution by filing a written complaint with the USOC. Such organization or person may take such action only after having exhausted all remedies available under the organic documents of such National Governing Body for correcting deficiencies, unless it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that those remedies would have resulted in unnecessary delay. The USOC shall establish procedures for the filing and disposition of complaints received under this Subsection which are contained in the Bylaws. A copy of the complaint shall also be served on the applicable National Governing Body.

(B) Within thirty (30) days after the filing of the complaint, the USOC shall determine whether the complainant has exhausted its remedies within the applicable National Governing Body, as provided in Subsection A of this Section. If the USOC determines that such remedies have not been exhausted, it may direct that such remedies be pursued before the USOC will further consider the complaint.

(C) Within ninety (90) days after the filing of a complaint under Subsection A of this Section, if the USOC determines that all such remedies have been exhausted, it shall hold a hearing to receive testimony for the purpose of determining if such National Governing Body is in compliance with the requirements of Article IV, Section 4(C) and Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution.

(D)
(1) If the USOC determines, as a result of the hearings conducted pursuant to this Subsection, that such National Governing Body is in compliance with the requirements of Article IV, Section 4(C) and Article VII, Sections 1 and 2, it shall so notify the complainant and such National Governing Body.

(2) If the USOC determines, as a result of hearings conducted pursuant to this Subsection, that such National Governing Body is not in compliance with the requirements of Article IV, Section 4(C) and Article VII, Sections 1 and 2, it shall --

(a) place such National Governing Body on probation for a specified period of time not to exceed one hundred eighty (180) days, which it considers necessary to enable such National Governing Body to comply with such requirements; or

(b) revoke the recognition of such National Governing Body.

(3) If the USOC places a National Governing Body on probation pursuant to this paragraph, it may extend the probationary period if the National Governing Body has proven by clear and convincing evidence that, through no fault of its own, it needs additional time to comply with such requirements. If, at the end of the period allowed by the USOC, the National Governing Body has not complied with such requirements, the USOC shall revoke the recognition of such National Governing Body.

Section 2. Mediation of Complaints

Any amateur sports organization or person which belongs to, or is eligible to belong to, a National Governing Body, or any member of the Board of Directors, who alleges that a National Governing Body is not in compliance with the requirements of Article IV, Section 4(B) or Article VII, Sections 1 and 2 of the Constitution may, in conjunction with, or prior to filing a written complaint pursuant to the complaint and challenge procedures set forth in Article VIII of the Constitution, file a written grievance with the Chief Executive Officer, who shall, as expeditiously as possible, cause an investigation to be made and, if appropriate, recommend to the affected parties steps to be taken to resolve the matter. A referral to the Chief Executive Officer under this Article shall be made without prejudice to the rights and remedies available to the USOC or any other affected party under the Constitution.

Section 3. Challenge of a National Governing Body

(A) Any amateur sports organization may seek to replace an incumbent as the National Governing Body for a particular sport by filing with the USOC a written application for such recognition. Such application shall be filed

(1) within the one-year (1-year) period after the final day of any Olympic Games in the case of a sport for which competition is held in the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games, or in both the Olympic and Pan American Games; or

(2) within the one-year (1-year) period after the final day of any Pan American Games in the case of a sport for which competition is held in the Pan American Games and not in the Olympic Games. If two (2) or more organizations file applications for the same sport, such applications shall be considered in a single proceeding.

(B) Any application filed under this Subsection shall be filed with the USOC by certified mail. The content of such application, and its disposition after receipt, shall comply with the provisions of the Bylaws. A copy of any such application for recognition shall also be served on the applicable National Governing Body and on any other organization that has filed an application. The USOC shall inform the applicant for recognition that its application has been received.

(C) Within one hundred-eighty (180) days after receipt of an application filed under this Subsection, the USOC shall conduct a formal hearing open to the public in accordance with procedures set forth in the Bylaws to determine the merits of the application. The USOC shall publish notice of the time and place of such hearing in a regular issue of its principal publication at least thirty (30) days, but not more than sixty (60) days, prior to the date of the hearing. The USOC also shall send written notice, including a copy of the application, at least 30 days prior to the date of the hearing to all amateur sports organizations known to the USOC in that sport. In the course of such hearing, the applicant and the National Governing Body shall be given a reasonable opportunity to present evidence supporting their respective positions. During such hearing, the applicant amateur sports organization must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that it meets the criteria for recognition as a National Governing Body under Article IV, Section 4(C), and that --

(1) the National Governing Body does not meet the criteria of Article IV, Section 4(C) or Article VII, Section 1; or

(2) it more adequately meets the criteria of Article IV, Section 4(C), is capable of more adequately meeting the criteria of Article VII, Section 1, and provides, or is capable of providing, a more effective national and international program of competition than the National Governing Body in the sport for which it seeks recognition.

(D) Within thirty (30) days of the close of the hearing required under this Subsection, the USOC shall --

(1) uphold the right of the National Governing Body to continue as the National Governing Body for its sport;

(2) revoke the recognition of the National Governing Body and declare a vacancy in the National Governing Body for that sport,

(3) revoke the recognition of the National Governing Body and recognize the applicant as the National Governing Body; or

(4) decide to place the National Governing Body on probation not to exceed one hundred-eighty (180) days, pending the compliance of the National Governing Body, if such National Governing Body would have retained recognition except for a minor deficiency in one of the requirements of Article IV, Section 4(C) or Article VII, Section 1, and notify such National Governing Body of such probation and of the actions needed to comply with such requirements.
If the National Governing Body does not comply within the prescribed time period, the USOC shall revoke the recognition of the National Governing Body and either recognize the applicant as the National Governing Body, or declare a vacancy in the National Governing Body for that sport.

(E) Within sixty-one (61) days after recognizing an amateur sports organization as a National Governing Body in accordance with this Subsection, the USOC shall recommend and support in any appropriate manner such National Governing Body to the appropriate International Sports Federation as the representative of the United States for that sport.

Section 4. Arbitration of Challenge

(A) The right to review by any party aggrieved by a determination of the USOC under the requirements of this Article or Article IV, Section 4(C) shall be at any regional office of the American Arbitration Association. Such demand for arbitration shall be submitted within thirty (30) days of the determination of the USOC. Upon receipt of such a demand for arbitration, the Association shall serve notice on the parties to the arbitration and on the USOC, and shall immediately proceed with arbitration according to the commercial rules of the Association in effect at the time of the filing of the demand, except that --

(1) the arbitration panel shall consist of not less than three (3) arbitrators, unless the parties to the proceeding mutually agree to a lesser number;

(2) the arbitration hearing shall take place at a site selected by the Association, unless the parties to the proceeding mutually agree to the use of another site; and

(3) the arbitration hearing shall be open to the public.

(B) The arbitrators in any arbitration are empowered to settle any dispute arising under the provisions of the Act prior to making a final award, if mutually agreed to by the parties to the proceeding and achieved in a manner not inconsistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the USOC.

(C) Each contesting party may be represented by counsel or by any duly authorized representative at the arbitration proceeding. The parties may offer any evidence which they desire and shall produce any additional evidence as the arbitrators believe necessary to an understanding and determination of the dispute. The arbitrators shall be the sole judges of the relevancy and materiality of the evidence offered. Conformity to legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary.

(D) All decisions by the arbitrators shall be by majority vote unless the concurrence of all is expressly required by the contesting parties.

(E) Final decision of the arbitrators shall be binding upon the involved parties if such award is not inconsistent with the Constitution and Bylaws of the USOC.

(F) The hearings may be reopened by the arbitrators upon their own motion or upon the motion of any contesting party at any time before a final decision is made, except that, if any contesting party makes such a motion, all parties to the decision must agree to reopen the hearings if such reopening would result in the arbitrators' decision being delayed beyond the specific period agreed upon at the beginning of the arbitration proceedings.

(G) If the final arbitration award upholds the claim of an amateur sports organization to replace the incumbent as the National Governing Body for its sport,

(1) such organization shall be deemed elected to Olympic or Pan American Sport Organizations membership, and the membership of the incumbent shall be deemed terminated without further action of the Board of Directors; and

(2) the incumbent shall cease to exercise the authority of a National Governing Body as specified in Article VII, Section 3 9. The USOC shall, within sixty-one (61) days after such award, recommend and support in any appropriate manner the new Olympic or Pan American Sport Organizations member to the appropriate international sports federation for recognition by such federation as the United States National Governing Body in that sport, any provision to the contrary in Article IV notwithstanding. Such action shall include, without limitation, formally advising such federation of the decision of the USOC and recommending acceptance of such action by the federation as well.

(H) In the event that there is a significant delay in the acceptance of the new Olympic or Pan American Sport Organizations member as the United States member in such federation, the Board of Directors shall take any and all interim steps that may be necessary, but which are not inconsistent with the other requirements of this Subsection, to protect the right of United States athletes to participate in international amateur athletic competition.

(I) The arbitral award shall be binding upon the parties thereto, and unless the award is inconsistent with the terms of USOC Congressional Charter, this Constitution, or the published rules of the International Olympic Committee, upon the USOC.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

[This message was edited by Portia on Jun. 10, 2002 at 12:07 PM.]

DMK
Jun. 10, 2002, 10:04 AM
Charis, I would not argue with the assessment of the parties in question over the past few years, but I will have to say that a bad business decision by the USOC is still a bad business decision.

Can you imagine ANY company or organization that could survive a leaderless merger, which appears to be what they have proposed? How thrilled would you be if your retirement was tied up in such a company? There is a reason why the principals of two merging organizations stay on until the dust settles, even if it is wholly understood that one of them will be departing at that time. To ask someone new to step in and run the company at that moment is unfair to that person, the employees and the interests that company serves (us, the membership).

And even if an organization could survive, how many years do you think it would take to recover from the stumble? Do you think the sport would advance during such a time, or maybe just lucky to hold its own? Anyone who has been through an exceptionally well run merger knows that holding your own is about the best you can hope for. Words fail me when it comes to describing a bad one.


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Charis
Jun. 10, 2002, 10:08 AM
No one is irreplacable...there in lies much of the arrogance which has dominated these issues.

Weatherford
Jun. 10, 2002, 10:33 AM
Ah, but Charis, you forget, no one WANTS the JOB at the USA Eq! For obvious reasons!

Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

Groundline
Jun. 10, 2002, 10:40 AM
Charis, of course anyone and everyone can be replaced.

But arrogance can come from too much power, and if anyone is acting arrogantly here, it is the USOC. Both USET and USAE are corporations, and have elections and are supposed to go by the law. Why shouldn't the USOC respect that? If all the officers resign from both corporations, then what? I don't think that would be too good for either one, since those are the people with the experience and history and understanding over a long time.

It looks like the USOC has just plain been stupid, and fallen for the idea that this is a clash of personalities. As John Strassburger said in his editorial, that's wrong -- how can one person control the thinking of so many independent people? On either side?

One of the organizations has its meetings and makes its decisions out in the open -- USAE. The other one doesn't. Come to think of it, I don't think the USOC does it very openly, either. Before this is all over, I just have a sneaky feeling we are going to learn a lot more about the USOC than we knew before, just like we did abou the USET last year. From everything I've read about the USOC in the paper, I wonder if they will be too happy to have their own corporation opened up to the public.

Let's just see now who has the guts to stand up to the arrogance of money and power.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 10:51 AM
the hearing panel recommendation/order is dated June 2002 -- not October 2001. Substantively, it seems to have very little to do with what happened at the hearing and a great deal to do with what happened in the mediation.

The USOC people who put this opinion together aren't stupid, nor are they incompetent, and I personally don't believe they are corrupt. I think they want to force the parties to reach a consolidation agreement, and this opinion is the way they hope to force that to happen. They know they'll have real problems making the decision stand up in an arbitration (if that's what happens next), but that doesn't matter if in the meantime they achieve the goal of forcing a settlement.

I can blame them for putting the end they hope to achieve before the clear requirements of the law and the facts, but that's the extent of the blame I personally assign to them.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Groundline
Jun. 10, 2002, 10:59 AM
Portia, nice try.

But --

why wouldn't the USOC just command both sides to come to a mediation? Get them in the same room? The way I remember it, USET walks out of the mediation, and now the USOC seems to adopt the USET position in a decision supposedly based on the hearing that was held. That cannot possibly be a correct thing to do, can it?

In other words, I have a hard time believing that if they have the right end in mind, any means is justified in achieving it. Why would they reward the USET, which is what it appears they are doing, for its bad behavior? USAE is the corporation that appears to have been doing its business by the book. So it gets punished and USET gets rewarded. Doesn't smell too nice.

In fact, anyone else smell Long John Silver's around here? Big time?

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 11:38 AM
It is blatantly foolish to think anyone expects all the officers of both volunteer organizations to just pack up their marbles and go home.

So who is in place with the experience and knowledge to become the new "master" if everyone else knowledgeable is gone?

I think that in their efforts to force an unacceptable merger between the two parties the USOC has violated their mandate from the Congress of the United States. Certainly, there is plenty of bad news in their own closet.

I think this gives the USET and USAE motivation instead to scurry around and each try to come back with a complete organization in 180 days. The USET will need to have in place interested parties for the grass roots aand the USAE have in place equally talented people for it's International Department.

Instead of fostering a merger it is forcing a total separation and then the ultimate choice, and by whom? At this point I am getting very annoyed with the USOC because I think the members of this industry should be making the choice and some bureau that doesn't understand our industry and it's value to the economy of this country should not be ordering anyone who is not guilty of malfesance into exile. And they certainly should not determine who is or is not an officer of any corporation.

Having an Olympic Team is nice but the Horse Industry supports the USA economy in a large enough manner that it needs to be considered by the Congress itself for it's impact on the GNP.

It is an act of collossal dis-proportion to force an association of 80,000 members to capitulate to a a handful of people whose only real problem is full disclosure of where their money comes from and where it is spent.

Lord Helpus
Jun. 10, 2002, 11:45 AM
Taking my legal hat off, I'm with Charis. So far nothing has worked. Not talking, nor arbitration. The USOC is the BIG DADDY. It can see that the Leone -- Balch conflict of personalities is a major stumbling block to a final resolution. Can't all of you see that, too?

As long as Leone and Balch are going head to head, the best interests of the sport are being put second to egos. Right or wrong, and I do not doubt Portia's extensive quoting of chapter and verse that says its technically wrong, these two men must be removed for the good of the sport and a final resolution to this dilemma.

I applaud the USOC. They will be challenged. But hopefully sane heads will prevail and egos will be put second to the good of the organizations and Leone and Balch will volutarily resign instead of dragging every one through expensive court procedures. My guess is that this is the hope of the USOC also.

Both organizations have other members who can take over. Neither is exclusively reliant on the people named by the USOC. Let's get Armand Leone and Alan Balch out of the way, and then perhaps a merger can go forward.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Eat well, stay fit...die anyway.

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 12:25 PM
Look does anyone out here seriously believe that Armand Leone dragged his officers and board members kicking and screaming into this mess? Or did he so thoroughly keep them uninformed that they didn't have a clue why the money was being spent?

Of course not! that is just plain ridiculous.

On the other hand Alan Balch, who has been on the Board and assorted committees of the USAE for well over 30 years, do you think that he does not have the support of the board members? Do you serious believe that he so misinformed them that his majority votes were not honestly gotten?

Of course not! that is equally ridiculous.

But, to assume that if these two men and the lawyer were not in the scene suddenly everyone would be sweetness and light and start playing nice is equally ridiculous.

Obviously, no one is indispensible but how can it be logical to anyone that the messengers were the culprits? Why should either man who has so diligently pursued his point of view be exiled?

Where and what would be the benefit except to create two new monsters and lose another two years.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 12:31 PM
The problem, Lord Helpus, is that it is not just a clash of egos between Balch and Leone. Getting rid of them is unlikely to change a thing, and the people on both sides know it even if the USOC panel doesn't.

If both Alan Balch and Armand Leone had been gone a year ago, this thing would still be where it is. They both answer to a lot of other people, virtually all of whom are just as strong-willed as either Alan Balch or Armand Leone, and who have their own goals.

The USET has tried to make it appear that it is all AB's fault, because it is so much easier to vilify one man and question his integrity and honesty than it is to question the same things about people like David O'Connor, Linda Allen, Jim Wofford, Denny Emerson, and the rest of the members of the USAEq Executive Committee. The decisions are made by the Executive Committee and the Board, not by Alan Balch.

And Armand Leone is not making the final decisions for the USET, any more than Alan Balch is for USAEq. It's done in private rather than openly, but the big money, big power people give him his marching orders, and getting rid of him isn't going to change that.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Charis
Jun. 10, 2002, 12:36 PM
Lord Helpus,
Thank you for putting into words my thoughts exactly.

There comes a time when legal nitpicking must cease FOR THE GOOD OF THE COMMUNITY.
The USOC "envelope" seems very "Solomonic".
Remember??? The sword to cut the baby into two pieces. At that point the true mother revealed herself.

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 01:27 PM
Yes! they want to cut the baby in half, but then both halves are reptilians that can regenerate the missing parts.

So what will we do with two dinosaurs where there was only one?

SGray
Jun. 10, 2002, 01:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
the hearing panel recommendation/order is dated June 2002 -- not October 2001. Substantively, it seems to have very little to do with what happened at the hearing and a great deal to do with what happened in the mediation.

_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

decided, stuffed in envelope, sealed 10/01 - magically has a 6/02 date when opened - shades of Karnak

mbp
Jun. 10, 2002, 01:39 PM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif Well, I can't imagine that the lies and deceit with USET would ever have come to light without someone like Alan Balch. I can't imagine anyone hanlding the slings and arrows tossed at them with such grace. I can imagine pulling him out, and getting some mealy mouth "go along with anything the big boys say" replacement.

No one is irreplaceable. The question is, what will change with the replacement. If the answer is, USOC requires someone who will play nicely with the USET crew, that is more than discouraging. Like when one child is bitten by another at daycare and they both get tossed out.

I don't agree with everything AB does, but I won't have much faith or confidence in many of the possible replacements. 'Cept maybe Beth.

ARe you running Beth?

Weatherford
Jun. 10, 2002, 02:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The problem, Lord Helpus, is that it is not just a clash of egos between Balch and Leone. Getting rid of them is unlikely to change a thing, and the people on both sides know it even if the USOC panel doesn't.

If both Alan Balch and Armand Leone had been gone a year ago, this thing would still be where it is. They both answer to a lot of other people, virtually all of whom are just as strong-willed as either Alan Balch or Armand Leone, and who have their own goals.

The USET has tried to make it appear that it is all AB's fault, because it is so much easier to vilify one man and question his integrity and honesty than it is to question the same things about people like David O'Connor, Linda Allen, Jim Wofford, Denny Emerson, and the rest of the members of the USAEq Executive Committee. The decisions are made by the Executive Committee and the Board, not by Alan Balch.

And Armand Leone is not making the final decisions for the USET, any more than Alan Balch is for USAEq. It's done in private rather than openly, but the big money, big power people give him his marching orders, and getting rid of him isn't going to change that. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely correct!

Resolution has been VERY CLOSE several times, then someone in the background - exec committee, Board member, big money backer, says, "hey, no way will we do that..." and it starts all over again.

Balch has been vilified - and yet, I have watched his exec committe question his every statement, disagree with him, and win the disagreements - he does have one hell of a committee!!

Leone has been vilified - and if he is the author of the last USET letter, well, he deserves it - IMHO, it was very nasty. HOWEVER, I don't think that is the case - I think he, too, is working with people who are making decisions. IMHO, less informed decisions and decisions that are not made with clear discussion of both sides - but that is my opinion after going to a board meeting and watching moderates and USA Eq supporters get booted.

Regardless, as Portia pointed out, AB VOLUNTEERED to give up his position to make this work, and THAT got turned down by the USET....

So the lawyers are the only ones who win... /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

buryinghill1
Jun. 10, 2002, 02:44 PM
"...Gladstone, NJ-June 10, 2002-The United States Equestrian Team (USET) is pleased to report that the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Hearing Panel reviewing the status of USA Equestrian (USAE), formerly the AHSA, as the National Governing Body (NGB) for equestrian sport has determined that the USET has been, and is, primarily responsible for governing the international equestrian programs for the United States..."
"...The Hearing Panel ruled that USAE does not meet the criteria for recognition as the NGB having delegated many, if not most, of its responsibilities to the USET over the past half-century. Accordingly, "the Panel recommends to the [USOC] Board that the formal recognition now held by the USAE be revoked..."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

learner
Jun. 10, 2002, 02:45 PM
On the USET News page today,
http://www.uset.org/whats_new/news/whats_new.cfm

Read it and I'm not sure what it says other than the matter is still unresolved.

buryinghill1
Jun. 10, 2002, 02:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by learner:
...Read it and I'm not sure what it says other than the matter is still unresolved.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Back to court we go!
And it means horsesports really pisses off the USOC and ... the WWF might now have a shot at being the sport to replace all the horsesports. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

dublin
Jun. 10, 2002, 03:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> "...Gladstone, NJ-June 10, 2002-The United States Equestrian Team (USET) is pleased
to report that the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) Hearing Panel reviewing the
status of USA Equestrian (USAE), formerly the AHSA, as the National Governing Body
(NGB) for equestrian sport has determined that the USET has been, and is, primarily
responsible for governing the international equestrian programs for the United States..."
"...The Hearing Panel ruled that USAE does not meet the criteria for recognition as the
NGB having delegated many, if not most, of its responsibilities to the USET over the
past half-century. Accordingly, "the Panel recommends to the [USOC] Board that the
formal recognition now held by the USAE be revoked..." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I gather from reading this that the USET is apparently spinning it that they somehow "won" in the USOC's decision???? Wow....
/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

~~~~~~~~
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

JustJump
Jun. 10, 2002, 03:49 PM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
brother.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 03:56 PM
Funny how the USET position has changed over the 18 months. Now it is thrilled with this decision, which finds that neither organization alone meets the requirements to be the NGB and purportedly orders a consoldiation of equals

When it filed its challenge, USET stated in no uncertain terms that is was the "de facto NGB" for all aspects of governance of equestrian sport, that it presently met each and every one of the requirements to become the NGB, and that only it was qualified to be the NGB.

Before it filed its Challenge, the USET walked out on the Strategic Planning Initiative. What was the sitution then?

From the documents handed out at the 2001 Annual Meeting on the SPI proposals:

The AHSA proposed a plan in which it would be "the AHSA and USET together" in which the "union of two organizations creates a complete National Governing Body, [and] the staffs remain in place continuing to function in their areas of expertise." The new org would consist of three divisions, the International High Performance, Sport Administration and Management, and National Sport Division. Officers would be elected by the NGB Board, with ample representation on the Board for each of the international disciplines and for athletes. See handout from AHSA presentation on its SPI proposal at the 2001 AHSA Annual Meeting.

As reported by the COTH, under that plan "the two organizations merge, or consolidate, to form a national governing body responsible for all aspects of horse sports. Under this plan, a new Board of Directors would be created and the USET staff would form the nuceleus of the international division." (COTH, In the Country, Feb. 2, 2001).

What was the USET's position then? That consolidation was wrong, the USET must be the NGB, and every other organization must report to it.

Under its plan, USET would be "establish[ed] as the NGB with the AHSA and seven national discipline associations playing vital roles as affilliate members... Rather than diluting disparate missions by incorporating all goals into one massive, unmanageable organization, the USET plan would maintain focus on providing international caliber athletes with the support they need to win medals in international competition while relying on the expertise of the AHSA and the national discipline associations to fulfill their mandates according to the wills of their memberships. ... The USET proposal provides for the AHSA and the USET to focus on the services, programs and strengths of each organization. A merger or consolidation of the two organizations, the other proposal, would create a large, unfocused organization trying to be 'all things to all people.'" Jan. 17, 2001 USET press release regarding its SPI proposal.

(I knew there was some reason I've kept these things dumped in a file folder in my office.) /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Compare the AHSA/USAEq SPI proposal to what the hearing panel purports to require. Eighteen months ago, the AHSA was begging the USET to agree to a consolidation and proposing an arrangement that was more favorable to the USET than that suggested by the Hearing Panel decision.

(Of course, that was before the AHSA/USAEq found out how bad the USET's finances and liabilities really are.)

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:00 PM
Alan Balch recused himself from any involvement with the SPI process.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

brilyntrip
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:05 PM
Apparently I missed this lil tidbit....I just got a call from M O'Connor whotold me that The "PRES " of USOC had to resign because she had led on her resume???????????????????????
EXCUSE me is this true ???What in the name of God Jesus and all the Disciples is going on with theses people ???
How in Blooody H#)& do these people get away with this??

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:09 PM
Umm, yeah, brylntrip. Within the last couple of weeks. Sandra Baldwin, who was really quite competent from what I heard. But, turns out she lied on her resume. Not just fudging and making it sound better, but claiming degrees she didn't have. Had to resign. No USOC President at the moment.

Here's a link to the story from CNN-Sports Illustrated.

CNN-SI -- Baldwin Resigns from USOC (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/news/2002/05/24/baldwin_resigns_ap/index.html)

And another one from the day before she resigned:

CN-SI Baldwin Admits Lying About Credentials (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/olympics/news/2002/05/23/baldwin_resume_ap/index.html)

TrakHack
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:11 PM
She lied about her academic credentials.

The Panchen Lama of DQs! (Second only to Velvet, the undisputed Dalai Lama of DQs.)

Bethe Mounce
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by mbp:

I don't agree with everything AB does, but I won't have much faith or confidence in many of the possible replacements. 'Cept maybe Beth.

ARe you running Beth?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would step up to the plate if USA Equestrian asked me to. Not a problem.

JustaLurker
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:32 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> originally posted by jgrass:
I don't suppose it would ever occur to anyone to apply solution "f": stop worrying about how the sport in all of its manifestations has to drag itself through knotholes to comply with a set of rules that seem to exist only for the purpose of stuffing horse sports into some one size fits all Olympic mold by: *HORRORS!* not sending teams to the Olympics?

Goodbye USOC, Goodby Ted Stevens Act, goodbye a lot of wierd and barely applicable rider drug use rules (Beta-blockers? Albuterol? some of us getting up in years can't live without 'em) and then we could get along with regulating the sport for the vast majority of the folks that engage in it. There'd still be the World Cup and Pan Am games.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm surprised no one has commented on this post. The minute I read this, my thought was "that's the answer!" Somehow, going through all the hoop jumping just to put forth an Olympic Team every 4 years seems almost foolish. Looking at the success of our last "team," nay a group of 4 individuals who could barely ssem to stand one another and certainly unable to act as a team, why do we need this aggravation?

Let the USET keep their old boys club and mount an Olympic challenge if they wish. I'd think USAEq could still maintain the proposed International Division and put together teams for World Cups, Pan Am Games, competitions in Canada and Mexico. If some of the usual suspects wish to throw their lot in with USET, so be it. There is enough talent outside the fair haired bunch to put together very competitive teams for other than the Olympics.

Where are jgrass and I going wrong? Are the Olympics all that important? Poke holes, please.

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:49 PM
Yes! all this fuss about one competition every four years. I hope that this motivates the USAE to stop playing footsie and organize it's own international department with it's more than adequate people that are available.

I agree the Jumper Squad hasn't been a Team, that's really all that's at stake. USAE is qualified and competent to get the job done, let's get it started and let the decision about who fields the Olympic Team work it's way through the system. We don't have to twiddle our thumbs waiting for the USOC. They have lots of their house cleaning to do.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Let the USET keep their old boys club and mount an Olympic challenge if they wish. I'd think USAEq could still maintain the proposed International Division and put together teams for World Cups, Pan Am Games, competitions in Canada and Mexico. If some of the usual suspects wish to throw their lot in with USET, so be it. There is enough talent outside the fair haired bunch to put together very competitive teams for other than the Olympics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And maybe we should write to our Congressmen and tell them that the USOC is manipulating the system and taking sides instead of being an arbitration Committee. I mean Yikes! the date on the decision is June not when the hearings were done. The USOC hasn't really had their vote yet.

buryinghill1
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:49 PM
http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/austin/ruling.pdf

PMJ
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:52 PM
I have to admit that the above post has crossed my mind many times over the last few months. It really disgusts me that the USET is spinning the decision as one in their favor, because I just don't see how it is. Personally, while I do want and plan to show in recognized shows, I am very concerned about how all the legal bills are going to play into reality for the average rider who does not have international aspirations. After all, who exactly is going to foot all the bills especially when this whole mess is not even finished. What happens if the two sides cannot come to a mutal agreement--it seems we have been here, and somehow even if Leone and Balch--who I admire for the way he has acted in the wake of the childish accusations of Leone &USET--both resign, are the sides any different or better off? I just don't see how both sides are going to come to a joint agreement.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 04:55 PM
but it also includes the Pan Am Games, the World Equestrian Games, the World Championships, every Nations Cup class, and every other international competition in which we officially present a team or a rider officially represents the USA. And every competition that goes into qualifying a horse or rider to represent the US in any of those competitions.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:17 PM
It is only the US "Olympic" Commission what it not is the US "Athletic" Commission. I think that under these circumstances USAE needs to produce during the next 180 days a complete program that meets the specifications of the law.

Are you certain that these other competitions have not just been something that automatically came under their jurisdiction by means of attrition?

As a simple minded citizen it seems that there are 180 days for USAE to prove that they can function totally as specified by law so that the sport is not declared vacant and without leadership at all.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that the USET can't cover their weakness at all. How can it make any sense to sit around and then go through another year of arbitration. It is obvious that the people in charge of USET are not interested in compromise.

Would you in any relationship take on someone or something that cannot manage itself and it's finances to be an equal partner? Would you turn them loose with your checkbook? If USAE agreed to such a thing then I would be really disappointed with their bad judgment.

Glimmerglass
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
but it also includes the Pan Am Games, the World Equestrian Games, the World Championships, every Nations Cup class, and every other international competition in which we officially present a team or a rider officially represents the USA. And every competition that goes into qualifying a horse or rider to represent the US in any of those competitions. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Portia - why is this the case?

I was under the distinct impression that the USOC does not hold sway with the FEI which by itself controls those other global equestrian events. When did the fielding of a US-team to the World Cup come under the guidence of the USOC?

The qualification into and the success in WEG, for example, has no bearing whatsoever with the Olympics as that has it own procedures for qualifying etc. As such how could X rider going to France for X Grand Prix as a member of the USET somehow be governed by the USOC?

wtywmn4
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:29 PM
Thank you Yd. Page 11 is extremely interesting reading, as is the entire 13 pages..

JustaLurker
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
If only it was just the Olympics
but it also includes the Pan Am Games, the World Equestrian Games, the World Championships, every Nations Cup class, and every other international competition in which we officially present a team or a rider officially represents the USA. And every competition that goes into qualifying a horse or rider to represent the US in any of those competitions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh shucks! I suppose I should have suspected as much or USAEq certainly would have come up with that solution long ago. Well, back to the drawing board.

canyonoak
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
the hearing panel recommendation/order is dated June 2002 -- not October 2001. Substantively, it seems to have very little to do with what happened at the hearing and a great deal to do with what happened in the mediation.

_<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

decided, stuffed in envelope, sealed 10/01 - magically has a 6/02 date when opened - shades of Karnak<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
______________________________________________


Portia?
Anyone?

Is the above true? That the envelope--supposedly sealed 10/01 now has a 6/02 date when opened..?

I am so depressed by all this.

Not to mention that conscious, let alone conscientious, people can read the history of this entire episode and come up with the conclusion that USOC is acting in 'best interests' of the horse world.

Or that USET has any positions worth defending.

AS has been stated before and will be stated again: this is all about money and power. And for all I know, sex, but I suspect the latter only in the service of money and power.

Money -and- power is what generates sponsorship and significant position--the ability to command an organization.

In the name of MoneyAndPower, the former USOC president lied on her resume.

In the name of MoneyAndPower, the former USOC chairman accepted bribes (of course, he was just following the pattern set by nearly everyone in IOC).This of course being the person who INSISTED/DEMANDED/FORCED Alan Balch to sign a suspicious operating agreement that has been the entire grounds for the ridiculous USET challenge.
And this person was so blatant, even USOC had to remove him.

In the name of Moneyandpower, various people have brought legal suit against USET, fighting for a position on a team.

ANd now, in the name of MAP, we have this fine mess.

WSe have executives,formerly at AHSA, kicked out due to financual impropriety and the corrupt execution of power...now installed as executives at USET. And the FEI.

We have horse sport in an uproar.

Yes.

I am depressed.

Does this affect someone who is not trying to make a team?

You betcha!

In the same way that a president is the executive not legislative head--but still gets to make the laws, set the tone,create a mood of optimism or pessimism.

In this way--who and what wins this battle will indeed set the tone for anyone who is involved in horse sport, no matter what the level.

It is insane and incomprehensible to think that an organization can CREATE a division--and then have the division claim to be the entire organization.

It is equally ridiculous to think that USOC is legitimate.

Yes.
I am depressed.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:48 PM
Sorry, I was unclear. It's not that these are under the direct control of the USOC, but these competitions fall under definitions in the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and the USOC Consitution for protected competitions; that is, international competitions, or competitions that involve the qualification or selection of athletes for Olympic or Pan Am competition.

Despite the name given to the USOC, the reach of the TS Amateur Sports Act is far more encompassing than just the Olympic sports. It addresses "amateur" sports in the USA.

The statute deals with, and actually gives the USOC responsibility "to coordinate and develop amateur athletic activity in the United States, directly related to international amateur athletic competition." It also gives the USOC "exclusive jurisdiction, directly or through constituent members of committees, over ... all matters pertaining to United States participation in the Olympic Games, the Paralympic Games, and the Pan-American Games, including representation of the United States in the games."

With respect to international competition, it requires that each sport represented in the Olympics, Paralympics, or Pan Am Games have an NGB, sets out particular requirements for the NGBs, and gives the USOC jurisdiction over the NGBs.

Under the Act, the NGBs for each sport are specifically responsible for developing and fostering its sport from the grassroots to the very top levels. So, while the USOC itself concentrates on upper level international competition, its jurisdiction actually extends to a great many sports, at every level.

As you can see from the excerpts of the proposals from the SPI, that was a big subject of disagreement between USAEq and the USET. USAEq always said that the grass roots and national levels were just as important to the NGB function as the international levels, while the USET said that the NGB should focus exclusively on the "elite athletes," international competition, and qualifying competitions.

The FEI, as our international governing body for our discipline, does set the rules for and govern those international competitions, and our NGB is a member of the FEI. However, the FEI does not replace the jurisdiction of the USOC with respect to the NGB and its responsibilities.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

DMK
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:

Both organizations have other members who can take over. Neither is exclusively reliant on the people named by the USOC. Let's get Armand Leone and Alan Balch out of the way, and then perhaps a merger can go forward.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I may be a pessimist. Or I may be a pessimist with way too much experience in this area. As a person who has worked on about 12+ mergers I can promise you I have never yet met the organization that could handle such a situation. If I invested in a corporation who attempted to do as much, I promise you that I would divest myself of those shares as quickly as was prudent.


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 10, 2002, 05:55 PM
I find it very interesting that most of the posters on this BB have been holding their breath waiting for the opening of the envelope. Now that it has finally happened, it's not enough!

The USOC has made their decision public and still most of you are not satisfied with the outcome presumably because it is not the outcome you desired.

Was it not obivious that the USOC was going to force USAEq/USET to mend their own woes, one way or the other? Now they have 6 months to do so and I suspect the "inner circle" got the message loud and clear.

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 06:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canyonoak:
Portia?
Anyone?

Is the above true? That the envelope--supposedly sealed 10/01 now has a 6/02 date when opened..?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't know how much faith we can put in what we heard about "it's in an envelope just waiting to be opened." Yes, that's what we heard, but I never saw anything to confirm that's what happened, or what the Hearing Panel ever said would happen.

My understanding is that they made some form of decision about the result sometime shortly after the hearing, but that could be just that they met and decided "The USET doesn't qualify to be the NGB, but then neither does USAEq, so we're going to declare a vacancy." The chair of the hearing panel, Stapleton, announced at the end of the hearing that neither side would like their decision. They certainly used that stick to push the parties back to mediation (which the USET had previously abandoned).

My guess -- and it's just a guess -- is that they had their basic decision made, but hoped that the mediation would work out and the parties would reach an agreement. When the USET backed out of the mediation in April, I'm guessing they got back togeher again and came up with this opinion.

It's sort of what I speculate (and its only speculation, so take it for what its worth) they had previously decided, but you can clearly see the influence of what happened in the mediation in the opinion. Hell, just the recommendation that Frank Lloyd resign shows that -- couldn't have gotten that out of the hearing, as his name barely came up there if at all. I think, however, that he was pretty deeply involved in the mediation.

Maybe I'm naive, but I don't read it as corrupt. I read it as them trying to achieve what they think is the right thing, even if they fudge (quite a bit) over the line of what the law gives them the authority to do. Unfortunately, I don't know if this opinion makes it more likely, or less likely, that what they seemingly hope to achieve will occur.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

canyonoak
Jun. 10, 2002, 07:03 PM
I do not read the specific USOC decision
re: our NGB as corrupt.


I read the USOC as an organization full of corruption, only blatantly outdistanced by IOC.

The decision USOC has just made public...seems illegal, for starters, and illy conceived under the most charitable perspective I can find.

I keep thinking: somewhere, there is a power great enough to make a workable, useful decision happen.

I am just trying to figure out what or where that power might be.

cheers,

JustJump
Jun. 10, 2002, 07:43 PM
<<I suspect the "inner circle" got the message loud and clear.>>

Emmet--what leads you to suspect this?

Now...for the question that's been puzzling me since the begninning...

Who...is (was?)...this...Ted...Stevens...guy?

Portia
Jun. 10, 2002, 07:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JustJump:
Now...for the question that's been puzzling me since the begninning...

Who...is (was?)...this...Ted...Stevens...guy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh Just Jump! Thanks for that! LOLOL! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif I've been wondering the same thing myself.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

DMK
Jun. 10, 2002, 08:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Emmet:
I find it very interesting that most of the posters on this BB have been holding their breath waiting for the opening of the envelope. Now that it has finally happened, it's not enough!

The USOC has made their decision public and still most of you are not satisfied with the outcome presumably because it is not the outcome you desired.

Was it not obivious that the USOC was going to force USAEq/USET to mend their own woes, one way or the other? Now they have 6 months to do so and I suspect the "inner circle" got the message loud and clear.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Insofar as my own concerns, I would think they hold equally well, regardless of which side of the fence one is planted on.

Rudderless ships always steer worse than even those with a captain you don't like (and no, that isn't to imply that whoever took over the positions would be incompetent, but they sure would need to be on one hell of a learning curve).


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:01 PM
Isn't there an old saying that the road to hell is paved with good intentions!

The problem is a systemic one as we have seen, from the IOC to the USOC and to the USET. Officers not aware that telling lies about your credentials was dishonest. Officials being bought and paid for by opportunistic people seeking power and being in horses does not make us exempt. It is just people who are not proud of who they are trying to pretend to be what they wished they were.

Is the whole Olympic movement which was in hibernation for many years doomed because in this day and age it has not credibility?

OK! Portia so are we back to Congress, perhaps we need to rethink this whole thing. I do wonder who Ted Stevens was? If the USOC has such a mandate for all sports then perhaps it needs a little more supervision from the Congress who is supposed to represent us the people.

Yes! we all believed in the Easter Bunny and we really thought that intelligent people of good purpose could find a better solution that a "Pox on both your houses and everybody over-board".

I think that is Armand and Alan were both removed all we would get is a 2nd layer of equally prejudiced meglomaniacs.

I saw nothing in the decision that referred to the fact that the USET kept it's affairs secret and did business in back-rooms privately. Doesn't it matter how you raise the funds to support the Team? I saw nothing that referred to the fact that the USET mis-represented their financial stability.

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:13 PM
Ted Stevens was a Republican Senator from Alaska on the Commission.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The President's Commission on Olympic Sports (PCOS), was created by Executive Order 11868 on June 19, 1975. According to its First Report to the President, it was formed "partly in response to the continuing conflicts among various organizations involved with amateur sports in this country and partly in response to declining performance by the United States in international competition such as the Olympic Games."

In his signing statement, President Ford directed the Commission to make a "full and complete study and evaluation of the Unites States Olympic Committee," investigate the jurisdictional problems which keep the US from consistently placing the best athletes into international competitions, and study all matters related to US participation in international competition.

The Commission in the beginning consisted of 13 presidential appointees, two Congressmen appointed by the House Speaker, and two Senators appointed by the Senate President Pro Tem. On July 21, 1975, Executive Order 11873 increases to four the number appointed from each house of Congress. The other appointees were either former athletes or involved in amateur or professional sports in some way. In early 1975, before PCOS was officially established, Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt, Jr., USN, Ret., worked with future Executive Director Michael Harrigan on the PCOS budget and other administrative activities. When PCOS was formally created, however, Ford designated as chairman Gerald R. Zornow, Chairman of the Board of the Eastman Kodak Company, and a former athlete at the University of Rochester.

The problems the Commission was designed to investigate were not new. Since 1923 there had been disputes between the three major governing bodies overseeing amateur sports in the United States, the Amateur Athletic Union (AAU), the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), and the Unites States Olympic Committee (USOC), the officially recognized national governing body for international amateur competition in the United States. These disputes centered around athletes' rights and jurisdiction over what games an athlete could compete in. In 1973, President Nixon proposed the creation of a commission to study amateur sports, but for various reasons the concept was dropped. Revived again in July 1974, the commission failed to materialize before Nixon's resignation in August. In September, President Ford proposed a commission to be funded with reprogrammed funds from the Department of Health, Education and Welfare.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmmmm!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>107th CONGRESS

1st Session

S. 1085

To provide for the revitalization of Olympic sports in the United States.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

June 21, 2001

Mr. WELLSTONE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To provide for the revitalization of Olympic sports in the United States.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Olympic Sports Revitalization Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.

(a) FINDINGS- Congress makes the following findings:

(1) Chapter 2205 of title 36, United States Code (commonly referred to as the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act), requires the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to obtain for the United States `the most competent representation possible in each event of the Olympic Games'.

(2) A traditional route in the United States to participation in the Olympic Games has been participation in athletics at United States four-year colleges and universities.

(3) United States four-year colleges and universities are producing a much smaller number of participants in certain sports of the Olympic Games than they have in the past. A 2001 report of the General Accounting Office entitled `Intercollegiate Athletics: Four-Year Colleges' Experiences Adding and Discontinuing Teams' reveals that, between 1981 and 1999, in five Olympic women's sports--gymnastics, fencing, field hockey, archery, and badminton--and eleven Olympic men's sports--wrestling, tennis, gymnastics, rifle/shooting, fencing, outdoor track, swimming, skiing, ice hockey, water polo, and archery--discontinuations of teams by such colleges and universities have resulted in a net loss in the number of such teams nationwide. The largest percentage loss in such teams occurred in women's gymnastics (a 53 percent loss) and in men's wrestling (a 40 percent loss). The report also indicates that while the number of women participating in college athletics increased between 1981 and 1999, the number of men participating in college athletics in 1999 still significantly exceeded the number of women participating in college athletics in that year.

(4) According to the report, such discontinuations stem from declining student interest in the Olympic sports referred to in paragraph (3) and from administrative decisions of colleges and universities regarding the allocation of resources.

(5) While there has been a loss of teams at colleges and universities in the Olympic sports referred to in paragraph (3), three other Olympic sports, called `Emerging Sports for Women' by the National Collegiate Athletic Association, have yet to be fully established. These sports are team handball, synchronized swimming, and equestrian. These sports merit additional support if the USOC is to meet the basic requirement referred to in paragraph (1).

(6) Because the Olympic sports referred to in paragraphs (3) and (5) tend not to generate revenue for colleges and universities, such sports have little leverage in decisions of colleges and universities about the allocation of their resources for sports programs.

(7) The discontinuation by colleges and universities of teams in the Olympic sports referred to in paragraphs (3) disrupts the amateur careers of athletes participating in such sports and makes it more difficult for the USOC to fulfill one of its primary missions.

(8) In addition to the basic requirement referred to in paragraph (1), the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act also identifies other objectives of the USOC, including--

(A) that it `assist organizations and persons concerned with sports in the development of amateur athletic programs for amateur athletes';

(B) that it `encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletic activities for women'; and

(C) that it `encourage and provide assistance to amateur athletes of racial and ethnic minorities for the purpose of eliciting the participation of such minorities in amateur athletic activities in which they are underrepresented'.

(9) Due to a lack of public dissemination of data collected by the Department of Education under the Equity in Athletics Disclosure Act, prospective student-athletes often lack information to determine what athletic opportunities colleges and universities provide their students.

(10) According the report referred to in paragraph (3), colleges and universities often discontinue sports teams in a manner that gives student-athletes no advance notice of consideration of such discontinuations and no opportunity for appeal of the decision--thereby disrupting the amateur careers affected by such discontinuations.

(b) PURPOSE- The purpose of this Act is to encourage United States representation in the events of the Olympic Games by--

(1) promoting the revitalization of amateur athletics; and

(2) encouraging amateur careers in athletics.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jun. 10, 2002 at 11:49 PM.]

Snowbird
Jun. 10, 2002, 09:54 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Tuesday, September 19, 2000
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT:
NANCY IVES (202)224-7130

McCain Condemns $356 Million in 'Pet Projects'

"But the list of spending excesses goes on. This bill provides a staggering $14.8 million for communications infrastructure (including radios and related equipment) associated with law enforcement responsibilities for the Salt Lake Winter Olympics. This item is but one example of the fiscal abuse surrounding the staging of the Olympic Games.

"This past year, I requested the General Accounting Office to conduct an audit into Federal financial support for U.S. cities hosting the Olympics. Specifically, I asked the GAO to answer two questions: 1) the amount of federal funding and support provided to the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympics, and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympics, and the types of projects and activities that were funded and supported, and; 2) the federal policies, legislative authorizations, and agency controls in place for providing the federal funds and support to the Olympic Games. What the GAO discovered is that, "at least 24 federal agencies reported providing or planning to provide a combined total of almost $2 billion, in 1999 dollars, for Olympic-related projects and activities for the 1984 and 1996 Summer Olympic Games and the 2002 Winter Olympic Games."

"My friends, this number is staggering, but what is more shocking is the way in which federal funds flowing to Olympic host cities has accelerated. The GAO found that the American taxpayer provided about $75 million in funding for the 1984 Los Angeles Games, by 1996 the bill to taxpayers had escalated to $609 million, and for the upcoming 2002 Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, that bill to American taxpayers is estimated to be $1.3 billion dollars. This figure is breathtaking. The American taxpayer is being shaken down to the tune of nearly a billion-and-a-half dollars for Salt Lake City to host the Winter Olympics.

"Not surprisingly, the GAO found that there was no effective mechanism in place for tracking federal funding and support to host cities. The GAO stated that "in some cases it was difficult to determine the amount of federal funding and support because federal agencies generally did not track or report their funding and support for the Olympic Games." Congress, in some cases, authorized $690 million of the estimated $2 billion, with some $1.3 billion being approved by federal agencies. However egregious it might be for Congress to approve $690 million in taxpayers funds - most of which was done through objectionable legislative pork barreling - it is astounding that federal bureaucrats, with absolutely no accountability, have ponied up $1.3 billion as a regular course of business. Notably, the Vice President, as part of his "re-inventing government" program chaired a White House task force designed to coordinate federal involvement in the Olympics. However, to no one's surprise, this was more an exercise in re-inventing a lack of accountability than of re-inventing government. The GAO found "that federal agencies generally did not track or report their funding and support for the Olympic Games."

"The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act, named after my good friend and colleague from Alaska, sets out the process by which the United States Olympic Committee operates, and how the USOC goes about selecting a U.S. bid city. Embodied in this Act is a uniquely American tenet establishing that the United States Olympic movement, including the bid, and host city process, is an entirely independent, private sector entity. However, as this report points out, the American taxpayer has now become, by far, the largest single underwriter of the costs of hosting the Olympics. Mind you, this is not about private, voluntary giving to the Olympic movement. Nor is it about corporate sponsorships. This is about a cocktail of fiscal irresponsibility, made of Congressional pork barreling, and unaccountable federal bureaucrats.

"As I outlined earlier, taxpayer funding of the Olympics has increased dramatically in recent years, as has the purpose of the funding. In the 1984 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles, $75 million in federal support was provided. Most notable about this figure, aside from how low it is relative to Atlanta and Salt Lake, is what the money was used for. Of the $75 million, $68 million (or 91 percent) was used to help provide safety and security services during the planned staging of the games. Only $7 million was for non-security-related services. Providing safety and security support is a proper role for the federal government. No one would dispute that the federal government should provide whatever support necessary to ensure that the Games are safe for everyone. However, the American taxpayer should not be burdened with building up the basic infrastructure necessary to a city to be able to pull off hosting the Olympic Games. Los Angeles had that capacity, they had the roads, the transit systems, the event venues necessary to hosting the Olympics, and where they didn't, they had the ability to raise the funding from the private sector.

"Clearly, by the time we got to Atlanta, such was not the case. Of the $609 million in taxpayer funding that went into the Atlanta games, $96 million (or 16 percent) went to safety and security related services, while $256 million (42 percent) was for construction of roads and highways, $114 million (19 percent) went to mass transit projects, $55 million (9 percent) for other Olympic-related capital improvements, and the balance of $89 million going for various other activities such as spectator transportation and building and venue enhancement.

"The GAO identified the building of the Ocoee white water Slalom venue as a particularly offensive example of pork barreling out of control. $22 million dollars was provided to build this venue. This white water rafting event was not originally slated as an Olympic event. That's before state and local officials got involved. After they convinced Atlanta officials to include the event, they lobbied the Forest Service, and the Tennessee Valley Authority (among others) for the funding. In a series of classic government decisions, the Forest service chose a portion of the Ocoee River not normally used for rafting, and proceeded to make a series of irreversible changes to the river including reducing the rivers width by half, modifying the river's flow, and making the river "cable ready" by implanting cables and connections for the media's use during the games. To top it off, the TVA then released the required amount of water during the Olympic trials, and games. This cost the TVA $2 million in lost power-generating revenue.

"Other classic examples include $331,000 to purchase flowers, shrubs and grass for venues and parks around Atlanta, $3.5 million to do things like installing of solar electrical systems at the Olympic swimming pool, $313,000 to build a bike path and $1.6 million for DOT to post signs around the city of Atlanta.

"Most offensive to me is that 1,000 of our men and women in uniform were used as bus drivers for athletes, coaches, and officials at a cost of $978,450.

"As astounding as the Atlanta numbers are, they absolutely pale in comparison to Salt Lake City. Almost $1.3 billion of federal funding and support is planned or has already been provided to the City of Salt Lake. $645 million (51 percent) is for construction of roads and highways, $353 million (28 percent) is for mass transit projects, approximately $107 million for miscellaneous other activities like building temporary parking lots and bus rentals, and $161 million on safety and security.

"As of April 2000, the federal government planned to spend some $77 million to provide spectator transportation and venue enhancements for the Salt Lake games. This includes $47 million in Congressionally approved taxpayer funding for transportation systems. Among other things, Salt Lake officials plan to ask the federal government for $91 million to pay for things like transporting borrowed buses to and from Salt Lake, additional bus drivers, bus maintenance, and construction and operation of park and ride lots.

"However, as outlined, most of the money taken from taxpayers to foot the bill for the Salt Lake games is going to develop, build, and complete major highway and transit improvement projects - "especially those critical to the success of the Olympic Games." This last phrase is vital to understanding the fleece game being played by cities like Salt Lake.

"It works this way; a city decides they want to host an Olympics to generate tourism and put their home town on the map. In order to successfully manage an Olympics, community leaders know they will have to meet certain infrastructure demands. They develop their plans in coordination with the state government, then team up with their Congressmen and Senators to tap into the motherload of federal pork, the Transportation Trust Fund. Eventually, the project funding is authorized for some point in the distant future, but not appropriated. When the city lands the Olympic bid, the pay-out is accelerated in order to meet the time-line for the Games. All this, under the rationale that the city and state would eventually receive the money anyway. Well, this doesn't pass the laugh test. It is a shell game of the greatest magnitude, and the victims are the taxpayers of America.

"The GAO makes several recommendations for Congressional consideration including a potential federal role in the selection of a bid city, a tracking system for funds appropriated, and more direct oversight. Among other things, the GAO also recommends a larger role for OMB in exercising oversight regarding agency activities. However, I believe there are two fundamental reforms that should take place. First, is budget reform. Appropriations for Olympic activities should occur through the regular budget process, subject to the sunshine of public scrutiny, and debate within Congress. Second, the USOC should not consider the bids of cities that do not have in place the basic capacity to host the Olympic games. All of the cities discussed in this report are wonderful places that all Americans should be proud of. However, what is clear from this report is that only one, Los Angeles, had the established capability of hosting an event the size of the Olympic Games. $1.3 billion to Salt Lake City, this is preposterous, and it must stop."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

buryinghill1
Jun. 11, 2002, 06:40 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Emmet:
The USOC has made their decision public and still most of you are not satisfied with the outcome presumably because it is not the outcome you desired. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emmet. You are SO right. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
The next 180 days are gonna be awfully busy for both offices! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif I'm gonna mail my donation to the USOC right now. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

PMJ
Jun. 11, 2002, 07:06 AM
I don't know what I expected exactly--but I hoped that the USOC would show some leadership in their decision making. From the USET spin, they act as if they won & have the support to keep doing what they are doing. I don't realistically think that changing the heads of both organizations is going to do that much because this dispute was so polarized. I worry also if they merge what will happen regarding the USET bills and who will be responsible for them. I wonder too, if this becomes more and more expensive, if some horse orgs. will not contemplate a move from the USAE--somewhat like the Endurance people--because honestly, I think the bottom of the pile will have to pay whether in terms of higher fees across the board or by recognized shows going through the roof in terms of expenses.

867-5309
Jun. 11, 2002, 07:18 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowbird:

"Yes! we all believed in the Easter Bunny and we really thought that intelligent people of good purpose could find a better solution that a "Pox on both your houses and everybody over-board".

Funny but for some reason what came to mind when I read this thread is the scene from the movie "Dave" (with Kevin Kline, who is a 'regular' guy impersonating the US President) where he sits down with the cabinet and cuts $7 million ($11?? whatever-) from the budget to save the day care center in a common sense manner & to do the right thing. We need a Dave to negotiate. :--) Bethe again?

heh heh, just a little attempt at levity.

Weatherford
Jun. 11, 2002, 07:29 AM
of the USOC HEARINGS are now posted.

They make for interested reading - although, I doubt the reading is quite as interesting as the WATCHING and LISTENING. You really miss the nuances! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Please read them - then you can at least see what some of us heard.

USOC Hearings Transcripts (http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/index.asp)

They are in the middle of this page. The USOC recommendation is also there. Along with all the other documents.

Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

Groundline
Jun. 11, 2002, 07:33 AM
If you want some real light in your day, I spent some time last night reading the transcripts from the actual USOC hearing on the USA Equestrian website last night.

Veeddddy interrreesssting.

You can see Bonnie Jenkins twisting like a pretzel to try to explain away what she did when she was at AHSA, and how that qualifies her to be at USET, and then denying she knew what she signed, or whether it was true, then or now, and on and on. She and Bob Standish tie for most incompetent. Well, that's not fair -- I guess Bob wins that one.

Then you can see Denny Emerson and Wofford and Balch go up against cross examination -- talk about a TRIP -- doesn't look like the USET lawyers had a very nice time.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 08:32 AM
one moment that really sticks in my mind - Denny was being cross examined - Shaw asks a question, Denny sits up, says "...and you probably shouldn't have asked that question."

Shaw had hit a nerve - a subject that had bothered Denny for a long time - you cannot tell from transcripts but the emotion was intense

and when Denny got done I wanted to cheer for him - he was so, I know it sounds odd, but he was so righteous

Bethe Mounce
Jun. 11, 2002, 08:40 AM
USET and USAE are perhaps in for some rough times........I, as an amateur member of USAE and contributing member of USET (they get money from me though as of late they haven't), would do what I could to help both sides. My accounting background would certainly be of value! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Plus, I don't play the political game either of who is who and how much they give or how many Olympic horses they have bought etc........granted, I stand in awe of the top riders, trainers and horses, but they are people too! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

It would behoove both sides to get in a room and not be let out until some sort of amicable decision is reached about who should be considered the NGB for our country. Alas, that probably won't happen.

And somewhere along the way, the real thing has been missed---what is best for the horse; this is almost like what is best for the child when there is a divorce.

Erin
Jun. 11, 2002, 08:40 AM
Denny rocks! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

And just one thing I wanted to mention...

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JustaLurker:
Looking at the success of our last "team," nay a group of 4 individuals who could barely ssem to stand one another and certainly unable to act as a team, why do we need this aggravation?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ahem... don't forget that "The Team" is NOT just show jumpers. I'm pretty sure I remember our eventers bringing home a shiny gold thing from Sydney. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

vineyridge
Jun. 11, 2002, 08:49 AM
Just maybe, the USOC is trying to force the parties to complete the merger that was agreed on in January.

They were so close, and both boards had agreed on a merger of equals. Then USAEq tried to change the ground rules, and USET balked.

Well, now the USOC has found that they are equals, and neither is an appropriate NGB.

So back to the January proposal with USAEq swatted down for trying to change the interim board selection process.

I think USAEq has been guilty of hubris, and the "gods" have acted.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 08:53 AM
5 million in debt vs 6 million on plus side!

are you buying Enron stock now? (actually not a good analogy as many of the executives that caused the bankruptcy there are now gone)

Portia
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:03 AM
Emmet and YD, I understand what the Panel is trying to achieve and, hell, it's what the AHSA/USA Eq was offering a year and a half ago and has continued offering, even though the USET continually rejected the idea of consolidation as absurd and unthinkable. (Though with the revelations of the USET's financial mismangement and liabilities, that consolidation is much less palatable to me personally than it once was.)

What truly bothers me about the opinion is that it doesn't follow the law. Yep, I'm a lawyer, and that bugs me big time. (Surprise!) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif There are certain rules of the game and you are supposed to follow them, just like at a horse show. For a litigator, it's a competition, and the players and judges are supposed to play agressively but according to the rules. When the judges decide to try to ignore the rules, that really annoys me.

In this case, everybody went through this whole thing, since even before the USET filed its Article VIII, section 3 Challenge in February 2001, according to a fairly precisely defined set of rules. The House and Senate defined those rules in the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act. They said if you want to become the NGB, you have to meet specific, enumerated conditions and you have to prove you do through a defined process. And they said to the USOC, when you deal with a Challenge, you have to follow a defined process and at the end, you are allowed to take one of only four precisely stated actions.

As I said in an eariler post, the statute, and the USOC's own Consitution, gives the USOC the authority to do A, B, C, or D. There is no E, none of the above.

They also tried to change the rules after the game was over so they could manipulate the result. Hmmmm, we can't do what we want to do, what we think is best, if we stick with this just being a Article VIII, section 3 Challenge. So, instead, we'll just call it an Article VIII, section 1 Complaint, for which different procedures and different standard apply. And even calling it a Complaint, they have ordered a result they have no legal authority to order.

The fancy legal term is "failure to provide due process" and "acting in excess of statutory authority," but it comes down to the fact that not only did they try to change the rules at the last minute, but they didn't follow even those rules. And yeah, that really bothers me.

Yes, I note the irony of my signature line with this little speech. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif However, the Founding Fathers were open about their rebellion. They didn't pretend to follow the law, they came right out and said, "nope, Ain't right. Not gonna do it." Same with other civil disobediance. But pretending to follow the rules while blatantly ignoring them -- not the same thing at all.

(By the way, wasn't Ted Stevens the Senator who disappeared while on a small plane flying over the Alaska wilderness? in the late 70s or early 80s maybe?)

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:05 AM
An organization run openly (they have meetings broadcast over the internet for gods sake) versus an organiztion that does not communicate MAJOR decisions (much less discuss them before hand) to their own Executive Committee!

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:18 AM
(4) The new organization must provide the International Operating Division and the international disciplines with equivalent or
greater resources and support than they have received from the USET.

Question: during what time frame? If you work off of what is reported on the Form 990s for the last couple of years, well, expenditures TO THE ATHLETES have not been very large (in relation to overall budget). Going by that, this provision is not difficult to meet.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:30 AM
(5) The new organization must make good faith efforts to support and maintain the existing training and competition facilities of the two
parties.

Question: what is the point of that provision? There is no point to it in my opinion. There is no sound, credible business reason to insist upon maintenence of the Gladstone facility (unless it is that that location is convenient for certain people?). Any facilities used should be evaluated on cost to maintain, availabilty of land necessary to accomodate the needs of all the FEI disciplines, etc. Why would the USOC feel the need to dictate that the NGB use any particular facility?

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:33 AM
(9) Further, the Panel recommends that both organizations waive any non-compete clauses found in the employment agreements of certain of their employees, which might prevent those employees from becoming employed by any new organization formed by the two entities.

Question: why did the uset have a non-compete clause in their employment contract in the first place? They are a non-profit organization that is supposed to be working in the interests of equestrian sports in the United States. What possible reason did they have for instituting the non-compete clause in the first place?

canyonoak
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:40 AM
I believe that USET has known the USOC decision --now made public-- for a long time.

I believe they have known/helped shape the decision since BEFORE USOC demanded that Alan Balch sign the ridiculous, quasi-illegal operating agreement some years ago.

I believe that corruption hangs with corruption.

I believe all this, and am waiting for someone or thing to make me not believe any part of it.

I simply can NOT believe how much money, how much time, how much precious energy, has been wasted on this mess.

I am still depressed.

Portia
Jun. 11, 2002, 09:51 AM
Maybe this will make you feel better, canyonoak.

A year ago, the USET was insisting that it was and always had been the "real NGB," and its officers made lots of public statements that they were confident that the USOC would make the USET, and the USET alone, the new NGB. I remember listening in on an open conference call the USET had (OK, the only one they had), and Armand Leone announcing in no uncertain terms that "there will be no merger." IIRC, he also said the same thing in an open letter issued by the USET, I think the same one where they explained why they took out the $2 million line of credit that they hadn't told the rest of the Board about. (I can't find my copy of the letter, though.)

Now, the USOC Panel has said there should be a consolidation, on terms that appear to be not as good as those offered by the AHSA in its plan from the Strategic Planning Initiative. The USET may be claiming this is some kind of victory for them, but I think we can safely say it's not at all what they had planned when this thing started.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

buryinghill1
Jun. 11, 2002, 10:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canyonoak:
I believe that USET has known the USOC decision --now made public-- for a long time.

I am still depressed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Does this have anything to do with the shooter on the grassy knoll?

vineyridge
Jun. 11, 2002, 10:09 AM
I'm not as concerned about the technical failures of the decision.

As all lawyers know, pleadings are frequently modified to conform to the evidence. This is not a hearing in a court of law, and rules of procedure don't apply. The question of whether USAEq has been fulfilling the requirements for NGB is pretty clearly (complaint procedure) included in the issue of whether it's qualified to be the NGB. The USOC has been acting as a hearing officer/court of equity, not law. Besides, the USOC has a long history of dealing with USET, not ASHA, with some success for our teams. That history would be important in determining whether or not the USET could function financially in the future.

The real question will be whether USAEq gets on with the merger of equals, or whether it decides to appeal to an arbitration board.

My bet is that the hearing panel didn't even bother to read the transcript of the hearing.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 10:10 AM
come on yd! did you read the decision????

Is there a credible excuse for those provisions in the USOC decision?

Molly99
Jun. 11, 2002, 10:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
(9) Further, the Panel recommends that both organizations waive any non-compete clauses found in the employment agreements of certain of their employees, which might prevent those employees from becoming employed by any new organization formed by the two entities.

Question: why did the uset have a non-compete clause in their employment contract in the first place? They are a non-profit organization that is supposed to be working in the interests of equestrian sports in the United States. What possible reason did they have for instituting the non-compete clause in the first place?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Sorry, but I don't find it odd to have non compete causes in a high level employee.

I have had to sign them for simply being a secretary and keeper of the books.

DMK
Jun. 11, 2002, 10:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vineyridge:
Just maybe, the USOC is trying to force the parties to complete the merger that was agreed on in January.

They were so close, and both boards had agreed on a merger of equals. Then USAEq tried to change the ground rules, and USET balked.

Well, now the USOC has found that they are equals, and neither is an appropriate NGB.

So back to the January proposal with USAEq swatted down for trying to change the interim board selection process.

I think USAEq has been guilty of hubris, and the "gods" have acted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well "hubris" has not exactly been an endangered species in this conflict. For anyone, thank you very much! It's seeing the issues through the hubris, arrogance, power-mongering, egomaniacal grasping of power or whatever term various individuals have used to describe other individuals thoughout the debate that has been the challenge.

But, even IF the USAEq went into the merger talks saying that this merger will happen no matter what, as a person who pays dues to that organization, they did have a responsibility to look out for my financial interests. They really were not in a position to accept debt like that, and I am sure (as we take a moment to visit the real world), if one owned stock in a company that merged with a debt-ridden company and forgave the debt (aka, gave consideration for the value of the assets alone), one would be screaming SHAREHOLDER LAWSUIT faster than Enron could set up a dummy corporation.

Whether they should/could/would have known the full state of indebtedness of the USET or whether they should/could/would have expressed whatever degree of optimism on potential merger considerations can all be debated endlessly. It's tough to rationally debate the acquisition of debt angle though.

As for my own views, it's my understanding that merger talks were qualified based on true financial condition, but I don't know that unequivocally. Also a "merger of equals" really doesn't say a damn thing about absorbing debt.

I do agree that the USOC really is just trying to resolve this problem, although the cynical part of me does wonder if they would like to get it off the table so they can attend to some of their own well publicized problems. But that is neither here nor there. Regardless of the motivations, I think a better business decision would be to force the merger within X months or declare a vacancy, and put the requirement that the leadership must vacate within X months of the merger being substantially completed. That would still leave many sticky problems to sort out, but provides a better framework than the current order, and it would do a better job (IMHO) of ensuring that BOTH sides received fair dealing in this situation.


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Portia
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:00 AM
From USAEq web site:

For Immediate Release June 11, 2002
USA EQUESTRIAN OFFICERS ISSUE RESPONSE TO USOC HEARING REPORT

The officers of USA Equestrian, the National Equestrian Federation of the United States, met Monday, June 10, 2002, and issued the following joint statement upon a preliminary review of the recent report made by a hearing panel to the United States Olympic Committee.

For over 80 years, USA Equestrian has served as the governing body for equestrian sport in America. To encourage broad participation in equestrian sports, in order to field the highest quality representation of our country possible in international competition, we have always pursued three primary goals:

Decision-making that is inclusive, transparent and open to the public.

Sound management of financial resources.

Competition that is open, fair, and above reproach, protective of the welfare of horses.

Everything that we do going forward will continue to focus on these objectives.

Although the report is only a recommendation and has yet to be approved by the USOC, USA Equestrian is gratified that the hearing panel adopted our long-standing position that we should combine our organizational strengths with those of the United States Equestrian Team. We will weigh this and its other detailed recommendations to the USOC board of directors very carefully, while we evaluate their possible future impact on the sport as a whole, and specifically our corporation. As our evaluation develops, we will share our own recommendations, the advice we receive, and any decisions we make, with our fellow corporate directors and the larger equestrian community.

Particularly at this time, we believe that experienced and effective leadership throughout the sport is especially critical. Leaving the National Federation or any other organization with any significant leadership vacuum would do those organizations as well as the entire sport a disservice. Therefore, all the duly-elected officers of USA Equestrian plan to continue to play an active role in the organization's activities, while the sport's governance structure is resolved.

The officers of USA Equestrian are Alan F. Balch, Judith Werner, Linda Allen, Kathy Knill Meyer, David O'Connor, and Stephen O. Hawkins.

USA Eq (http://www.equestrian.org)

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:06 AM
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION

The American Horse Shows Association, Inc., now known as USA Equestrian, Inc., ("USAE") is formally recognized as the National Governing Body
("NGB") for the sport of equestrian in the United States. During its tenure as NGB, the USAE has delegated many, if not most, of its responsibilities,
smlg: Excuse me - MOST!?! I think that the USOC panel is a little confused regarding the responsibilities of a NGB - when I look at the
lists of task/duties performed by the uset verses the task/duties performed by our Fed., I find a disproportionate # handled by our Fed. - they write and enforce the rules; they enforce the drugs and medications rules (they created the only FEI approved testing lab in the U.S. for gods sake); they train the judges; they work closely with all associated organizations; they adjudicate disputes; they defend both themselves and the uset against lawsuits over participation on teams; and on and on and on.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:14 AM
......first to the United States Calvary Association, and second, since 1950,
to the United States Equestrian Team ("USET").

sgray: the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U.S.C. ' 371 - the 1978 Act-later renamed the "Ted
Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act" (or TSOASA) and amended in 1998 ---- the USOC is chiding USA Eq for actions decades before the relevant law was enacted - what is with that?

perhaps, in hindsight, there should have been a merger in 1978

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:31 AM
To those who disagree with the legalities of the decision...I can't imagine USOC does anything without consulting their own panel of legal eagles.

Besides, aren't we the nation that bore the jury that believed "if the glove doesn't fit...?) Talking about pretzeling the law!

My hope is that the powers that be get down to the business of fixing this, once and for all and ignor their lawyers shouts of APPEAL!

brilyntrip
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:33 AM
It has always been my opinion that the FED does all the work takes on a major part of the expense and yet isn't considered the main deal?

Molly99
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:39 AM
SGray,

not including the entire wording makes for an incorrect opionion.

Had I not read the USOC decision, I would not have know that it really reads:

During its tenure as NGB, the USAE has delegated many, if not most, of its responsibilities, first to the United States Calvary Association, and second, since 1950, to the United States Equestrian Team (�USET�). Thus, while USAE has been the NGB in name, it has not served the function of an NGB as required by the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (36 USC � 220501 et seq.), (the "Act") and as required by Article IV and Article VI of the USOC Constitution.
In effect, the sport of equestrian has been governed under an anomalous structure, where both the USAE and the USET, together, with separate and different functions, serve as the NGB. Under this arrangement, the USAE is primarily responsible for regulating �grassroots� programs in the United States for equestrian sports, including the seven disciplines recognized by the international federation for equestrian. The USET, on the other hand, is primarily responsible for governing the �elite� programs in the United States, including fielding teams to the Olympics, Pan American Games and World Championships.

NEITHER acted in full as the NGB, however, as the primary focus is on the international teams, the USET has the most experience and therefore they tend to lean that way in the rest of their statement.


Specifically, the Panel recommends that Alan Balch, and Armand Leone and Frank Lloyd step aside from their roles at their respective organizations and that those individuals not be permitted to take part in the governance of the sport of equestrian for a minimum of six (6) years. This will allow new leadership to forge a new unified organization.


While I agree that they should, I wonder about the legal end? Portia???

Snowbird
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:44 AM
They had their awards presented at the Annual Convention, they had their meetings at the annual convention and we all attended those open meetings. There was a USET Luncheon at every convention.

They were as the NHJC is, a division of the AHSA.

Portia why can't the USAE just set up a new division during the 6 months allocated, why can't they offer to employ all those interested individually from USET in their own new division? And, if they choose not to accept the job then have a replacement.

It seems to me that "of equal experience and skill" leaves a lot to be desired after reading the hearings and the quality level of the participants.

The USOC itself after reading the reports from the Presidential Commission leaves a great deal to be explained. How does the blatant arrogance of choosing who is "elite" justify the USET as an equal partner when the USOC mandate requires open and equal opportunities for everyone?

The purpose of this Commission was to make sure all athletes knew what benefits were their entitlement, that it should be open and public and not done in the privacy of any "elite" group. How can that describe the USET while Armand at the Convention said they were only interested in the "elite" athletes.

A merger of the functions is logical can't that be done without a merger of "corporations"?

PMJ
Jun. 11, 2002, 11:51 AM
Just a quick note about lawyers--they do what their clients want and they are not running the show. I guess it bugs me that people assume that the lawyers are the cause of so many problems. Granted that AL is an attorney, but basically the lawyers on both sides are getting paid for the work they do and can only reccommend that their clients appeal/settle/etc in their best interest. From reading documents in the past, it seems to me that the USET is not interested in merger and if that is their dictated agenda, that is the way the lawyers must play. Many time clients do not listen to what is in their best interest or what would save them money. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 01:22 PM
I was looking for info on the Ted Stevens AA Act and came across
http://www.truesport.com/Bike/1999/usacpowergrab.htm

so many parallels

poltroon
Jun. 11, 2002, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WC Princess:
Originally posted by SGray:

Question: why did the uset have a non-compete clause in their employment contract in the first place? They are a non-profit organization that is supposed to be working in the interests of equestrian sports in the United States. What possible reason did they have for instituting the non-compete clause in the first place?


Sorry, but I don't find it odd to have non compete causes in a high level employee.

I have had to sign them for simply being a secretary and keeper of the books.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Noncompetes are illegal in California. I can't see how anyone could enforce one on a secretary or bookkeeper, even in states that don't regulate this.

But anyway, I've wondered the same thing. Why would you have Klaus Balkenhol sign a non-compete saying he couldn't work for any other US organization? Who else would hire him, and why would that be against the interests of US Equestrian sport, which USET purports to represent?

poltroon
Jun. 11, 2002, 01:38 PM
I AM glad that the USOC has finally spoken, even in their quasi-legal fashion, because this whole issue was in a holding pattern for months. At least now everyone will get on with doing something towards ending this fiasco.

(It galled me that the USOC letter chastises everyone for the operating agreement when that whole thing was orchestrated by USOC in the first place.)

Unfortunately, I think the USOC's choice was worse for everyone than simply picking one of the options. Mergers can't be forced any more than they have been so far. If a vacancy is declared, it will still be one of these two organizations that will come calling for it again. Might as well have simply declared the vacancy immediately. But then, I doubt anyone at the USOC wants anything to do with horses.

I still wonder how this will all work out for the WEG... will they fight over who gets to pay for the plane tickets? Thank goodness that the selection mechanisms are already in place.

Snowbird
Jun. 11, 2002, 02:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Leone had a warning for the USAEq?s leaders, though. ?If they want to get together, they better read the USOC decision. If not, we?ll be making appropriate plans to fill the vacancy,? he said.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Surely, any reasonable person can see this is not a solution but a declaration of war requesting capitulation by the USAE.

I for one am appalled at the decision of the USOC which has kept us in suspension for all this time. I am even more appalled by this brazen statement from Armand Leone as a spokesman who represents the USET. Add this to his declaration of being interested only in the "elite" athletes and we know he is not alone. This is the position of the USET and has never been repudiated.

Portia
Jun. 11, 2002, 02:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
I AM glad that the USOC has finally spoken, even in their quasi-legal fashion, because this whole issue was in a holding pattern for months. At least now everyone will get on with doing something towards ending this fiasco.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Boy do I agree with you about that Poltroon!

There could be one problem with that however. Right now, this is just a hearing panel recommendation, not a final administrative action. The timetables don't begin to run until the USOC Board takes final action on the recommendation, presumably with a rubber stamp approval. Only then will the deadlines for the probation period or for demanding arbitration begin to run.

Let us hope that the USOC Board takes action on the recommendation very soon and doesn't continue to leave it all in limbo.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

brilyntrip
Jun. 11, 2002, 02:20 PM
that the key boards across the US are humming !I have gotten several speculative phone calls in the last two days referring to any and every type of new establishment of Horse organizations.I am personally astounded !

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 11, 2002, 02:42 PM
I read elsewhere that the USET BofD would meet to "discuss the USOC ruling and AB's lawsuit filed against USET last week."

What's that?

JustaLurker
Jun. 11, 2002, 02:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
Ahem... don't forget that "The Team" is NOT just show jumpers. I'm pretty sure I remember our eventers bringing home a shiny gold thing from Sydney. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Whoops! I stand corrected on that one. I certainly should have qualified "The Team" by stating "The Show Jumping Team."

His Greyness
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:03 PM
If the USOC declared an immediate vacancy, this would mean more real work for the USOC as they would have to evaluate all the candidates who applied to be the next NGB.

I believe the USOC Board of Directors is made up mostly of former elite athletes in their respective sports who went on to "management" roles in their sport when they grew too old to compete. There aren't any amateur plodders like the rest of us in the bunch. The enabling legislation from Congress requires them to be concerned with the development of sports at all levels.

The USET have the public relation skills of a cinder block. All they keep saying is that it's all Alan Balch's fault. Is there any concise well reasoned defense of their position?

Alan Balch keeps refering to the centrifugal forces trying to tear the horse world apart. Several disciplines are said to want to leave the USAeq/AHSA fold. Is Alan Balch really promoting the equivalent of BIG GOVERNMENT in horse sports? "Washington (Kentucky) knows best and is here to help" to make an analogy with today's political tensions.

Why do we need all these different organizations? I have competed at a very low level and now mostly volunteer in dressage, driving and eventing. So I have had to join a USDF GMO, ADS, USCTA and AHSA/USAeq. My gripe with all of them is that they all believe that the horse world revolves around their particular discipline. There also seem to be more frogs than ponds, never mind about their relative sizes. To have fun with my horse I don't actually need any of them.

Portia
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Emmet:
I read elsewhere that the USET BofD would meet to "discuss the USOC ruling and AB's lawsuit filed against USET last week."

What's that?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know any details, Emmet, just what is in today's COTH piece, which says the new New Jersey lawsuit is a follow-up to the one from last year arising from the USET's failure to abide by New Jersey corporate law with respect to election of its Board and its refusal to provide its trustees with access to the org's books and records. Apparently the suit alleges the USET failed to abide by the terms of the court's order from last year and seeks a new order requiring it to again comply.

It looks like it's basically a motion to enforce the court's prior order, but it had to be brought as a new action because the old suit ended last year when the Judge issued her order and final judgment. Although, like the action last year, the suit has to be brought in Balch's name since he is the USET Trustee who is allegedly being denied his rights, the COTH piece says the suit was filed with the approval of the USAEq Executive Committee.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Coreene
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:16 PM
But I can't think of any today.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:26 PM
was the New Jersey suit begun prior to the Hearing?

didn't the NJ Judge declare that the uset had been acting outside the boundaries of NJ law and that their actions were thus void?

Portia
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
was the New Jersey suit begun prior to the Hearing?

didn't the NJ Judge declare that the uset had been acting outside the boundaries of NJ law and that their actions were thus void?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The original suit was filed and decided prior to the USOC hearing, but it ended and the court lost jurisdiction in that matter when she issued her final judgment. In that judgment, however, she had ordered that the USET had to do certain things, which I think it mostly did. But the order was ongoing in certain respects, such as giving the trustees the absolute right of access to the books and records.

If, for example, Balch has subsequently asked the USET to let him examine its books and records, and it has refused or failed to allow him full access, then that would be a violation of the court's prior order. But, since the old suit is technically finished, he would have to file a new suit to get that problem heard. However, because it is related to the court's prior order, it will be heard by the same Judge (assuming NJ procedure is the same as in federal courts and Texas courts in that respect.)

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Snowbird
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:34 PM
New Jersey Court found all their actions in violation of NJ Laws and declared all the activity null and void.

The case was postponed on the premise there was a settlement, no settlement and it goes back to the court to enforce the law.

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:51 PM
Thanks for the explanation, Portia.

SGray
Jun. 11, 2002, 03:51 PM
https://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/austin/hearing-panel-report.asp

Weatherford
Jun. 11, 2002, 04:08 PM
I am pasting the statement here:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>DATE: June 11, 2002

TO: Board of Directors
Board of Governors, National Hunter/Jumper Council
National Western Council
Zone Committees

COPY TO: Professional Staff
USET Trustees (Excluding Report)

FROM: Alan F. Balch

SUBJECT: Hearing Panel Report, United States Olympic Committee

Attached is the statement the officers of USA Equestrian issued today, along with the Hearing Panel Report issued on the proceedings in Austin, Texas, last October. We also call your attention to the USA Equestrian website, www.equestrian.org, (http://www.equestrian.org,) at Equestrian Governance, where we have released the verbatim transcript of the entire hearing. We commend all this material to you as essential reading, if you are particularly interested in the National Governing Body matter.

Speaking on behalf of all my fellow officers, we understand that many of you are in receipt of characterizations of the Hearing Panel Report made by the leadership of USET. Since the Report is complex and detailed, and speaks for itself, we urge you to read it yourself and not rely solely on anyone else's characterizations of it, including ours. Independent thinking will serve the sport best, we believe, as it always has. bold by W.

As you will see, the leaders of each organization face a number of questions (beginning with a threshold question of just who the leaders are and will be at any point in time!). The Hearing Report was issued within a legal context, however, and needs to be informed by the USOC's own constitution, bylaws, the federal law governing the USOC and all NGBs, as well as our own organic documents, and the state laws governing our respective corporations. It can only be properly viewed and understood in relationship to all of those. All (except individual states' corporate law) have been available on our website for some time.

You will notice that the Report's findings and recommendations include several that are entirely consistent with positions this Federation and its individual leaders have held for years. Others, however, are clearly inconsistent with the facts as evidenced at the hearing in Austin, and possibly incompatible with the inherent realities of the sport, or any prudent future financial management of it. All of them demonstrate conclusively that the great risks we have encountered and warned of for years are real, should those without a thorough understanding of the sport we know so well be entrusted with restructuring it for us. We cannot forget that the USET's initiation of this extraordinarily expensive litigation over a year ago, and its repeated unilateral withdrawal from mediation, are what have now brought us to this critical point for both organizations, for the USOC, and for our sport. Virtually every aspect of consolidation now considered appropriate in the Hearing Panel Report, including changes of leadership, were integral parts of the Strategic Planning Initiative's discussion that the USET categorically rejected and then abandoned in favor of commencing its Challenge in February 2001. At that time, the USET's apparent net worth was several millions of dollars greater than it is now.

At the heart of preserving fairness in sport, and in governance, are allegiance to the rule of law and due process, as we all know. Our organization and its legal team are exceptionally experienced in these matters; moreover, this experience has a direct bearing on our evaluation of the Hearing Panel Report and our potential responses to it. In this regard, I urge you again to plan on attending the July 9 meeting of our Board of Directors, in Lexington, where I am confident we will have a very informative discussion on all the important issues we face as a sport and a corporation. This is an open meeting, of course, and once again the audio of the meeting will be available via the Internet to anyone interested.

As always, please don't hesitate to contact any of the officers or professional staff at the Federation if you have any questions or comments.

Attachments:
Media Release: USA Equestrian Officers Issue Response To USOC Hearing Report, June 11, 2002
USOC Hearing Panel Report and Recommendation (170kb, PDF Version) <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the paragraph I put into bold is critical.



Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

Lucassb
Jun. 11, 2002, 10:16 PM
I have been absent from this discussion for some time (the nagging necessity of actually *working* for a living; so inconvenient) and have missed much of what has transpired since the USOC envelope was finally opened.

I must say that I was absolutely amazed to learn that the USET, which has voiced its opposition to a merger for as long as the controversy has existed, is somehow claiming this decision as a victory... but what saddens me is that a more productive decision was not forthcoming.

It will be interesting to see what transpires over the next days (weeks, months...) and what the reactions are from other interested parties (I am thinking here of non-Olympic equestrian disciplines/affiliates...) who may be unwilling to continue to support either continued legal action or the diversion of focus on the issues that matter to *them* - hence weakening the support for the sport overall. I hope that doesn't occur, but I also hope someone has a plan B in hand if it does.

I continue to be impressed by those (including the leadership of USAEq and the editorial staff at the Chronicle) who remain calm and professional in their communications about this matter - and frankly I continue to look askance at the leadership of the USET, perhaps emboldened by what they perceive to be some sort of "victory," as they continue the adversarial tone of their communications.

Character building... *sigh*...

**********
"It is good to have an end to journey towards; but it is the journey that
matters, in the end."
-Ursula K. Le Guin

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 08:28 AM
I've been trying to go to the uset website but have been getting 'unavailable' messages

I wanted to see what they had to say

buryinghill1
Jun. 12, 2002, 09:19 AM
http://www.uset.org/

Counting down those 180 days

Portia
Jun. 12, 2002, 09:39 AM
you can't start counting the 180 days until the USOC board of directors votes to adopt the Panel recommendation. Then you can start counting. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(More jingle jangle jingle for Yellowdog)

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

buryinghill1
Jun. 12, 2002, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
you can't start counting the 180 days until the USOC board of directors votes to adopt the Panel recommendation
(More jingle jangle jingle for Yellowdog)
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duh. Oh. Thanks counselor.
And Thanks from my fur-person too.
"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." -- Mohandas Gandhi

Counting down those 180 days

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 09:42 AM
Areas of duties, responsibilities, and authority for a sport include:

Demonstrating the organizational and financial ability to fulfill governance.

Responsibility for creation, distribution, and enforcement of National Rules, including Hearing and Grievance processes for handling issues of rule violations or unfairness to athletes.

Sanctioning of National competitions and coordination of the competition calendar.

Sanctioning of all National Championships.

Submission of applications for all U.S. competitions wishing to be sanctioned by the FEI.

Assuring the opportunity to compete for athletes at all levels, with oversight of the sport from entry level to Olympic level � assuring an unobstructed path from bottom to top for aspiring athletes.

Educating and licensing of officials, including recommendations for FEI licenses and promotions.
Creating and executing High Performance Plans for developing and sustaining excellence at the Olympic, Pan American, and World Championship level, including the logistical management of the participation in these events.

Providing a method of selection, that meets with USOC approval, for the determination of U.S. representation at Games and Championships.

Receipt, review, and formal acceptance of all invitations extended by other countries for US athletes to participate.

Issuance of documentation for athletes (licenses) and their horses (passports) to participate in International competition.

Insurance that disabled athletes have the ability to participate in the sport up to and including the Paralympic Games.

Communication of all relevant information regarding the sport to its athletes, officials, and organizers, including information on the Athlete Anti-Doping program.

Provide for representation of the sport within the USOC and the FEI, including election of Eligible Athletes to the AAC.

Encourage and support research, as well as disseminate information, on issues of training, fitness, health, and safety for competitors.

Support the mission of the FEI to assure the welfare of the horses (including the administration of a Drugs and Medications program), increase both the universality and the public�s awareness of the sport.

canyonoak
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:21 AM
..and yet...when the envelope is opened, the decision is that the two organizations are equal.

even though one clearly has done a poor job in certain areas of its 'expertise'; an execrable job in other areas; and refuses the notion that it should do any job in yet other areas.

that both executive boards should be replaced.

even though one board has done a fair job of representing and organizing and governing, while the other board seems to have spent a fair amount of time meeting in secret and running its organization into the ground.

that neither is fit to be NGB.


even though one HAS BEEN NGB since the inception of time and CREATED the other branch.

and I could go on...but why bother.

As has been pointed out, USOC is no less able to read/comprehend all the above than anyone else.

They just ..dont...wanna.

So the real question is: Why dont they wanna?

While I ride, I shall amuse myself with possible answers to that question.

canyonoak
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
I've been trying to go to the uset website but have been getting 'unavailable' messages

I wanted to see what they had to say<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
________________________________________

The USET website is one of the few working parts of USET.

vineyridge
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:31 AM
What happened to USAEq's motion to reopen the hearing for further evidence?

If I were the USOC and wanting to buy more time, I'd vote to reopen the hearing. They could easily drag this on for another year or two.

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canyonoak:
[
The USET website is one of the few working parts of USET.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Okay, I'm able to get to it now.

But canyonoak, I have to take exception about the uset website working - so many things seem to disappear off of it ;-}

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:49 AM
The founders of the American Horse Shows Association (AHSA) first met January 20, 1917 to discuss the formation of a national regulatory body for the sport, with a consistent set of rules and standards which would guarantee that clean competition and fair play would govern the developing equestrian sport in the United States.

Although equestrian sport became a part of the Olympic Games in 1912 at Stockholm, the International Equestrian Federation (FEI) was not founded until 1921. The United States was a founding member of the FEI and was represented by the United States Cavalry Association, as participation in the Olympic events at that time was limited to military personnel.


Minutes from the 1935 AHSA Annual Board Meeting indicate that the Association �subject to the agreement of the Cavalry Association� was prepared to �take over the United States membership in the International Equestrian Federation. Subject to further agreement with the International Equestrian Federation that their rules apply only to the International Military Classes, and the sending out of invitations for such contests. Such membership to take effect after the 1936 Olympic Games.�



The Cavalry continued to train and prepare teams for Olympic and other major international equestrian competitions, as it had since 1912, until it was disbanded by the United States Army in 1949. At that time a group of prominent civilian horsemen and Directors of the AHSA and the National Horse Show came together to found, in 1950, the United States Equestrian Team (USET) to carry on the work of the Cavalry: funding, preparing and fielding equestrian teams for high level international competitions.



In 1978, when the Amateur Sports Act defined the requirements for recognition as a National Governing Body by the United States Olympic Committee and the duties and responsibilities of such a Body, the AHSA was recognized as the National Governing Body for Equestrian Sport. The AHSA had been the entity governing the sport in the United States since its inception in 1917 and had worked in cooperation with another body, first the US Cavalry and subsequently the USET, that had the responsibilities for funding and fielding equestrian teams to represent the United States in major international competitions. Apparently this arrangement was viewed as acceptable for a National Governing Body when the original recognition was given to the American Horse Shows Association.

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 11:15 AM
from an 8/01 press release "...Presiding Judge Helen E. Hoens wrote, �As abhorrent as Mr. Balch�s effort to secure documents from USET may be to that organization and in spite of the fact that his true motivation may be the advancement of interests of AHSA of which he is the president, New Jersey law is crystal clear respecting his absolute and unfettered right to have copies of the documents he has requested provided to him without any limitations imposed upon him as to their use.� She ordered that Balch be permitted to inspect and copy �all corporate books and records [he] may request to review.�

Next, the Court found that Balch had �quite properly demanded the relief that his position as a trustee requires that he demand� in objecting to the USET�s engaging in ultra vires actions (actions beyond its authority). The USET�s violations of statute and of the governing Certificate and by-laws of the organization �cannot be overlooked,� and she found these violations �so fundamental that they render legally null and void all decisions made and actions taken as a result of votes� by improperly seated boards of the USET dating back to at least January 2001. The Court specifically declared �null and void� all USET�s actions taken at its 2001 Annual Meetings and meetings of its Board of Trustees on April 2, April 25, April 30, and May 23, to which Balch had objected.

In addition the Court declared null and void �the USET�s purported adoption� of its most recent bylaws, finding them �inconsistent with its certificate of incorporation.�......."

Question: if the bylaws were null and void and the actions from those meetings were null and void, did the bylaws and the Trustees ever get legally changed?

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 12:06 PM
from USOC decision

(5) The new organization must make good faith efforts to support and maintain the existing training and competition facilities of the two
parties.


perhaps I have the reason for that - looking at the transcripts from the Austin hearing - the 10/15 afternoon session, testimony of Bill Roos on page 18 of 150 there is a description of the ownership of the Gladstone facility land

the uset owns the buildings and has a lease on the 7 acres where their buildings sit that has approx. 60 years left - and they have some type of "right of use" over a large plot of surrounding land

if this land is not used by the uset for equestrian activities then the interest transfers to the Gladstone Equestrian Association for use for equestrian activities

if the GEA does not use it for equestrian activities then the interest transfers to the State of New Jersey, again, for use for equestrian activities

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 12:19 PM
as a side note, Chairman of Gladstone Equestrian Association in 1997, 1998, 1999 and 2000 was Finn Caspersen

jgrass
Jun. 12, 2002, 01:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As has been pointed out, USOC is no less able to read/comprehend all the above than anyone else.

They just ..dont...wanna.

So the real question is: Why dont they wanna?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Could it possibly be that like so many people in this country the members of the USOC have a hard time seeing this horse stuff as a SPORT?
After all, we all know the horse does all the work /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif . (And then... isn't this what the wealthy do when they aren't attending the ballet or sailing their yachts?)

Nah... couldn't be anything like that.

SGray
Jun. 12, 2002, 02:26 PM
Exhibit 68 from the Hearing
transcript of USET meeting April 2, 2001
found on page 73 of 150 on afternoon 4/15 of transcript of Hearing in Austin


during uset meeting David O'Connor asks Finn C. question about whether bylaws would be changed again if uset did not win its challenge


Finn "David, I think that presumes that the USET would continue to do the functions as they are doing now. I think that it might be quite difficult. And, in fact, there might not be any such functions left to the USET. So it would be very hesitant to forecast the future. I know, for instance, it would be extremely difficult to raise funds to continue to field and develop teams if in fact we weren't making the final decisions. And I say that having done the fund raising -- I say that having done the fund raising for a significant number of years. So I don't know what, if any role, will be left to the USET, nor do I know what, if any, bylaws or foreward bylaws there will be. We'll have to tackle that at an appropriate board meeting. Sorry I can't be more specific, David."

canyonoak
Jun. 12, 2002, 04:28 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by SGray:

Minutes from the 1935 AHSA Annual Board Meeting indicate that the Association �subject to the agreement of the Cavalry Association� was prepared to �take over the United States membership in the International Equestrian Federation. Subject to further agreement with the International Equestrian Federation that their rules apply only to the International Military Classes, and the sending out of invitations for such contests. Such membership to take effect after the 1936 Olympic Games.�



The Cavalry continued to train and prepare teams for Olympic and other major international equestrian competitions, as it had since 1912, until it was disbanded by the United States Army in 1949. At that time a group of prominent civilian horsemen and Directors of the AHSA and the National Horse Show came together to found, in 1950, the United States Equestrian Team (USET) to carry on the work of the Cavalry: funding, preparing and fielding equestrian teams for high level international competitions.

_______________________________________


OK, Now we're talking!

...BRING BACK THE CAVALRY.

Snowbird
Jun. 12, 2002, 05:56 PM
The ceremonial unit that still exists in Washington is mounted and they now have been given a farm. They are training 4 to compete as it is over jumps. The cavalry is back they want units to patrol the Mexican border, and they have some at Fort Bragg with mules for the troops to learn that are going to Afghanistan.

I ask you what will happen if the Cavalry was ready to send a Team? Do you think the USET would approve?

Go Army!

Laura Reed
Jun. 12, 2002, 07:20 PM
Could someone enlighten me? I'm talking about the "base of the pyramid" group here. When all is said and done, how does this collosal mess really affect "us"? Sure, I care about Olympic Medals and I want to suppport the "elite" in their endeavors, but the burning question for me is: where do WE end up?

Groundline
Jun. 12, 2002, 07:22 PM
This is why looking at the transcripts is so important for understanding what this is really and truly all about.

Despite the USET raising all kinds of money for nearly 50 years, without having final approval of selection processes (cuz the AHSA did that), Caspersen and one other big donor -- probably Jane Clark -- said that the USET could not raise money unless it was connected to final authority over selection.

How wrong can they be. That is exactly the reason why the organization trying to raise all the money should NOT do the selection, because then the few donors in the in crowd will make the selections, or completely influence them through their own people. USET has always had conflict of interest problems. AHSA helped them overcome that. Or at least tried to. And many, many organizations and people need to pitch in and raise the money, to supplement what USOC puts in, so that the money cannot be connected to fair decision making in a sport.

One other thing is wrong with that. If you accept the USET idea that Caspersen stated to David, here's what happens. There are so few spots on teams, that very, very quickly people of great wealth who have been enticed to give money, thinking or hoping or believing that would influence selection so their horses or more often their KIDS will make it onto a team, and it doesn't happen. What then? Those people are angered and leave the organization and the sport. Then what happens? Word gets around, and fewer and fewer people want to give money. Serve on boards. Help out.

Despite the biggest booming economy in history, and the stock market going through the roof until a year ago, the number of donors to the USET was going down, down, down, shrinking its major donor base all the way down to: Caspersen and Clark and a couple others. And its minor donor base down to almost nothing in total dollars.

What is the Caspersen and Clark interest in all this, if any? For Caspersen, who knows what his property and financial and tax benefit interest in the land and development is or was? Nobody can find out if any existed, but that seems to be it, since he didn't have much or any interest in the sport except for Driving way back when. Maybe it WAS just pure generosity.

For Clark, though, she has a direct big time interest in jumping, driving, and dressage -- and power.

Wake up, people, because I think this is what is really going on. If USET overpowers the USOC and AHSA, you can kiss any hope for true fairness and progress in the sport good-bye.

tuffenuff
Jun. 12, 2002, 08:13 PM
Where do we all stand in this "collosal mess?"Can you say new organization? It is apparently in the works and has been for some time .What we do will not be directly associated "under" ( keyword here)with anything many of us think of as THE FED!

Snowbird
Jun. 12, 2002, 09:28 PM
It is the old association of the old boys from the old guard who care more about feathering the nest from the golden goose (us) than what is in our best interests. It's been around for years.

In this proposed new association 98% of the current competitors will be designated as non-members of unrecognized shows. A simple reading of all the emails I have seen shown there is no intention to broaden representation. It would be as they see it the hunter wing of the USET. It would not be a federation of all disciplines and breeds in any fashion. It is not representative of any membership.

The USET plan as described by the USET at the convention is not interested in us little people, us peons who pay the bills we're just not important.

So Laura, what it will mean to you is a divisive and self centered opportunity to have AA shows every week-end of the year and they will cast crumbs for us who are considered the "unimportant" and we will need to reverence those who are the "elite" not because they deserve it but because they say so. Once they have control then you will have to be an approved person. Can you be assured you will be one of those? I wonder what the criteria for "approval" will be then?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Caspersen Comment

This is why looking at the transcripts is so important for understanding what this is really and truly all about.

Despite the USET raising all kinds of money for nearly 50 years, without having final approval of selection processes (cuz the AHSA did that), Caspersen and one other big donor -- probably Jane Clark -- said that the USET could not raise money unless it was connected to final authority over selection.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes! and they thought that if they had that they could sell the open slots for enough money to balance the budget.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>How wrong can they be. That is exactly the reason why the organization trying to raise all the money should NOT do the selection, because then the few donors in the in crowd will make the selections, or completely influence them through their own people. USET has always had conflict of interest problems. AHSA helped them overcome that. Or at least tried to. And many, many organizations and people need to pitch in and raise the money, to supplement what USOC puts in, so that the money cannot be connected to fair decision making in a sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And, yes there is a problem, there are just not enough spots open to raise the necessary money from the competitors or their families.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One other thing is wrong with that. If you accept the USET idea that Caspersen stated to David, here's what happens. There are so few spots on teams, that very, very quickly people of great wealth who have been enticed to give money, thinking or hoping or believing that would influence selection so their horses or more often their KIDS will make it onto a team, and it doesn't happen.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, it's true if you can't control the selection then you can't keep your promises and people will soon catch on!

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>What then? Those people are angered and leave the organization and the sport. Then what happens? Word gets around, and fewer and fewer people want to give money. Serve on boards. Help out.

Despite the biggest booming economy in history, and the stock market going through the roof until a year ago, the number of donors to the USET was going down, down, down, shrinking its major donor base all the way down to: Caspersen and Clark and a couple others. And its minor donor base down to almost nothing in total dollars.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So think about it! What is the plan and how does it affect you? How will they take over all the proper functions of an NGB? Have you seen any proposals? Do you have any idea how they will finance their plan?

A vacancy could be declared and the both parties will scurry around and try to compose a complete package. Yes! the USET suddenly wants a merger if we all absorb all their deficits and have no voice is how the money is spent.

Bravo! what an offer? If I'm wrong then tell me what's the plan?

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jun. 12, 2002 at 11:40 PM.]

canyonoak
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:55 PM
when people ask, what difference will it make which organization emerges as NGB...

I think it is important to understand something:

USET has already explained their position.

USET has NO interest whatsoever in anything to do with horse sport EXCEPT for the fundraising and other niceties that go along with creating international teams for Olympic, World Cup, and a few other competitions.

Which means that USET plans to turn over the other duties of an NGB to OTHER organizations/personnel that will be nominally 'reporting' to them but actually will control each specific area of power.

So , to pick a few areas--drug testing , breed shows, suspensions,judging, show fees--will all be at the discretion of various people.

People with their own agendas (make money, keep power) and very little interest in making the horse sport world better, fairer, more enjoyable for spectator, competitor or horse.

You think you dont get a fair shake now?

You think there exist subjective, non-ethical show standards now?

You think that some of the breed shows have allowed practices that are unfair to the horses?

You think the animal activist groups have gotten out of hand?

You think that horse sport belons to the wealthy competitior?

You think that the horses are being pushed too hard?

You think that your favorite show is starting to not care about the needs of competitor or horse?


...Just wait.

canyonoak
Jun. 12, 2002, 10:58 PM
I must add that in no way whatsoever do I think that USAEq does not need improvement in certain areas.

But it is easy for me to choose between the two organizations and it is easy for me to see which of these organizations at least believes the world of horse sport is better off being inclusive and desirous of keeping a large base of member support.

And I grew up, as have so many, believing in and admiring beyond any question, 'the Team' and USET and all it stood for.

cheers,

Caruso
Jun. 13, 2002, 12:11 AM
I think Snowbird has it right. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I overheard fairly recently at a BIG AA show, a parent whopping mad because someone (in power at the time) at the USET took them aside and said they'd better "toe the line or they'd jeaphardize their child's chance of making the Team..."

This parent was totally enraged - I think the whole tent heard the story... /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

That should not be allowed. Period. In this day and age, in any means, shape, or form.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Groundline:
This is why looking at the transcripts is so important for understanding what this is really and truly all about.

Despite the USET raising all kinds of money for nearly 50 years, without having final approval of selection processes (cuz the AHSA did that), Caspersen and one other big donor -- probably Jane Clark -- said that the USET could not raise money unless it was connected to final authority over selection.

How wrong can they be. That is exactly the reason why the organization trying to raise all the money should NOT do the selection, because then the few donors in the in crowd will make the selections, or completely influence them through their own people. USET has always had conflict of interest problems. ........

For Clark, though, she has a direct big time interest in jumping, driving, and dressage -- and power.

Wake up, people, because I think this is what is really going on. If USET overpowers the USOC and AHSA, you can kiss any hope for true fairness and progress in the sport good-bye.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


from afternoon of 15th - page 67 of 150
Shaw cross-examining Balch

Shaw Q. ..... in which a driver of horses and driver of discipline came out on top and was told to wait his turn because Jimmy Fairclough, who drives Ms. Clark�s horses, was wanted by the USET to participate internationally? Do you remember that? Do you remember him saying that?

Balch A. Him saying that, yes.

Q. Okay. Do you remember this incident?

A. Well, I wasn�t there, but I certainly heard an awfull lot about it in the aftermath, yes.

Q. And ---

A. You�re talking about Jimmy Fairclough and Chester Webber now?

Q. Yes, sir. And very briefly............ [smlg: discussion regarding selection committee members; about Webber speaking with Finn Casperson, about Finn calling the committee back to revisit the decision, etc.]..........

A. Chester called me. I don�t think I knew who Chester Webber was, but I didn�t know him. He called me because I�m the president of the NGB. And he represented to me a conversation that he had had with Mr. Casperson himself where he represented that Mr. Casperson had said, quote, �Yes, Chester, I personally have looked at all the results of the selection trial, and you clearly should have been on the team. But you�re only in your mid-20�s, and, you know, we have to worry about our donors. And your turn will come, but this time, Jimmy is going to go, quote, unquote.

Now, that�s heresay, I admit it, but that�s what Chester said to me. .......

buryinghill1
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Caruso:
"... they'd jeaphardize[sp] their child's chance of making the Team..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

How? Showjumping has objective selection procedures in place.

Counting down those 180 days

Jumphigh83
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:54 AM
That's disgusting.

Betsy
Three Winds Farm NY

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 13, 2002, 09:11 AM
I know very little of the selection criteria for any discipline but showjumping but as YD stated, up until this year for the WEG and for the past decade or so selection has been 100% based on performance in the selection trials. Fortunately there is a tinge of subjectivity creeping back into the selection process for showjumping.

I also believe that dressage and eventing have an objective selection process.

For those of you who insist upon dragging big donors names through the mud, I say thank our stars those individuals are willing and able to support our riders and drivers at the international level. Very few, in any discipline are able to compete at that level without a sponsor of some kind.

Groundline
Jun. 13, 2002, 09:18 AM
That's what this is all about, as I said before.

USET makes people so uncomfortable they go away. I remember very, very well how Debbie Dolan and her family and her trainers, Joe Fargis and Conrad Holmfeld, were treated when they complained, and then sued the USET. I remember Katie Monahan at an in-gate telling all the other riders to shun Debbie. That is the word she used - SHUN HER. Nobody had guts enough to talk to or be friendly with her. That's in jumping, a supposedly objective discipline.

Don't think for one minute what the USET is doing to Balch in public, or trying to do, isn't an example for everyone else. That's probably why he is sticking this out. They have gotten other people so disgusted that they just leave, or don't get renominated for the USET board or committees. The list is long. But other people see Balch being made out to be evil, and SHUNNED no doubt, and it's scary. They know it could happen to them.

This is the old tactic of the mob. Shut up or we'll bust your kneecaps. I don't think these people are nice people, at least some of them, no matter how much $$$ they have. But I think it's a few, a very few, and the rest are probably feeling bad but have to go along. I would change my opinion if the USET would just tell everyone WHY they take the positions they do, but there is never any reason, just a personal attack.

People like Linda Allen and David O'Connor are probably risking a lot, and we should realize what strong people they are to stand up to this. Even to be associated with Balch is probably uncomfortable for them. That's what the USET wants.

In jumping, subjectivity is coming back into the procedures, so people with supposedly no conflicts will decide a position or two on the teams. How are those people going to stand the pressure?

But the biggest question we all face is how hard it is to have a fun time in a sport that has this kind of s*** going on? What kind of people do we want making decisions for us?

READ THE TRANSCRIPTS AND GET EDUCATED FOR YOURSELF. Don't rely on me and SGray.

Groundline
Jun. 13, 2002, 09:31 AM
Yes Emmett there are truly generous people.

Then there are generous people who appear generous while wanting something personal in return. Like power and influence and protection.

Why do you think that the number of contributors to USET and amounts contributed have been steadily going down since 1996? Way before this NGB thing or lawsuits were around to blame. I think it's because people with strong financial resources are usually pretty educated and smart, and they can see for themselves what is going on in an organization like USET. If the organization had been fair and open and strong and managed right, their donations and support would have been going through the roof as the economy boomed.

The opposite happened.

Most people can tell the difference between real generosity and phony connected selfish generosity. But some cannot.

Charis
Jun. 13, 2002, 09:36 AM
"Well I wasn't there, but.."

This is hearsay.

Jumphigh83
Jun. 13, 2002, 09:42 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Groundline:
That's what this is all about, as I said before.

USET makes people so uncomfortable they go away. I remember very, very well how Debbie Dolan and her family and her trainers, Joe Fargis and Conrad Holmfeld, were treated when they complained, and then sued the USET. I remember Katie Monahan at an in-gate telling all the other riders to shun Debbie. That is the word she used - SHUN HER. .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ANd where is Katie now??? Flew the coop! So much for all HER input to the USET / USAE debates...

Betsy
Three Winds Farm NY

Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 10:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Groundline:
......Why do you think that the number of contributors to USET and amounts contributed have been steadily going down since 1996? Way before this NGB thing or lawsuits were around to blame. I think it's because people with strong financial resources are usually pretty educated and smart, and they can see for themselves what is going on in an organization like USET. If the organization had been fair and open and strong and managed right, their donations and support would have been going through the roof as the economy boomed.

The opposite happened.

Most people can tell the difference between real generosity and phony connected selfish generosity. But some cannot.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



Cross-examination of Standish by Findlestein
morning of 14th � page 55 of 166

Finkelstein Q. Approximately how many members does the USET have?

Standish A. A little over � almost 12,000 at this time.

Q. What was the highest number of members that the USET ever had?

A. In 1996, we approached some 30,000 in the Olympic year.

Q. Has the membership been declining since 196?

A. In every Post-Olympic year there is a dramatic decline in membership. And it builds up again, usually over the next quad. Yes, there is � there is less than there was in 1996.

Q. How many members did the USET have last year, the Olympic year?

A. Almost 13,000.

Q. And the year prior?

A. Just under 13,000.

Q. And does this membership of 13,000 constitute your constituency?

A. For the definition of membership.

Q. I�d like you to take a look at Exhibit SSSS. It�s in the small book. If you don�t have it, I�ll give you my copy. SSSS is a promotion agreement between USET and United Airlines.

[smlg: some Panel members comment on where to find exhibit]

Q. You signed this agreement?

A.Yes, I did.

Q. And this agreement was basically an allowance of $50,000 of transportation, of travel expense, a donation of travel expense that the USET could then utilize. Is that correct?

A. Yes.

Q. All right. There is a � an attachment to the contract call promotion. Let me call your attention to the second page of that, paragraph C3, which says: Whenever possible, the USET�s constituents, which totals approximately 84,000, will be encouraged to fly UAO. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Did you advise United Airlines that the USET had a constituency of 84,000?

A. No, I did not. That�s our database.

Q. And what is that database based upon?

A. Individuals who have expressed interest in the USET. The number of names that we have in our database of individuals who are interested in USET�s sports programs.

buryinghill1
Jun. 13, 2002, 10:28 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Groundline:
...But other people see Balch being made out to be evil, and SHUNNED no doubt, and it's scary. They know it could happen to them...
This is the old tactic of the mob. Shut up or we'll bust your kneecaps...
People like Linda Allen ...
In jumping, subjectivity is coming back into the procedures, so people with supposedly no conflicts will decide a position or two on the teams. How are those people going to stand the pressure?
What kind of people do we want making decisions for us?

READ THE TRANSCRIPTS AND GET EDUCATED FOR YOURSELF. Don't rely on me and SGray.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shunning! Gad zooks! Ist dere a bunch of Olde-Order Amish in the USET? Call the bishop!

Breaking knees in New Jersey are they! They won't get me! I will pile up a wall USOC transcripts.
Maybe the USET got to Hoffa. Ah ha!

Hmmm. People "like" Linda Allen. Wanna see all the work she put into the selection process? Your hard drive ain't big enuf.

How are "those people" going to put up with the pressure? I hope they have transcripts to protect their knees.

What kind of people do we want making decisions for us? Well, certainly those who have posted such insights on this thread. Get on the USAE executive committee right now! Please!

Get educated? I hate homework. Can I just read your crib-sheets, groundline?

I gotta go protect my knees now. Thank you Erin. I'm keepin' light, as instructed.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Counting down those 180 days

Snowbird
Jun. 13, 2002, 11:03 AM
You're making light of what is serious and affects the children who may hear the Olympic call in all the tomorrows still ahead.

You keep going Groundline, there is nothing better than intelligent and knowledgeable information repeated enough times so that it enters the brain of those who don't have the time or care enough to read the information for themselves that is out there on the public record.

It is a pity that we don't have a rabble rouzing fearless leader who can reduce the issue to four word slogans.

The question to raise is this, how do we stop the USOC from endorsing the so-called decision dated in June that was in the so-called sealed envelope dated in October?

Can we find a way to reach the USOC and tell them that at least 78,000 of the USAE members feel disenfranchised from the USET and have lost confidence in them?

Surely, if they knew there was a ground swell of members who would not be interested in following the lead of the USET, reasonable people could change their minds.

Perhaps, we should all write to our Congressmmen and tell them what is happening as a result of the mis-interpretation of the purposes of the Ted Stevens Act.

Perhaps, we should all write to Ted Stevens Senator from Alaska and explain how his plan had gone awry.

Perhaps, we should all write to Senator McCain who was on the original Commission.

Who has a plan?

poltroon
Jun. 13, 2002, 11:52 AM
I think at this point the selection procedures are a mix of objective and subjective - as they should be to produce a strong team.

USET also gives Developing Rider grants - I do not know how those are allocated.

I am certain that 'behind-the-scenes' some of the big players affect who gets sponsorships and rides and who doesn't - but I'm not sure it's right to lay that on the feet of USET, because I think people who do that will do that regardless of the existence of any particular organization or who is the official NGB.

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 12:18 PM
afternoon sessin - direct exam of Kate Jackson by Finkelstein page 73 of 175

Finkelstein Q. All right. Do you know approximately how many Americans are involved in the international level?

Jackson A. As athletes?

Q. As athletes.

A. Well, our list of athletes competing in international competition totals about 1460 plus or minus.

Q. Do you know how many the USET is involved with?

A. Well, they have been talking about 110. It depends on what they are referring to, I think, that depends --- the --- when you say "involved", it would depend on what they were talking about.

fredbauer
Jun. 13, 2002, 12:27 PM
On Saturday, the news started filtering out that the USOC had �opened the envelope.� The early reports seemed positive � the USOC had in effect declared �a plague on both your houses,� told the officers of both organizations to resign and set a deadline of 180 days for the organizations to merge, or the NGB would be declared vacant. At last, I thought, some one was trying to bring some common sense to bear on the debates and acrimony that had consumed so much time and resources. Good stuff.

Later that night I received and read the ruling. Yes, there was some legal stretching involved, the findings with respect to officers were only a recommendation and were somewhat ambiguous. But the gist of the message was still there: �It became evident to the Panel that both sides were to blame.�

Now, some days later, it seems as if we are back to the state of business as usual that got us to the current impasse and that almost all innocent bystanders in the sport are thoroughly disgusted at: battle by warring press release and spin doctoring galore. I would ask that everybody involved look at the basic overall conclusions of the decision:

� Both organizations have been fulfilling part of the role of the NGB.
� Neither can fulfill the role in its entirety without the resources of the other.
� The organizations must fashion some form of consolidation for the good of the sport.
� The current leadership of both organizations has become an obstacle to that required consolidation and should step aside.

That did not seem like a terribly complicated or I would have thought controversial ruling. I was wrong. The USET, although by all accounts eager to proceed and willing to do so with new leadership, issues a press release proclaiming victory. The officers of USAE declare their gratification that the USOC has adopted their longstanding position and state that their �experienced and effective leadership� is more critical than ever. The chat rooms spring to life with allegations of corruption in the IOC and outrage that the �sealed� decision is dated currently.

It is time to pause and take a deep breath. The fact remains that this experienced leadership has brought us to a point, after thousands of hours and millions of dollars, where the duly constituted governing body for international sports in our country has told them to go home and, by they way, don�t even think about coming back for six years. I would hardly call the performance to date on either side effective leadership.

I have been involved in legal and corporate affairs for more than 25 years. I have never seen the level of discourse carried on in public sink to the level that it has in this dispute. In response to a clear call for a more rational solution to the issues facing the sport, its current leaders are offering more of the same rhetoric that got us to where we are today.

It is time for a change. If the current leadership does not voluntarily step aside, as recommended by the USOC, then the Board of Trustees of the USET and the Board of Directors of the USAE must take strong action and replace them immediately. Contact the Directors and Trustees you know and let them know that you�re fed up and you�re not going to take it any more.

JulieMontgomery
Jun. 13, 2002, 12:42 PM
that the board of the USET cannot/will not do anything to deal with their alleged "leaders". Or, at least, they have not so far.

Most of those board members were totally in the dark about literally everything going on. They didn't even know about the plunder of the endowment money!

OTOH, I think that Alan Balch has the confidence of his board.

Not all of us are fed up with the job that the USA Eq is doing.

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 13, 2002, 01:02 PM
Well said, right on and all the rest FB.

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 01:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fredbauer:
? The current leadership of both organizations has become an obstacle to that required consolidation and should step aside.

.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Surely one cannot believe that if Alan and Armand were to exit the negociations that Lori Rawls and Finn Casperson would join hands and walk togther into the sunset?

DMK
Jun. 13, 2002, 01:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:

Surely one cannot believe that if Alan and Armand were to exit the negociations that Lori Rawls and Finn Casperson would join hands and walk togther into the sunset?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well you must admit that ticket sales for such an event would singlehandedly take care of the money issue in this whole mess! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Snowbird
Jun. 13, 2002, 01:21 PM
Any settlement is only going to give partial relief to both parties. Of course it is idiocy to believe that this is a personality thing and that suddenly if Alan Balch were not there the Board of Directiors would say to the USET, "Yes! bring us your debts and bring us your liabilities and we will give you our cash and our blessings."

PMJ
Jun. 13, 2002, 01:29 PM
From a purely selfish point of view, I do not want USAE to absorb the USET debt because more than likely it would be the bottom of the pyramid paying it in terms of hiked up dues etc.

poltroon
Jun. 13, 2002, 01:38 PM
At this point, I would be quite upset if USA Eq agreed to take on the USET debt.

However, it's possible with the right thoughtful disclosure from USET that could change. Where exactly did all their money go? I realize that less money came in than they "planned" for (the quotes are because of my understanding of their budgeting process), but how did they manage their expenditures? Did they spend the minimum needed to serve the riders, or did they pay for a lot of last-minute first-class airfare for nonessential hangers-on?

If the spending was reasonable, it really is a debt incurred by the whole equestrian community that will be paid off by equestrians one way or another, and in that case I would accept USA Eq taking on the debt.

However open I am to a 'reasonable' explanation, I must also say that I have looked at the USET tax returns, and read the testimony from the hearing, and I'm skeptical that I can be convinced.

Otherwise, the amount of the debt is so large that I think it would be cheaper for USA Eq to simply blow off USET and build a new international division. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 02:12 PM
direct of Linda Allen by Finklestein page 154 of 175

Q. Do you believe that a strong unified national governing body would promote development of better athletes, more competitive athletes in this country?

A. I really do. The part of the German model that I admire so much is, the year 2000, they gave competitive licenses for their mid level -- mid and upper level competitions to 98,000 competitors. And I think that that kind of base goes a long way toward the number of Olympic medals that they have won. And also their membership, which is 750,000 members of their national federation does a lot towards supporting broad based support for their Olympic teams to go on and do well.

Charis
Jun. 13, 2002, 02:38 PM
I couldn't agree with Fred more.
There is way too much heat and not enough light.
I sense that what is being sought is NOT a SOLUTION for the betterment of the sport...
but rather
VICTORY ...FORGET THE COST TO ALL.

Just call me...disgusted.

Weatherford
Jun. 13, 2002, 03:10 PM
While I agree with some of what you say, I do remind you that there was a proposal from the USAEq that Alan and Armand step down, and the USET rejected it.

Among other things.

To me the debt is the hinging issue - I do NOT want to carry their excesses. Period.

Just a lookin' fer a Glebe...

fredbauer
Jun. 13, 2002, 03:34 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Snowbird:
Of course it is idiocy to believe that this is a personality thing...

Interesting choice of words. When the USET withdrew from the mediation, in a letter to Alan signed by their officers (note that this letter is not posted on the USAE website), they informed Alan in no uncertain terms that he was the sole and only reason they were doing so. I no longer have the text of the letter at hand, but the gist was that they had come to the conclusion that he could not be trusted and that therefore negotiating with him was fruitless. Alan's own testimony, quoted in the ruling, states "I became a lightning rod."

I do not minimize the issues that would still have to be resolved, but I do believe it is beyond dispute that personalities have played a huge role in arriving at the current impasse.

fredbauer
Jun. 13, 2002, 03:46 PM
I don't deny for a moment that the USET debt is an issue. But go back to the four basic points I cited to keep an eye on. How do we get past it? The USOC is not going to recognize USAE as the NGB without taking on board some of the capabilities of the USET.

As to the previous offer, noted. But how does that change the state of affairs today?

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 03:47 PM
question for you fredbauer: do you know what would/could/should happen with the debts?

poltroon
Jun. 13, 2002, 03:48 PM
Fred,

I have read most of the correspondence, and while the letters from USET routinely villify Balch, it's a mistake to think that he's a lone wolf going his own way without the support of his Board and others at USA Eq. It's quite clear to me that the other officers at USA Eq are steering the ship as much as AB. All of them have written independent articles and letters that explain their position with some eloquence. (There is also testimony from them in the hearing transcript.)

In some cases (the lawsuit for example), the law requires the name of one individual with standing, and so his name is on it. If he goes away, the lawsuit would likely be brought again with the new USA Eq president's name on it.

If anything, to be honest, I suspect that everyone (both sides) has gone out of their way to make AB the lightning rod because he doesn't make his living in equestrian sport, protecting others who do. It is classic in any organization, club, or workplace to blame any problems on the last guy that just left. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I think that to some extent new leadership will soften some of the edges - but I agree with what others have said, which is that such a change can only happen after a merger is complete, not before it begins. I was surprised that USET did not take the offer for both leaders to resign when it was offered earlier, if indeed they see AB as the Great Satan Who Is The Only Reason It Doesn't All Work Out.

SGray
Jun. 13, 2002, 03:52 PM
fredbauer - you stated "? The current leadership of both organizations has become an obstacle to that required consolidation and should step aside."

The officers of USA Equestrian are Alan F. Balch, Judith Werner, Linda Allen, Kathy Knill Meyer, David O�Connor, and Stephen O. Hawkins.

I would consider them to be the current leadership of USA Eq.

Whom would you consider to be the current leadership of the uset?

fredbauer
Jun. 13, 2002, 04:17 PM
SGray,

The current officers of the USET are listed on their website. In addition to Frank Lloyd (Chairman) and Armand Leone (President & CEO) who were named by the USOC, I would probably include DD Matz (Senior Vice President), and Eric Strauss (Secretary). On Richard Brown (Treasurer) and Jack Fritz (Assistant Secretary and Treasurer), I do not know how actice a role they play. The discipline vice presidents I believe play roles related only to their own sports.

On the debt, no I do not know how it should be handled. I know from experience that when two organizations merge, they each come to the party with assets and liabilities and part of the negotiations relate to how those assets and liabilities will be applied in the consolidation. While this situation is different than the situation involving the merger of for-profit corporations with shareholders, where allocations can be made to the purchase price or the resulting share allocations, it is exactly the same in that it is simply one factor in what each of the parties brings to the table that needs to be resolved in the merger negotiations.

Poltroon, I would agree that the current officers support Alan's position. We will find out on July 9 how deep his support on the Board of Directors is. On the lawsuit, not necessarily. New leadership might decide, in light of the time crunch for reaching resolution, that litigation (which is inherently slow) might not be the best path to pursue. Finally, I too am surprised that the USET did not jump on Alan's previous offer, but I think they're more than willing to make the trade now.

Groundline
Jun. 13, 2002, 04:37 PM
Fred, you need to go to work for the USOC, which seems to believe in cutting babies in half and doubling the number of gold medals in one event!

You know, that can make sense, I agree, if the sides are 50/50. Or close to 50/50.

Nobody in this mess can now make me believe that it is a 50/50 situation, or anywhere close, since I did my homework.

One organization has consistently been on both the up-and-up and the way up, better and better managed, moved from NYC, got its act together, got its finances together, got its staff together and friendly, always trying to work with and talk to USET, trying to improve, and also just trying to defend itself, not name calling, not closing down and disappearing into private sessions. Why should the people who led this course of action go away? Because they won't give in to dishonesty and name-calling? Forget it.

The other is the opposite, so OF COURSE USET would now like to stick to or go back to the 50/50 deal that they refused before they started this war and blew millions of everyone's money. Why in anyone's name should such an organization be rewarded for that? Yeah, this one's management should probably go away, but that's for them to decide. I guess they blame it all on Standish, which is a big laugh. The poor guy was just a fall guy, and you can read it yourself.

There is no way that the USET is 50% of this sport. And for the USOC to even think that way after the hearing which you can read for yourself is nothing short of BALONEY. Not to mention everything else about USET that has been made public. People who hide the ball, mislead about their finances, lie under oath, make individual people personal targets, and worst of all pretend not to, should not be even 10% in charge of the sport, much less 50%.

As far as I could tell, Balch was the only one in the hearing who took any responsiblity or blame for things, and he didn't deny it, he volunteered it! He didn't blame anyone else, and he had plenty of chances. If anyone else read it more carefully than I did, and saw something else, I will be happy to apologize. Even the USOC pointed that out, but they couldn't find anyone on the other side to quote.

Forget about the blame. Who would YOU want to be making things right? I want the people involved who know the most about it, and can make the right decisions, and stand strong against dishonesty and deceit.

Molly99
Jun. 13, 2002, 04:49 PM
If AB doesn't make his living in equestrian sports then I would love to know where he gets it from.

He was listed as manager of the National Horse Show for years with a LARGE salary to go with it.

He is president of a major organization. No he isn't paid the same as the CEO of General Motors, but he DOES make his living from equestrian sports.

He has been a manger of shows for many many years and has shown over and over the same attitude then as he does now.

Snowbird
Jun. 13, 2002, 05:07 PM
Blame the speaker. It is a simple fact that when one side can not justify the validity of their point of view, when their issues are shrouded in mystery then they attack the person that opposes them.

Could it be that they know that Alan Balch is the most knowledgeable person to defend any opposing view, so they think if they depose him they can con the rest of the board into doing things their way.

It is then not that Alan Balch is wrong but that they underestimate the integrity of his supporters and over-estimate their ability to be able to persuade the remainder to accept their terms.

I find that:
1. Insulting to the Board and the 80,000 members
2. And arrogant on the part of the USET leadership.

It is not as if Alan is our only Champion for the membership but their conviction that without him somehow their terms would be more acceptable is self centered an rude.

Do they seriously believe (whoever is in front):
1. That the new Board of the Federation would not expect to have oversight into their activities?
2. That their huge deficits and poor management will be overlooked?
3. That this new merger Federation would embrace all their current attitudes about the elite versus the grassroots?
4. That they should have control of this larger deeper pocket from which to subsidize the "elite".

AND:

If such a Board did do everything as they wish, have they even considered that the membership of the new Federation would dwindle down to the USET level as it is now or has been at it's best even.

I don't think they realize that the Federation is not an excuse to pick our pockets but rather a service association to support our needs and to make possible the achievement of the "dreams" of thousands of youngsters without the benefit of knowing the right people.

The Ted Stevens Amendments which were part of a Presidential Commission and were created because they had relied on Educational Institutions to spread the word and make sure every athlete knew exactly for what and under what conditions they could be financed.

The result was they felt that these institutions did do not the job required so they created the NGB system.

Every word spoken by the USET is in direct conflict with the published purposes of the Ted Stevens Act.

An example from history of the same concept:

i.e. just watched the documentary of Joan of Arc, the English could not defend logically their occupation of France and their claim to the throne so they attacked the "Maid of Lorraine" who had motivated the people to crown Charles King.

The issue that their king could not justify his position as heir to the throne could not stand on it's own merit so they killed the obstacle the little lady who managed to get his opponent the crown by her motivation of the people of France.

Snowbird
Jun. 13, 2002, 05:40 PM
Dear WC Princess: If you don't think it is relevant whose checks are being deposited by everyone else involved in this situation why would you think you are in any way entitled to know whose checks are being deposited by Alan Balch? I frankly, don't think it's any of your business. Maybe he is the recipient of some special fund for gentlemen that supplies them with money from a blind trust? Or maybe he won the lottery and didn't tell anyone. What conceivable difference does that make to anyone but Alan Balch?

The fact is that this issue as to do with USAE and for that job he is has not received a salary. Certainly, after having been involved in this sport since he was a boy he has acquired a lot of information and understanding. If he has been paid as a show manager, I have no idea, but I do know that he has volunteered his services on many committees for many years. I do know that in 1975 when the AHSA was incorporated he was already on the Planning committee looking to the future. Where were you then? And how much money do you earn from the horse business?

How much money does Armand earn from the horse business and how much from other businesses? It's none of our business how much anyone earns or from what source unless it is evidentially an illegal source. It is true that I would not want a drug peddlar as President of anything.

To be best of my knowledge he received no salary as the Chaairman of the National Horse Show, and I believe all the members of the Board of the National Horse donated a substantial amount of money to that association. I believe even Mr. Mische spent a lot of his own money as Show Manager of the National.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He is president of a major organization. No he isn't paid the same as the CEO of General Motors, but he DOES make his living from equestrian sports.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You nor I have any idea how he earns his living, but we do know he spends a huge amount of time on this volunteer position. I would be fully in agreement that the CEO should be well paid and I believe that Lori Rawls is in that paid position.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>He has been a manger of shows for many many years and has shown over and over the same attitude then as he does now.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What in the world does that mean? Are you saying he has never changed his mind or had a new opinion? How absolutely foolish an idea. I am certain that during the past 35 years since 1975 he has had many changes of mind and learned from many of the errors of the past.

So please tell me WC Princess (that's an interesting choice of a name)how do you earn your living and from where do you generate your income to support your horses? I think we would all like to know so we can better understand your personal curiosity about Alan Balch.

Laura Reed
Jun. 13, 2002, 06:31 PM
And WC Princess: you had better get your facts straight. I was employed full-time by the National Horse Show for 4 years ('96 - '00) and while I received a salary, I can assure you Alan did not. (Not that that has any bearing on this thread!) I can also assure you that Alan LIVES for the betterment of equestrian sport, so if you want to say he "makes his living" that way, I'll live with that phraseology. My life's passion is about living in equestrian sport too, like most of us here, I would hope.

Charis
Jun. 13, 2002, 06:43 PM
SNOWBIRD:
You certainly may express your OWN opinion,
but as one of the 80,000 to which you refer,
you MAY NOT speak for me.

I am not insulted...and I find it a shame that the rhetoric here is reaching absurd new levels.
Again,
too much heat
NO light!!

canyonoak
Jun. 13, 2002, 06:43 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by fredbauer:

� <<...Both organizations have been fulfilling part of the role of the NGB.>>

NO, NOT EXACTLY. USAEq, as AHSA, created a branch, USET, to deal with uinternational competition when the cavalry disbanded.
THAT IS THE ONLY FUNCTION of this branch of the NF.


�<<Neither can fulfill the role in its entirety without the resources of the other.>>

NO, NOT EXACTLY. It would be a rather simple matter for USAEq to hire the several people it needs to run a International department.
Whereaas, it might take rather a lot of time for USET to find the right people to run drus programs, judge programs, show standards, breeds--oh wait--they are just going to 'give' all of that to interested parties.

� <<The organizations must fashion some form of consolidation for the good of the sport.>>

No. Im tired of caps<G>...The organizations must consider the good of the sport and USET,a branch of the only NGB we have ever had, must graciously accept its role as a branch.


� <<The current leadership of both organizations has become an obstacle to that required consolidation and should step aside.>>

No. The leadership that now is installed at USET is composed in part of personnel that used to be at AHSA and were dismissed for various reasons. This is not hearsay.

This ENTIRE challenge is based on a letter that the then-USOC president (since removed from office for various corrupt involvement)FORCED Alan Balch to sign. Without that operating agreement, there would be no challenge.

<<The fact remains that this experienced leadership has brought us to a point, after thousands of hours and millions of dollars, where the duly constituted governing body for international sports in our country has told them to go home and, by they way, don�t even think about coming back for six years. I would hardly call the performance to date on either side effective leadership.>>

Really? I think that USAEq needs some improvement but I truly believe that Balch's leadership has been hugely effective and positive.

I am not aware of secret meetings that trustees have not been informed of; I am not aware of overwhelming debt; I am not aware of trustees being summarily removed because 'you're either with us or you're not'; I am not aware of illegalities and contrivances on the scale we have been treated to in this entire farce.

I do, howeveer, agree that the expenditure of time, money and energy could well be used elsewhere for the benefit of horse sport.

But this challenge is not about horse sport. It is about power and money.

And power and money will have to solve it, I am sadly afraid.

yaya
Jun. 13, 2002, 06:56 PM
If the USET somehow got to be the NGB (in some horrible twisted universe), you say they will just give the job of developing and overseeing national programs to someone else.

Tell me, how is that different from the AHSA giving that job to the USET, which is what started all this mess in the first place?

How can the USET even think about saying they have no interest in the national programs if they were to be the NGB, much less turning those programs over to SOMEONE ELSE???????

Snowbird
Jun. 13, 2002, 06:57 PM
I didn't mean to speak for you there are about 2% of the membership that have a different point of view and you are welcome to be counted there. While I used round numbers rather details I cheerfully agree that you should be counted in that 2% and not be part of us commoners.

Charis
Jun. 13, 2002, 07:01 PM
Demeaning desenters does not strengthen your argument.

Duffy
Jun. 13, 2002, 07:05 PM
Picture sweet, amicable Duffy, stomping her foot in frustration, while clenching her fists at the idiocy she is reading here...

P.S. There is no way in h*** I would support the absorption of the disgusting amount of USET debt. Finn and Jane guaranteed the debt. Let them pay up, regardless of what happens.

P.P.S. This is not an insult to any generous soul who gives of themselves, either personally or monetarily, for the good of the horse.

P.P.P.S. I received another letter from the USET a couple weeks ago. Save your postage. Hopefully, if and when my daughter (or any deserving horseperson) deserves to represent the USA in Equestrian sports, some of the personalities involved today will NOT be around...

DMK
Jun. 13, 2002, 07:19 PM
fred, thank you for expressing your views so clearly. I have to say that reasonable response/attempt to understand/decipher the USOC position from either side seems lost in a blizzard these days. Snowbound as it were...

And I do mostly agree with the USOC decision, and quite possibly my only concerns with that decision is that troubling, niggling issue of debt. Equal equity partners come to the table for mergers. Debt partners sign up for asset acquisitions. And those of us in the M&A business know who calls the shots in an asset acquisition (not exactly keeping with the spirit of the USOC decision). My other concern is not so much with the request that leadership step down, but that it steps down in advance of whatever consolidation takes place. That smacks of bad business practices. A vacuum in leadership (even two leaders who despise each other) can't help the process of consolidation.

I have been in a highly regulated industry for most of my business years (those are a lot like dog years, by the way), and I have been (on more than one occassion) the victim of a Grand Pronouncement by a regulator that ultimately made a Bad Situation a Different But Much Worse Situation. Not that I would want to put the USOC on par with federal and state insurance regulators... but if the shoe fits...


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 13, 2002, 07:45 PM
Yes, what Fred said is plausible.

Until, as you suggest, people start thinking through the corporate law and business realities.

There is a lot of heat here, and not too much light, but what light is shining is very, very instructive and revealing. I think that Groundline has the right idea: read the trancripts for yourself. I've just scanned through them, and it is really interesting.

All the testimony is out in public and under oath, which for sure the posts on this BB are not.

M. O'Connor
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:19 PM
renting a legion of paper shredders and a parking lot full of dumpsters, shredding the lot and just starting over?

It seems that the deeper one delves into the document trail and the chronology, the more twisted and convoluted the whole picture becomes...

And the endless spinning, oh, just can someone please make it stop?

It pains me to think how much money and time have been wasted with NO PROGRESS ON EITHER SIDE!!! At this rate, the Palestinians will achieve statehood before we have a(n?) NGB that meets the approval of the USOC...

(Just a plea from a helpless bystander.....)

MCL

canyonoak
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:29 PM
<<All the testimony is out in public and under oath, which for sure the posts on this BB are not.>>


Which means...?

This is a BB for sure, not a courtroom.

And the transcripts, at least the part I have waded through so far...only make me find the USET position more ridiculous than ever. Under oath.
In public.

But that is no doubt because I am looking for this result, not because it is there, on the printed page...eh?

Or because that is what I want to see, so I see it..

AS for the poster who asked how is it different that USAEq created USET to handle international competition and then REPORT back to the parent organization...in the bneginning, the USET staff was comprised for the most part of AHSA (now USAEq) personnel.

The idea was simple: horsemen would get together to create an organization to rpmote horse sport.
As the world of horse sport became more complex, different branches were established to oversee the various complexitiies.

Over everything is/was the NGB.aka AHSA. aka USAEq.


What USET wants to do/said it wants to do, is give real jurisdiction BACK to the various splinter group/special-interest personnel..so that it, USET, can remain as it is: a specialized organization that, in this case, wants to concern itself with finding sponsors/donations for international competition.

Hardly the requisite perspective for an NGB.

I wait to be corrected on these points.

But while Im waiting, I fantasize: Im sitting, Jay Leno style,on a comfy chair, half facing my guest...the USOC hearing committee..
As studio music and audience hoots die down, I leer slightly, lean across my little table and say,

"What the hell were you THINKING?"


cheers,

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:45 PM
Right, Canyon Oak.

That is my point. We can all say anything we want, but in the hearing, everyone was under oath. That's why I think that's what we should concentrate on. As in the transcripts, if we want to get a true picture of everything.

As to what the USOC is thinking, personally I think they probably are trying to help move the situation along. I don't think they are actually helping, because either they didn't listen during the hearing, or just cannot understand all the hidden meanings and the motives of everyone. They are probably totally confused.

They should be going by the law. From what Portia says, it doesn't look like they are, and I just mean from reading what she has put up here on this board quoting the law word for word. You don't have to be a lawyer to see how they bent everything around trying "to help." Giving them the best motives.

They might just have done exactly the opposite, which is what happens when you try to please everyone. You please nobody.

Peggy
Jun. 13, 2002, 08:46 PM
<<On Richard Brown [Treasurer) and Jack Fritz [Assistant Secretary and Treasurer), I do not know how actice a role they play. >>

Is Richard Brown the same as Dick Brown? As in owner of Gunter Seidel's horses?

Dick Brown came by our barn at a show a few months ago to tell us how wonderful it was to be a life member of USET and how Alan Balch was the problem in the ongoing controversy. (I think that I can say this--was there and heard it myself. If not OK, moderators feel free to remove this last paragraph)

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 14, 2002, 07:51 AM
Yes, that's Dick Brown, one and the same.

And if Brown said that about this situation, which we can all tell is complicated beyond belief, I just have a sneaky feeling that comment says a lot more about Brown's character and the quality of his thinking than it does about Balch.

Brown is the USET treasurer. USET is the organization that lost $5.7 million last year. Duh. I guess that is all Balch's fault too -- couldn't possibly have anything to do with the TREASURER OF USET, could it?

yaya
Jun. 14, 2002, 07:58 AM
All of this flap was brought about because the theory of the AHSA as NGB should have had the AHSA overseeing everything and not farming out the international aspects to the USET.

But now the USET is saying "we want to be NGB. We should be NGB. But we don't want to be bothered with all that national stuff. We'll just put other groups in charge of the national stuff, let them deal with it, and we'll concentrate on raising money and fielding international teams."

IT'S THE SAME THING!!!!!!!

How can they say that the AHSA (now USA Equestrian) was in the wrong when they want to do the same thing?

If the definition of NGB is to cover it all, grass roots to international, then the USET is flat out saying it has no intention of fulfilling the definition of NGB, so should not be eligible for NGB status.

Are they all blind?

SGray
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by fredbauer:
SGray,

The current officers of the USET are listed on their website. In addition to Frank Lloyd (Chairman) and Armand Leone (President & CEO) who were named by the USOC, I would probably include DD Matz (Senior Vice President), and Eric Strauss (Secretary). On Richard Brown (Treasurer) and Jack Fritz (Assistant Secretary and Treasurer), I do not know how actice a role they play. The discipline vice presidents I believe play roles related only to their own sports.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

but neither Finn Caspersen nor Jane Clark should be considered leaders?

Erin
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:10 AM
Yaya, I was wondering the same thing. Yeesh, this thing has just gotten SO unbelievably convoluted. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Also, if a vacancy is declared... isn't USAEq a helluva lot closer to being able to fulfill the duties of NGB than USET? If the NGB is required to serve ALL levels of the sport... well, USAEq currently serves everything but international. USET serves ONLY international.

So USET has a LONG way to go before they can do everything USAEq does. USAEq doesn't seem to be that far off the mark.

And, of course, one organization is a good bit more financially solvent... /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:33 AM
Erin, you say that USA Equestrian currently serves everything but international.

That's a perception, and a common one, but not right.

USA Eq includes all the FEI disciplines, and is the rep for the USA to the FEI, and always has been.

ONLY a very few top top competitions and competitors are handled by the USET, and even then, USAEq is responsible for all the drug testing, hearings, rules, and almost everything else for them, too, and for making their entries, etc. You can read it in the hearing stuff that's posted.

So, the correct thing to say, I think, is that USAEq and USET share the top international, and the rest of international is all USAEq.

Don't forget, when the USA won a bunch in Europe the last couple weeks -- Lucerne and Rome, I think -- USET had nothing to do with that, I don't believe. If I'm wrong, I know someone out there will correct me in a hurry.

canyonoak
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:34 AM
And so I say once more:

anyone with a modicum of perspective can CLEARLY see that the NGB duties have always been carried out by AHSA/USAEq.

that the BRANCH, USET, was given the international development as its AREA.

I mean--shall we have Drugs and Medications be NGB? After all, they definitely are deeply involved in horse sport from grass roots to--even much more significantly--international level..?

How about judging? Certainly involved internationally.

Hey--let's do it on the part that is so dear to the hearts of USOC, USET and everyone else: let's do it on the basis of who has raised more money and financially can ,um, actually send teams to Europe. And spread money around. Lets have Marketing run the whole shebang.
After all--USET has recently announced that each discipline will have to raise its OWN money.

Lets have International Services run everything..oh wait--thats a USAEq department..
So,by george, they HAVE an international branch in place.

So, before I go off to ride ponies, I ask once more:

Why doesnt USOC wanna see this
simple, obvious answer?

WHY?
Why are they not reponsible to us, the public, and forced to give us an answer to that question?

cheers,I guess

Portia
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:38 AM
USA Eq serves international too. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

USA Eq does, and always has done, the entries for all US equestrian athletes in international competition. It issues the passports for all the US horses that compete internationally. It provides assistance to the US riders, drivers, and vaulters in every international competition to which the USET does not send an official team.

Look at the statistics Kate Jackson quoted at the hearing (which SGray posted on page 8 above): last year there were about 1460 US athletes (riders, drivers and vaulters) competing in international competition. Of them, the USET was involved with about 110.

Cindy Stys (who came to USA Eq from a job with the FEI in Switzerland) sits at the USET offices in Gladstone -- a holdover arrangement from the Operating Agreement -- and handles these things along with help from the staff in Kentucky.

Boy, I can't imagine how nasty this situation may have been for poor Cindy to deal with, day in and day out sitting in the middle of the enemy camp, so to speak. Hopefully, as I've heard, the USET staff has been much more professional in their relationships with the USA Eq staff than the officers have been.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Erin
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:42 AM
Whoops, I stand corrected Albermarle, you're right. If I remember correctly, USET's duties were limited to raising money and selecting teams, essentially, right? Much of the nitty-gritty stuff still was carried out by USAEq.

Okay, so that means that USAEq is like 99% of what is required to be NGB, and USET is like 1%? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Honestly, I have no allegiance toward either organization, but like many others, have been very turned off by USET's rhetoric. But I echo what canyonoak just said... WHAT, exactly, is the logic for thinking that USET could be an NGB?

I don't have time at the moment to go back and look it up, but in this sealed USOC letter that was just opened, did they say in what areas they considered USAEq to be lacking? If I remember right from what was posted, they determined neither group fulfilled the bill for NGB, but did they say why?

Like everyone else, I'm just at a loss as to what their reasoning could be... not USET-bashing, just legitimately baffled.

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:52 AM
Now you've got it, of course.

Like someone said earlier, how can this be 50/50? It just is not that way in the real world.

Come to think of it, maybe they should do a Real World on MTV with a bunch of horse people, USET and USAEq people in the same house. Now that would be a wild one. Get 'em all in a hot tub together.

I just dunno what hearing the USOC went to, if you read the transcript.

Erin
Jun. 14, 2002, 08:58 AM
I think we should just have them thumb-wrestle for it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

buryinghill1
Jun. 14, 2002, 09:01 AM
http://www.fox.com/boxing/

Portia
Jun. 14, 2002, 09:19 AM
The USET does do more than just fundraising and team selection, which are pretty big jobs in themselves.

They have coaches and chefs d'equipe and vets. They have training programs for elite and developing riders. They handle the nitty-gritty of travel and stabling for the horses and athletes on their official tours. (Until the Operating Agreement, it did all this under the supervision of the AHSA, and the AHSA was actually the one who had the official final word on team selection.)

And -- this may tell you a lot -- because it was the one putting together the official teams for the major international competitions, the USET was the one who dealt with the USOC on a day to day basis. The USET people have always had far more regular contact with the USOC than the AHSA/USA Eq has had. For several years, Jane Clark was the sole equestrian sport member of the USOC Board of Directors, first while she was AHSA President, then after that while she was a USET officer and board member. Robert Dover, who rode for Ms. Clark, was the equestrian athelete representative to the USOC.

Plus, remember that while the USOC is officially an organization that fosters athletic competition and development from the ground up, it leaves most of that grassroots work to the NGBs (which is really the only practical thing to do). On a daily basis, the USOC concentrates only on the elite athletes and the top levels of competitions in each Olympic or Pan Am discipline. It gets sponsorship, donations, and political and public support when USA teams and athletes win medals at the Olympics and other purely elite compeitions.

While many of us see the extreme importance of the work USA Eq does, including rulemaking, the D&M program, sponsoring veterinary studies to protect the health of equine athletes, hearings and discipline, training and licensing officials, etc., the USOC probably doesn't fully understand how signficant that work is to the sport.

So, according to the hearing panel recommendation, the USOC sees the USA Eq and USET contributions to the sport as about 50/50. Whereas, many who are more closely involved in the sport, may see it as something more like 85% USA Eq, 15% USET.

******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 14, 2002, 09:42 AM
Portia, I think you are mostly right.

But.

It is a long way from the reality of how we know our sport works, to the USOC saying that it is 50/50. Somebody would have to make a case for that, and nobody has that I know of. From what I can tell, the other sports rely greatly on their total following to make the international part work, like Soccer or anything else. I think that comes through pretty clear in the transcript, but you may know something I don't.

Anyway, USA Eq from everything I read has always favored combination, and it is the USET that has resisted. So it looks to me like the 50/50 part is going to be a big, big problem. For all the reasons of inheriting debt and everything else we have been reading on this board and in the magazine. USA Eq didn't put USET into their hole, they dug it themselves, so why should the membership of USA Eq now dig them out?!

JulieMontgomery
Jun. 14, 2002, 10:13 AM
Leaders, huh?

I would think the term "puppetmasters" would be more apt.

DMK
Jun. 14, 2002, 10:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:


While many of us see the extreme importance of the work USA Eq does ... hearings and discipline... the USOC probably doesn't fully understand how signficant that work is to the sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Now one would think even the USOC's dog would know by now how important a hearing and discipline process was... we are obviously by nature prone to squabbling... /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I think I cast my vote for thumb-wrestling! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


"You can pretend to be serious; you can't pretend to be witty. "
- Sacha Guitry (1885-1957) *

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 11:06 AM
Let's see how many contenders are there?

We need to figure out who would fight who in the preliminaries to get to the finals. There we need age groups and qualifications. It was much easier in the old days when they just had their gun fights on main street and the last guy standing won.

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 11:14 AM
Isn't fairly recent that the USET has more than 3 of the disciplines that they shepherd? It seems to me they only for most of the years did anything with Eventing, Show Jumping and maybe Driving.

That by my recollection is only 50% of all the disciplines, and then only 50% of the total job for each.

The elite section is less than 2% of the overall membership so they would have influence to date of about 1% of the programs. How can this add up to anything like an equal 50% of the new federation.

Aside from the financial dilemma the representative dilemma even gives them a smaller impact on the sport. I think it is just like a fish bowl, the fish thinks that bowl is the whole world and he is a very big fish.

poltroon
Jun. 14, 2002, 11:22 AM
Snowbird, I think you're thinking of Vaulting, which was handled solely by the AHSA until USET added it sometime after that hearing.

The other FEI disciplines were all represented at USET all along. Obviously the Olympic disciplines had a larger share of their attention/funding.

AM
Jun. 14, 2002, 11:59 AM
They added reining recently and sponsored it to become an FEI discipline. The major reason for doing so seemed to be to expand the donor database. Endurance is older than reining also relatively new to USET.

brilyntrip
Jun. 14, 2002, 12:12 PM
THUMB wrestling gets my vote at this point !!!

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 12:50 PM
Until recently they were only involved with 4 of six, or now 7 disciplines.

And, now they say the budget for each will only be what each can raise themselves..so isn't that an abdication of the major reason for their existence.

And, how do you plan a program if you don't know how much there is? Perhaps, they need to say what you collect this year is your budget for next year.

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 01:56 PM
If each discipline will do their own fund raising then why shouldn't they also have the final decision as to how members of the team are selected?

If that were so, then the USET becomes simply an office and a grounds. They would then only require enough funds to operate an office to count the money, deposit it and write the checks. They would need to raise funds to maintain the grounds and facilities.

If this is so, then maybe we're on to a solution. They could occupy office space in the building in Kentucky and would only need to pay for a grounds manager.

SGray
Jun. 14, 2002, 02:04 PM
Snowbird - what LOGIC - great plan

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 02:53 PM
Just looking at things in a very objective way it seems to be a equitable solution because instead of both fighting it's means neither has anything to fight about and the people who really care get the job done.

fredbauer
Jun. 14, 2002, 03:26 PM
[/QUOTE]

but neither Finn Caspersen nor Jane Clark should be considered leaders?[/QUOTE]


What would you propose to have them step aside from?

SGray
Jun. 14, 2002, 03:41 PM
I realize that they are not 'officials' currently but the question was about the 'leadership' of the organization

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 14, 2002, 03:48 PM
fredbauer, the presence of those two behind all this is exactly the point. Who are the real leaders of USET? Those "elected" to leadership positions, or those guaranteeing debts in the millions?

I wonder if the USOC even knows how the USET really operates?

On the other hand, the leaders of USA Equestrian are its real leaders, legitmately elected.

So the USOC can try to remove leaders of both sides, but it only really hurts one side in practical terms. The USET is really led from behind the scenes, through the donation of money.

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 05:52 PM
That is the issue that the USOC missed! Well intentioned they may be but do they really understand how money picks the marchers? They may not even realize how much big generous donors affect them.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>the presence of those two behind all this is exactly the point. Who are the real leaders of USET? Those "elected" to leadership positions, or those guaranteeing debts in the millions?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is precisely why the USOC had been misguided and misinformed.

Ruby G. Weber
Jun. 14, 2002, 06:19 PM
After all, they didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday. And, last I knew, they were in Texas too.
I truly hope those who think they "lost" in this battle would cease throwing their candy in the sand, accept the recommendations put forth by the USOC whatever side of the fence one stands and let those who can do something about this fiasco, do it with as little interference as possible.

canyonoak
Jun. 14, 2002, 06:35 PM
I agree.

I do not think the USOC has been misinformed or misunderstood anything any more than I have.

I think enough of the organization is corrupt, just like IOC.

I think that is obvious from the time of the last USOC president , the one who forced the ridiculous Operating Agreement to be signed by Alan Balch.

That USOC president is gone now via the Salt Lake City scandals..but the Operating Agreement remains, an evil little worm of a paper that is the basis for this entire challenge, this entire legal mess.


No no..The question remains:
WHY will USOC not recommend the obvious and simple solution?
WHAT does the USOC answer to and who is its master?

SO OK--thats two questions..Im adding one...<G>

Albemarle Cty
Jun. 14, 2002, 06:46 PM
What makes this a great country is that nobody can tell us what to believe, or make us believe something when it isn't true.

Emmett, just read the transcripts. Or read the Hearing Report again, and see how many things it says that have nothing to do with the hearing in Texas.

Does the USOC have to go by the law? Or does it have some power beyond the law? Can it ignore facts and evidence and make up its own?

It looks to me like the USOC thinks it can do whatever it wants, no matter what the law and its own constitution say, based on what Portia put up here.

Maybe, just maybe, the USOC is more a part of the problem than it is part of the solution. Maybe it is not as neutral as it is supposed to be. How does it, or you, think things would get better now, based on this report of the USOC? Whoever the leaders are, the basic financial and other aspects of the sport don't change, so far as I can see.

Then again, maybe its decision is correct and you're right.

Believe it either way you like. Some of us want to make up our own minds based on what people said when they were sworn to tell the truth, and some of us expect the USOC to go by the law.

Snowbird
Jun. 14, 2002, 07:31 PM
The decision is dated June 2002, the hearing was over in October 2001. The envelope was supposed to have been sealed but magically there was a little gremlin that was locked in the envelope redated it at the apropriate time and included information gained by it's psychic powers from mediation that happened long after it was locked in it's lonely little dark space.

Is that what you would have me rather believe? Sorry! it wasn't me that fell of the turnip truck either.

At best it is naive to believe that the so-called leaders are really leading all by themselves, they alone have those convictions and at worst it is preposterous for the USOC to suggest who should not participate in our sport industry and send them into exile. I certainly have little confidence in their judgment considering the poor choices they have made in their association.

buryinghill1
Jun. 16, 2002, 10:23 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Emmet:
"...I truly hope those who think they "lost" in this battle would cease throwing their candy in the sand..."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Save your strength, Emmet.
How interesting - there are been few suggestions to: "...who would you like to see heading up USA Eq international divisions?"

SGray
Jun. 17, 2002, 10:09 AM
(full text below) "...a USET trustees telephone conference earlier in the day. USET trustees were advised by Vice Chairman Armand Leone, Jr., that he and Chairman Finn M.W. Caspersen had already signed and submitted a formal challenge of the AHSA's status to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) without seeking advance approval of the trustees. Upon a motion by USET trustee James Wofford that the USET officers immediately take steps to rescind the challenge, Leone ruled the motion out of order without waiting for a second. ..."



http://www.equerry.com/news/Organizations/Detailed/151.html

AHSA Approves Budget Supplement for International Athlete Support
A special meeting of the AHSA Executive Committee was held late on February 22, 2001. Its members voted to approve a supplement to the 2001 budget of approximately $3.5 million, immediately responding to any threat to international athlete funding support that might be caused by the United States Equestrian Team's move to challenge the AHSA's historic status as National Governing Body (NGB) for Equestrian sport.

The special meeting was triggered by a USET trustees telephone conference earlier in the day. USET trustees were advised by Vice Chairman Armand Leone, Jr., that he and Chairman Finn M.W. Caspersen had already signed and submitted a formal challenge of the AHSA's status to the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) without seeking advance approval of the trustees. Upon a motion by USET trustee James Wofford that the USET officers immediately take steps to rescind the challenge, Leone ruled the motion out of order without waiting for a second. During the ensuing discussion, Leone stated that he had been "forced" to commence this litigation since the AHSA/USET Operating Agreement is due to expire Sunday evening, February 25, 2001. AHSA president Alan F. Balch, who is also a USET trustee, asked Leone why the expiration of the Operating Agreement should cause this action.. Leone had stated that the USET could not rely on the "whim" of the AHSA's oversight of its activities. At the conclusion of the meeting, Leone accepted a motion by trustee Dorothy A. Matz to endorse the challenge.

The AHSA Executive Committee meeting was noticed to all members of the AHSA Board of Directors, affiliates, athlete leadership, and equestrian media, who were invited to attend the teleconference. The budget supplement was approved on the recommendation of the AHSA Budget and Finance Committee, which had met immediately upon the conclusion of the USET trustees meeting. The supplement approved will authorize investment for new efforts in marketing and development, including staff hiring, to raise the needed funds. The new expenditures will be devoted to international athlete programs and competition, and additional hiring which may be necessary in that area, should the USET withdraw support.

(Added: 26-Feb-2001)

SGray
Jun. 17, 2002, 10:56 AM
uset challenge info (http://216.239.39.100/search?q=cache:7MY8nNDS99YC:www.uset.com/documents/NGBApplication1.pdf+AHSA+president&hl=en&ie=UTF8)

This is the html version of the file http://www.uset.com/documents/NGBApplication1.pdf.
G o o g l e automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the web.





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 2
2Section II. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIONCHECKOFF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (PERTINENT QUESTION)

4Attachment A, (Question 2) Narrative describing managerial and financial capability.


4Attachment B, (Question 2) Organizational Chart.


4Attachment C, (Question 2) Most recent IRS form 990.

4Attachment D, (Question 2) Most recent audit statement including the management letter.

4Attachment E, (Question 2) Current and ensuing years' budget.


4Attachment F, (Question 4) Articles of Incorporation including all amendments to date.


4Attachment G, (Question 4) Most recent Annual Report as filed with your State of incorporation.


4Attachment H, (Question 4) Certificate of Good Standing from the State in which you areincorporated.


4Attachment I, (Question 4) Current Constitution and Bylaws.N/A

Attachment J, (Question 6) Letter from your International Federation confirming youraffiliation. RESPONSE: The USET has requested the USOC to recognize it as NGB forequestrian in the United States. If the USOC recognizes the USET as NGB, the USET willrequest the USOC, pursuant to Article VIII, ?3(E) of the USOC Constitution, to support theUSET in its request to the Federation Equestre Internationale (the "FEI"), the InternationalFederation ("IF") for equestrian, to recognize the USET as the National Federation ("NF") forequestrian in the United States.

4Attachment K, (Question 7) Explanatory chart and narrative indicating the various membercomponents of your organization and their relationships.


4Attachment L, (Question 7) Narrative describing the voting strength of each member/group andhow it is attained for your Board of Directors, Executive Committee and other such governingboards such as the House of Delegates.


4Attachment M, (Question 8) Published procedures relating to the resolution of complaints.


4Attachment N, (Question 9) Narrative describing how the members of your governing boards areselected/elected.


4Attachment O, (Questions 10 and 11) Current roster of the members of your Board of Directors,executive committee and/or other governing board(s) identifying officers, athlete representativesand amateur sport organization representatives.

4Attachment P, (Question 10) Narrative describing how athlete representatives are elected.

4Attachment Q, (Question 10) List of all "Designated Committees" and all committees that arenot "Designated Committees" within your NGB and identification of those members that areathletes and how they qualify as such.

4Attachment R, (Question 11) Narrative describing voting strength of Amateur SportsOrganization, and how it is attained.

4Attachment S, (Question 13) Published procedures relating to the resolution of grievances.

4Attachment T, (Question 14) Copy of your International Federation eligibility requirements.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 3
-3-Section II. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATIONCHECKOFF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION (PERTINENT QUESTION)

4Attachment U, (Question 15) Copy of your USOC/Board of Directors Representative electionprocedures.

4Attachment V, (Question 15) Copy of your USOC/AAC election procedures.

4Attachment W, (Question 16) Narrative describing procedures for amending organic documents.

4Attachment X, (Question 17) Narrative describing how you inform all athletes about teamselection procedures and grievance/complaint procedures.

4Attachment Y, (Question 18a) Develop interest and participation.

4Attachment Z, (Question 18b) Minimize conflicts in the scheduling.4Attachment AA, (Question 18c) Keep athletes informed.

4Attachment BB, (Question 18c) Two most recent newsletters or similar documents.

4Attachment CC, (Question 18d) Disseminate and distribute rule changes.

4Attachment DD, (Question 18e) Review requests for sanctions.


4Attachment EE, (Question 18e) Sanction procedures.

4Attachment FF, (Question 18f) Allow athletes to compete in international competition.

4Attachment GG, (Question 18g) Provide support and encouragement for participation bywomen.

4Attachment HH, (Question 18h) Encourage and support programs for handicapped individuals.

4Attachment II, (Question 18i) Provide and coordinate technical information.

4Attachment JJ, (Question 18j) Encourage and support research and development in sportsmedicine and sports safety.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 4
4Section III. MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTSNGBDOCUMENTCHAPTER/SECTIONPAGENO.1. Have you been approved to participate at the next:
a.) Olympic Games? Y 4 N___

b.) Pan American Games? Y 4 N___

Did you participate in either of the two prior PanAmerican Games? Y 44 N___N/AN/AN/A2.

Explain in narrative form the managerial and financialcapability your organization has to plan and execute itsobligations under the USOC Constitution & Bylaws(Article IV, Section 4, (C)(1)) (Attachment A).

Attach an organizational chart showing the relationshipbetween your governing boards, committees, officers andpaid staff (Attachment B).

Attach IRS form 990 (Attachment C), most recent auditstatement with management letter (Attachment D) andcurrent and ensuing years' budget (Attachment E).N/AN/AN/A3.

Are you incorporated as a Not-for-Profit Corporation asrequired by the USOC Constitution, Article IV, 4(C)(1)?Y 44 N___
In what State? NEW JERSEY N/AN/AN/A4.

In accordance with the USOC Constitution, Article IV,Section 4(C)(2), submit a copy of your Articles ofIncorporation (Attachment F), most recent AnnualReport (Attachment G), Certificate of Good Standingfrom the State in which you are incorporated(Attachment H) and Constitution and Bylaws(Attachment I).N/AN/AN/A5.

Do you agree to submit to binding arbitration in thefollowing situations as required by the USOCConstitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(3)):

a.) Involving your recognition as an NGB? Y 44 N___

b.) Involving the opportunity of any amateur athlete... toparticipate in amateur athletic competition as providedfor in Article IX? Y 44 N___By-LawsBy-LawsXXIIXXII2424
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 5
Section III. MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS-5-NGBDOCUMENTCHAPTER/SECTIONPAGENO.6.
Are you autonomous in the Governance of your sport inthat you independently determine and control all matterscentral to such governance, do not delegate suchdetermination and control, and are free from outsiderestraint (USOC Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(4))? Y44N___

If your organization delegates any responsibility to anindependent committee or other organization, pleasename the committee or organization.NOT APPLICABLE

Certify that you are a member of no more than oneinternational sports federation which governs a sportincluded on the program of the Olympic or Pan AmericanGames (USOC Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(4))?Y___ N___ (
NOT APPLICABLE: RESPONSE: TheUSET will apply to become the NF of the FEI in theUnited States, if the USET is designated NGB for thesport.

Please list the International Federation of which you are amember (Attachment J). NOT APPLICABLE

(Challengepending)Over fifty years ago, the USET was delegatedauthority/responsibility to perform the NGB-type responsibilities for equestrian in the UnitedStates by the American Horse ShowsAssociation (the "AHSA"), an organizationwhich sanctions and promulgates/enforces rulesfor the conduct of horse shows within theUnited States. This decades-long delegation ofauthority and responsibility was memoralizedin an "Operating Agreement" entered intobetween the AHSA and USET effective August1, 1997, now recently ended. The AHSA, in itssubmission to the USOC Membership andCredentials Committee dated February 14,2001, concerning how it proposed to govern thesport, made clear its intent -- after a period oftransition -- to take over, and be responsible for,the NGB-type functions being done by theUSET. In response, the USET filed a"Challenge" dated February 21, 2001, pursuantto Article VIII, ?3 of the USOC Constitution, tohave the USET's de facto position as NGB forequestrian formally recognized by the USOC.7.

Is your membership open to any individual and/or sportorganization described in the USOC Constitution, ArticleIV, Section 4(C)(5)?Y44N___

Please attach a chart that shows the various membercomponents of your organization and their relationships(Attachment K).

Additionally, please provide informationon the voting strength of each member and how it isobtained, including (Attachment L)

:a.) an analysis of your total members hip by categoryand/or classification (i.e. club, individual, athlete, sportassociation etc.) This should include a description of thecategory, the total number of registered members in eachcategory, and the total number of registered members inthe NGB;b.) an analysis of the total number of members bycategory vested with the power to vote on each of yourgoverning boards. Fully describe your voting procedure.c.) an analysis, by membership category, of the number(in a percentage) of those members who are vested withthe power to vote as compared with those that do not havea vote on each of your governing boards.By-LawsV(A)4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 6
Section III. MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS-6-NGBDOCUMENTCHAPTER/SECTIONPAGENO.8.

Do you provide:
a.) an equal opportunity to participate in athleticcompetition without discrimination as required by theUSOC Constitution, Article IV. Section 4(C)(6)?Y 44 N___

b.) fair notice and opportunity for a hearing to anyamateur athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator,or official before declaring such individual ineligible toparticipate as required by the USOC Constitution, ArticleIV, Section 4(C)(6)? Y 44 N___By-LawsBy-LawsIII(o)XVI(C)XVIIXIXXXXXIXXII3212122-232323-2424

Do you provide for expedited hearings? Y 44 N___

Do you suspend or otherwise impose penalties on athletesparticipating in domestic non-sanctioned events?Y___ N44

Do you provide for 20% athlete representation on hearingpanels? Y44N___

Do you have any published procedures relating to thedenial of an athlete or other person's eligibility toparticipate that are not a part of your organicdocuments? Y___ N44

If yes, please attach a copy (Attachment M).By-LawsBy-LawsN/AXI(D)(3)VII(A)XI(D)(3)N/A17717N/A9.

Are all members of your governing board(s) selected/elected on a non-discriminatory basis as required by theUSOC Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(7)?Y44N___

Attach a narrative describing how the members, of yourgoverning board(s) are selected/elected (Attachment N).By-LawsBy-LawsIX(A)IX(C-G), (I)and XI(B)99-111510.

Do you have a specific provision in your organicdocuments requiring 20% athlete representation on yourboard of directors, executive committee and othergoverning board(s) as required by the USOCConstitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(8) and by the USOCBylaws, Chapter XXXIII, Section 7? Y44N___

List the members of your board of directors, executivecommittee and other governing board(s) in a separateattachment and identify those members that are athletes,and how they qualify as such (See Attachment O).

Attach a narrative describing how the athleterepresentatives to the board of directors, executivecommittee and other governing board(s) are elected andBy-LawsVII(A-C)7-8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 7
Section III. MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS-7-NGBDOCUMENTCHAPTER/SECTIONPAGENO.

indicate where in your organic documents the process isdescribed (Attachment P).

Do you have a specific provision in your organicdocuments requiring 20% athlete representation (i) on all"Designated Committees and (ii) on all committees whichare not "Designated Committees" as required by theUSOC Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(8) and by theUSOC Bylaws, Chapter XXIII, Section 7. YES

Please attach a list (i) of all "Designated Committees" and(ii) of all committees that are not "DesignatedCommittees" within your NGB, and for each identifythose members that are athletes, and how they qualify assuch (Attachment Q).

Acknowledge that you pay the expenses of your athleterepresentatives to attend your board of directors,executive committee, other governing boards andcommittee meetings. Y44 N___By-LawsBy-LawsBy-LawsIX(C); andXI(A), (B)VII(A-C)VII(A)9157-8811.

Do you provide an opportunity for reasonable votingrepresentation on your governing board(s) for amateursport organizations, which meet the definition of theUSOC Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(9)?Y44 N___

Please identify those individuals you listed on AttachmentO your current roster of governing boards) who representamateur sport organizations and list the organization theyrepresent.

If amateur sport organizations take part in yourgoverning board's election process, please attach anarrative describing the voting strength of eachmember/group and how it is attained (Attachment R).By-LawsBy-LawsIX(F)IX(F)101012.

Are any of your officers also officers of any other NGB(USOC Constitution, Article 1V, Section 4(C)(10))?Y 44N___Mr. Alan F. Balch, currently a Vice-President of the USET, is President of theAHSA.13.

Do you provide procedures for the prompt and equitableresolution of grievances of your members as required bythe USOC Constitution, Article IV, Section 4(C)(11)?Y 44N___

Do you have any published procedures relating to theresolution of grievances that are not a part of yourorganic documents? Y___ N44 (RESPONSE: They areall published in the By-Laws)

If yes, please attach a copy (Attachment S).By-LawsN/AXVII; XIX;XX; XXI; andXXIIN/A21-24N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 8
Section III. MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS-8-NGBDOCUMENTCHAPTER/SECTIONPAGENO.14.

Do you have eligibility criteria, which are more restrictivethan your International Federation (USOC ConstitutionArticle IV, Section 4(C)(12))? Y___ N 44

Attach a copy of your International Federation'seligibility requirements (Attachment T).By-LawsXVI(A)2115.

How is your representative to the USOC Board ofDirectors elected as required by USOC Bylaws, ChapterXXXIII, Section 1(Q).

Please attach a copy of theseprocedures (Attachment U).

How are representatives from your sport to the USOCAAC elected?
Please attach a copy of the electionprocedures (Attachment V).By-LawsBy-LawsXIIIVIII208-916.

Explain in narrative form when you are able to amendyour organic documents and how much notice is needed(Attachment W).

Are you capable of changing your organic documents bymail or electronic ballot? Y44 N___By-LawsBy-LawsVI(B)IX(N)261217.

Please describe how you inform your athletes about:(i) team selection procedures;(ii) procedures relating to the denial of an athlete or otherperson's eligibility to participate; and(iii) procedures relating to resolution of grievances(Attachment X).By-LawsBy-LawsBy-LawsIII(f-g)XVIXVIIXIX to XXII22121-2222-24
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Page 9
Section III. MEMBERSHIP REQUIREMENTS-9-18.

Pursuant to Article VII of the USOC Constitution, please describe how you:

a) develop interest and participation throughout the United States and are responsible to the persons andamateur sports organizations you represent (Attachment Y)?

b) minimize, through coordination with other amateur sports organizations, conflicts in the scheduling of allpractices and competitions (Attachment Z)?

c) keep amateur athletes informed of policy matters and reasonably reflects the views of such athletes in yourpolicy decisions (Attachment AA)?

(Attach the two (2) most recent newsletters or similar documents for thepast year and indicate to whom they are provided - Attachment BB).

d) disseminate and distribute to amateur athletes, coaches, trainers, managers, administrators, and officials ina timely manner the applicable rules and any changes to such rules of the National Governing Body, theUSOC, the appropriate international sports federation, the International Olympic Committee, theInternational Paralympic Committee, and the Pan-American Sports Organization (Attachment CC).

e) promptly review every request submitted by an Amateur sports organization or person for sanction (1) tohold an international amateur competition in the U.S., or (2) to U.S. Amateur athletes to compete ininternational athletic competition held outside the U.S. and determine whether to grant such sanction, inaccordance with Section 2 of Article VII (Attachment DD)? (Please provide a copy of your sanctionprocedures - Attachment EE).

f) allow an amateur athlete to compete in any international amateur athletic competition conducted under your<div style="positio

[This message was edited by Erin on Jun. 17, 2002 at 09:50 PM.]

SGray
Jun. 17, 2002, 11:29 AM
http://www.chronofhorse.com/inc/99/jan29.html


RECORD FUND-RAISING MONTH PUTS USET IN THE BLACK FOR 1998

Just when it looked as if the U.S. Equestrian Team was going to finish more than $1 million in debt for 1998, two officers made extremely large donations in December that bailed the organization out.

Thanks to Chairman Finn M.W. Caspersen and Vice President Jane F. Clark, the USET raised a record $2.2 million in December to finish the year with a $281,643 excess of revenue over costs. Caspersen�s and Clark�s contributions meant the USET finished the year with a record $4,216,059 in total contributions. Total revenue for 1998 was $6,806,010, against total expenses of $6,587,367.

As of Oct. 30, the USET�s financial statement showed an operating deficit of $1,509,857, almost twice the deficit at the same point in 1994, the last World Equestrian Games year.

"The USET owes a particular debt of gratitude to two trustees whose extraordinary generosity has led the way in this record-setting month of contributions," said USET President D.D. Matz. "Jane Clark and Finn Caspersen con-tinue to set an example of altruism and support for the team that is truly inspirational."

Patti Ogden, the USET director of development, stressed that the entire $2.2 million didn�t come from Caspersen and Clark.

Matz also offered a comment on the Jan. 15 meeting between representatives of the USET and the American Horse Shows Association regarding the contested passage of new USET bylaws in December (see Jan. 1 and Jan. 22). Matz said that mediator Paul George "asked that we put the AHSA�s name back into our opening paragraph, which is not a big problem. We had removed it just because we deal with so many other organizations."

In addition, "[George] did feel that it was valid that we have our own grievance procedure, but that it could be unclear for the athletes" for both organizations to have a grievance procedure, said Matz. She added that George noted that the newly revised USET bylaws specified the number of athletes to serve on the Board of Trustees, but didn�t specify how they would be elected. He instructed the USET and AHSA to address these issues.

She said that George had "recommended we take no action" on AHSA President Alan Balch�s other two concerns in the new USET bylaws, sanctioning competitions and testing riders for banned substances.

She said that the U.S. Olympic Committee�s Equestrian Oversight Committee would continue to oversee the relationship and that the USOC�s Steve Sobel would work with AHSA attorney Peter Alkalay and USET attorney Ed Williams to make "these minor revisions." She said the USET board would vote on the changes "if they are in place" at the USET annual meeting in Wellington, Fla., on Feb. 16.

SGray
Jun. 17, 2002, 11:49 AM
http://www.chronofhorse.com/inc/99/feb26.html

......Caspersen described 1998 as "a record-breaking fund-raising year," and the record contributions of $5,687,428 were partly because he and Clark each donated $1 million at year�s end. The USET�s total revenue of $8,126,9954 exceeded expenses by $795,309.

Treasurer Mark Piwowar reported that total assets now stand at $11.417 million.

Patty Ogden, the director of development, is developing several public-relations initiatives, including expanded television coverage of the USET championships at the Rolex Kentucky CCI and the USET Festival of Champions, sponsoring a National Riding Day, and celebrating the USET�s 50th anniversary in 2000.

Ogden also reported two major contributions to the National Endowment Campaign. Bertram and Diana Firestone have established a $750,000 show jumping endowment called the Newstead Fund, and they have pledged to donate an additional $250,000 to the operating fund. These gifts will be over the next five to 10 years. The USET has also received a pledge for 43 percent of a $1 million remainder trust from Wells Morris of Montana........

SGray
Jun. 17, 2002, 12:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:
I think we should just have them thumb-wrestle for it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


http://www.aafla.org/10ap/SportsLetter/sl0501_.htm

Los Angeles, May 14, 2001
Volume 13, Number 2

Dear Readers:

.......
Equine war ... In the last edition of SportsLetter, we noted that professional billiards players were trying to decide which organization should represent them as the sport's governing body. Now, a dispute between the U.S. Equestrian Team and the American Horse Shows Association is threatening the equine status quo. The USET has filed a complaint against AHSA, seeking to replace AHSA as the national governing body for equestrian sports. The USOC will resolve this dispute: may we suggest a best-of-five snooker tourney?......

Snowbird
Jun. 17, 2002, 04:06 PM
In full armor a lance contest we can all go the Medieval times to watch and they can either duel themselves or pick a champion.

What about David O'Connor vrs. Robert Dover? Winner take all! President of both associations and voila! no more conflicts they would be merged.

keke414
Jun. 17, 2002, 04:34 PM
The current feuding parties can meet at Gladstone and throw cream pies at each other while having a mondo swearing match. The ticket sales, video and webcast revenues should take care of a big chunk of the legal bills.

Snowbird
Jun. 17, 2002, 10:50 PM
The New Jersey judge that declared everything the USET had after a certain date was null and void. That included the filing of the Challenge.

Portia, this is where we need you legalize, suppose the judge takes this case up again she rules the same way, saying the USET did not correct the situation because there is still information not forthcoming. And, therefore they were not properly constituted to submit the Challenge to the USOC.

Can the USOC even rule on the Challenge if the Challenge itself was illegally submitted in violation of New Jersey Law?

Isn't that case coming back before the judge?

I also wonder why we have heard no offers of compromise re: the percentages. If USAEq will not agree to a 50/50 split, what lower percentage would the USET be willing to accept?

In my humble opinion I think 80/20 would be more than fair considering the difference in membership and financing and the fact that USET really is abdicating most of their duties by telling each discipline that they have to raise their own budget.

SGray
Jun. 18, 2002, 11:20 AM
"In accordance with the USOC Constitution, Article IV,Section 4(C)(2), submit a copy of your Articles ofIncorporation (Attachment F), most recent AnnualReport (Attachment G), Certificate of Good Standingfrom the State in which you are incorporated(Attachment H) and Constitution and Bylaws(Attachment I).N/AN/AN/A5. " -- wonder which ones the uset submitted? seems to me that it would be hard to keep track, with all the changes that they made in the recent past

SGray
Jun. 19, 2002, 08:05 AM
Explain in narrative form when you are able to amend your organic documents and how much notice is needed(Attachment W).

--- do you think that they have this one figured out yet?

Portia
Jun. 19, 2002, 11:13 AM
From the USA Eq web site:

For Immediate Release June 18, 2002
USA EQUESTRIAN LEADERSHIP REVIEWS NATIONAL
GOVERNING BODY ISSUE

The Executive Committee of USA Equestrian, the National Equestrian Federation of the United States, held a regularly scheduled meeting today by telephone conference. The lengthy agenda included a discussion of the National Governing Body matter, and the recommendations to be submitted by a hearing panel to the United States Olympic Committee.

Executive Committee members took note of statements issued by the United States Equestrian Team, as well as the fact that the hearing panel report has not as yet been submitted to the USOC Board of Directors for consideration.

The recommendations of the hearing panel include:

that USA Equestrian and USET either merge or re-form to bring all interests under the governance of one organization with each existing organization an "equal partner in the new venture," to have "equal voice," and "equal representation,"

that the new organization provide the international disciplines "with equivalent or greater resources and support," presumably financial support, than they have previously received from the USET,

that the new organization "establish a Board/Executive Committee voting structure that sufficiently protects the International Operating Division" but only provides for "input and representation by the National Operating Division," and

that "the current officers of each [existing] organization step aside," and that 3 specific officers "not be permitted to take part in the governance of the sport" for at least 6 years. USA Equestrian's leadership includes 6 officers; USET leadership includes 14 officers.

Following discussion, the Executive Committee directed the Federation's officers and legal counsel to study the matter carefully and confer with representatives of the Federation's major international and national affiliates, and report their findings to the Board of Directors at the meeting to be held Tuesday, July 9, in Lexington, KY. The meeting is open to the public and audio will be available by Internet webcast via the USA Equestrian website, at www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org).
******
"I hold it that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing..." Thomas Jefferson

beameup
Jun. 19, 2002, 12:38 PM
ilove the idea of a cream pie fight!:D
it would certainly be more enjoyable than the debacle we are witnessing now.

SGray
Jun. 28, 2002, 10:47 AM
from the In The Country article:
"But Balch said that they believe the waiver is no longer valid because the Hearing Panel unilaterally changed the USET�s motion from a challenge to a complaint, a legal nuance that puts it under a different section of the USOC�s bylaws."

--- the USOC panel seemed to want to avoid having any of this go before the USOC Board of Directors - but now, as the panel decided to change the definitions.......

Snowbird
Jun. 28, 2002, 12:14 PM
I haven't read what that change means. Is there then a need for a new hearing? and a new decision?

I am particularly impressed with the fact that there are references in the "so-called" decision to matters not before the hearing panel at all. Does that then open the whole process to be challenged?

And, now that it is considered a Complaint instead of a Challenge does that mean the Challenge is withdrawn?

How then can the USAE comply?

SGray
Jun. 28, 2002, 12:21 PM
Challenge vs Complaint

to add to that - if the USOC panel says that the uset had a Complaint or some hybrid of a Complaint/Challenge - aren't they, again, shooting themselves in the foot, as the rules for a Complaint state that all available remedies within the NGB must be exhausted before...... see below. I don't recall the uset trying to work with the NGB to remedy the deficiencies, do you?

"TED STEVENS AMATEUR SPORTS ACT

Section 220527. Complaints against national governing bodies

(a) GENERAL.

(1) An amateur sports organization or person that belongs to or is eligible to belong to a national governing body may seek to compel the national governing body to comply with sections 220522, 220524, and 220525 of this title by filing a written complaint with the corporation. A copy of the complaint shall be served on the national governing body.

(2) The corporation shall establish procedures for the filing and disposition of complaints under this section.

(b) EXHAUSTION OF REMEDIES.

(1) An organization or person may file a complaint under subsection (a) of this section only after exhausting all available remedies within the national governing body for correcting deficiencies, unless it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that those remedies would have resulted in unnecessary delay.

Snowbird
Jun. 28, 2002, 12:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>unless it can be shown by clear and convincing evidence that those remedies would have resulted in unnecessary delay <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me it looks as if the USET remedies have caused unnecessary delay.

Weatherford
Jun. 28, 2002, 10:16 PM
I say that NEITHER the USOC nor the USET wants ANY of this to become public - or ANY MORE public than the Austin Hearings. That might mean, FULL DISCLOSURE of FINANCIALS??? (think WorldCom, Enron, Arthur Anderson, Xerox, and in the non-profit world, the NY Historical Society.)

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Weatherford
Jun. 29, 2002, 09:55 PM
Strauss - since the thread that mentioned him got sidetracked onto Abby and Annie, I thought I would point out this letter to Mr. Strauss from Alan Balch summarizing the Exec committee meetings he was unable to attend.

Letter to Strauss (http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/pdf1/5-2-02.pdf)

There are a few things that have been missed by those not close to the situation due to the confidentiality issues.

Did you realize that an agreement had actually been REACHED LAST JUNE between Balch and Leone? Among other things.

Read the letter. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...