PDA

View Full Version : What the HELL Does the USOC Think It's Doing Now?



Portia
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:28 AM
This just in -- the USOC is now trying to undo its Final Order in the NGB Challenge and re-open the hearing!

The USOC, supposedly at the request of the Hearing Panel itself, has sent around a Resolution to its Board members recommending that they rescind their Final Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Panel on the NGB Challenge. You know, the Final Order that they adopted in June, and the one that USA Eq filed the arbitration on that is now pending at the AAA.

The Resolution says that the arbitration demand raises "important questions and issues" that weren't addressed in the hearing, and that they think those issues should be addressed by the USOC rather than a panel of arbitrators.

Good lord, as if USA Eq didn't BEG these people to reconsider their order, and BEG them to reopen the hearing to consider these issues before they filed the arbitration! The USOC summarily rejected each of those requests.

As far as I can tell, pretty much every issue raised in the arbitration demand is something USA Eq has raised with the USOC in the course of the proceedings. Everything from the USOC's refusal to give USA Eq a copy of the initial letters from D.D. Matz and Jane Clark that started the whole inquiry, and the secret meetings between the USET and USOC, and the violations of the requirements of the statute and due process -- USA Eq raised them, and the USOC rejected those objections. Now that the USOC's mistakes are all about to be made very public, they want to go back and have another chance to re-write history.

This is my favorite line from the Resolution: "One concern is that if these issues, many of which have never been presented to the USOC, are heard in the first instance by the AAA, there may be delays and costs that will further challenge the sport of equestrian and interefere with the USOC's ability to perform its obligations with respect to the sport of equestrian and equestrian athletes while the dispute is pending before the AAA."

Translation: There is going to be a lot of dirty laundry aired in this thing that is going to trash our reputation even more than it already is, and we need to do everything we can to try to cover it up and keep it quiet.

There is no way in hell that the USOC going back and re-opening the hearing and starting the process all over again will make anything move faster or prevent delay, and they know it. It will just drag things out longer. Once the Arbitrators issue their Final Award, that's it; it's all over and done. Which seems to be exactly what the USOC is afraid of.

Not to mention where the hell the USOC thinks it has the right or power to "re-assert jurisdiction" over the dispute. There's nothing in the Sports Act or the USOC Constitution that says the USOC has the right to go back and do anything once the case is in arbitration. The USOC lost its jurisdiction the moment USA Eq filed its arbitration demand.

Call me cynical, but I don't think for an instant that they want to go back and give USA Eq a fair shake. They just want to try to cover up their obvious mistakes and blatant failures to follow the law and find a less egregiously improper way to reach the same result.

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

Portia
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:28 AM
This just in -- the USOC is now trying to undo its Final Order in the NGB Challenge and re-open the hearing!

The USOC, supposedly at the request of the Hearing Panel itself, has sent around a Resolution to its Board members recommending that they rescind their Final Order adopting the Report and Recommendation of the Hearing Panel on the NGB Challenge. You know, the Final Order that they adopted in June, and the one that USA Eq filed the arbitration on that is now pending at the AAA.

The Resolution says that the arbitration demand raises "important questions and issues" that weren't addressed in the hearing, and that they think those issues should be addressed by the USOC rather than a panel of arbitrators.

Good lord, as if USA Eq didn't BEG these people to reconsider their order, and BEG them to reopen the hearing to consider these issues before they filed the arbitration! The USOC summarily rejected each of those requests.

As far as I can tell, pretty much every issue raised in the arbitration demand is something USA Eq has raised with the USOC in the course of the proceedings. Everything from the USOC's refusal to give USA Eq a copy of the initial letters from D.D. Matz and Jane Clark that started the whole inquiry, and the secret meetings between the USET and USOC, and the violations of the requirements of the statute and due process -- USA Eq raised them, and the USOC rejected those objections. Now that the USOC's mistakes are all about to be made very public, they want to go back and have another chance to re-write history.

This is my favorite line from the Resolution: "One concern is that if these issues, many of which have never been presented to the USOC, are heard in the first instance by the AAA, there may be delays and costs that will further challenge the sport of equestrian and interefere with the USOC's ability to perform its obligations with respect to the sport of equestrian and equestrian athletes while the dispute is pending before the AAA."

Translation: There is going to be a lot of dirty laundry aired in this thing that is going to trash our reputation even more than it already is, and we need to do everything we can to try to cover it up and keep it quiet.

There is no way in hell that the USOC going back and re-opening the hearing and starting the process all over again will make anything move faster or prevent delay, and they know it. It will just drag things out longer. Once the Arbitrators issue their Final Award, that's it; it's all over and done. Which seems to be exactly what the USOC is afraid of.

Not to mention where the hell the USOC thinks it has the right or power to "re-assert jurisdiction" over the dispute. There's nothing in the Sports Act or the USOC Constitution that says the USOC has the right to go back and do anything once the case is in arbitration. The USOC lost its jurisdiction the moment USA Eq filed its arbitration demand.

Call me cynical, but I don't think for an instant that they want to go back and give USA Eq a fair shake. They just want to try to cover up their obvious mistakes and blatant failures to follow the law and find a less egregiously improper way to reach the same result.

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

buryinghill1
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:31 AM
Gotta love it. Pay them lawyers!

TrakHack
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:35 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Once the Arbitrators issue their Final Award, that's it; it's all over and done. Which seems to be exactly what the USOC is afraid of.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree completely. Just when you think things can't get more ridiculous...

Sep. 23, 2002, 08:38 AM
Thanks Portia! I take it you needed to vent a bit? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Walking on water is my specialty, making wine out of it is an art. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

JustJump
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:49 AM
force them to follow an arbitration procedure?

Sorry, I am an intelligent human being, but at this point in time all I can do in response to more of this is zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

Don't we have more important things to worry about? Like keeping Peter Wylde on Fien Cara? Like the reconstruction of our fall indoor season? Like preserving the Maclay finals? Like tweaking the Pony Jumper division? Like educating everyday course designers? Like finding a way to lower entry fees? ENOUGH ALREADY!!

agedbayhunter
Sep. 23, 2002, 09:24 AM
USA Equestrian, Inc.
4047 Iron Works Parkway, Lexington, KY 40511-8483 Tel: (859) 258-2472 Fax
(859) 231-6662 Web site: www.equestrian.org (http://www.equestrian.org)
NEWS RELEASE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
September 23, 2002

HEARING PANEL ASKS U.S. OLYMPIC COMMITTEE TO WITHDRAW ITS DECISION AGAINST
USA EQUESTRIAN
Panel Seeks To Reopen Hearing On The Governance Of Equestrian Sports

USA Equestrian, the national governing body for equestrian sports in the United States, learned late last Friday that the United States Olympic
Committee was asked earlier last week to revoke its recent decision adopting the Report and Recommendation of a USOC hearing panel, and to reopen the hearing on the current dispute over the governance of equestrian sports.

Last year, the United States Equestrian Team (USET) asked the USOC to decertify USA Equestrian as the national governing body for horse sports in
the U.S. After a hearing last fall before a panel of five USOC board members, the panel recommended that unless USA Equestrian and USET agree to some new structure for governing the sport, the position of national governing body would be declared vacant. The Board of Directors adopted this Report and Recommendation as the official decision of the USOC on August 2, 2002. After repeated refusals by the USET to engage in
negotiations, USA Equestrian formally asked that the dispute be resolved in a public hearing before the American Arbitration Association, as provided by federal law.

Upon reading the Demand for Arbitration filed by USA Equestrian on August 30, the USOC hearing panel and the USOC General Counsel's office have
determined that the serious issues raised by USA Equestrian "should be considered in the first instance by the USOC, not by arbitrators selected by the AAA." Accordingly, they have submitted a resolution asking the Board of Directors of the USOC to withdraw its August 2 decision "as if it had never been issued." The USOC Board will vote on this request by mail ballot due on September 25, 2002.

USA Equestrian is evaluating the proposed resolution and its potential impact on the pending arbitration and related litigation. A copy of the resolution can be reviewed on the USA Equestrian web site at www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/index.asp (http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/index.asp).
ENDS

buryinghill1
Sep. 23, 2002, 11:11 AM
Not surprising, though.

beameup
Sep. 23, 2002, 11:23 AM
just when you think it can't get anymore rancorous, nasty and idiotic....we had always donated generously, but them days are gone forever. The usoc and the uset are an embarrassment.

deltawave
Sep. 23, 2002, 11:29 AM
I won't be renewing my USAEq membership or sending any donations for a LONG TIME, precisely because these childish whiners can't play nice and do what's in the best interests of horse sports. I hope they hear me and the others who are "talking with their checkbooks". /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

I say give a representative from each foolish, selfish party a can of silly string and let them have at it...last one standing wins! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"If you think your hairstyle is more important than your brain, you're probably right." Wear a helmet!
www.deltawave.homestead.com (http://www.deltawave.homestead.com)
www.seeliecourt.homestead.com (http://www.seeliecourt.homestead.com)

His Greyness
Sep. 23, 2002, 11:33 AM
This whole pantomime has the makings of a great TV soap opera along the lines of "Dallas". It's all about ego, power, privilege and influence. Everybody seems to have enough money to keep hiring lawyers, so money per se is not the issue; preservation of tax deductions may be.

The "good old boys and girls" of the USOC, or perhaps their paid help, have realized, finally, how exposed they are, having played fast and loose with their own bylaws and the Amateur Sports Act. They can't schmooze the Federal Courts in quite the way they can other institutions. The risk of losing control is now quite high.

It's my opinion that this maneuver is an attempt to keep the issue out of Federal Court. In my "Theory of a Quiet Life" some regulatory and oversight authorites prefer not to get involved in contentious issues and would rather somebody else solved these kinds of problems. By appearing conciliatory the USOC may be hoping (or may petition) that the Federal Courts will kick the issue back to them (the USOC). Much of the legal system operates on precedent and this is the first case of this kind (NGB bun fight) to get this far. If the Federal Court establishes the initial precedents for this case a whole bunch of other cozy arrangements the USOC may have will be up for challenge.

I am not a lawyer, I am only a cynic
/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif !

[This message was edited by His Greyness on Sep. 23, 2002 at 03:13 PM.]

TrakHack
Sep. 23, 2002, 11:48 AM
My impression from the whole thing is that it's USET and USOC who aren't playing nice... If I understand what Portia reported, the USOC is now wanting to do what USA Eq. asked them to do months ago but wouldn't because it wasn't in their (USOC's) interests. Now that there has been a request for arbitration, which would remove control from the USOC, it IS in their best interests to address USA Eq.'s concerns.

buryinghill1
Sep. 23, 2002, 12:16 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beameup:
The usoc and the uset are an embarrassment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And USAEquestrian isn't? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Portia
Sep. 23, 2002, 12:22 PM
I find it incredibly revealing that in this new resolution the USOC hearing committee admits "The report and recommendations of the Hearing Panel and the decision of the USOC Board of Directors to adopt those recommendations were issued on the assumption that there would be a negotiated resolution between USAE and USET. It now appears that such a resolution is not likely."

Hello? Since when was it ever the Hearing Panel's job to assume there would be a settlement and to issue an order designed to force that to happen? Their job was to examine the merits of the dispute and decide the issues presented based upon the facts and the law. They now basically admit they failed to do that and want some kind of do-over. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

The following sequence of statements and admisstions is also very revealing:

They first point out that "The Hearing Panel did not limit its decision to ruling on the Challenge submitted by the USET, but also considered the dispute as if a Complaint had been filed against USAE under Article VII, Section 1 of the USOC Constitution."

A few paragraphs later, that is followed by: "Given the likelihood that USAE and USET will not reach a resolution, and in light of certain issues raised in USAE's demand for arbitration, in consideration of the fact that a Complaint against USAE by an athlete has subsequently been filed, and in light of the fact that it is in the best interests of the equestrian athletes that the matter be resolved quickly, it is the view of the Hearing Panel that the USOC should attempt to resolve this dispute."

Finally, they recommend that the USOC withdraw the order as if it had never been made, reassert jurisdiction, and reopen the hearing. Then the immediately make a point of stating: "In the meantime, the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee will remain free to perform its obligations with respect to the sport of equestrian, as with all sports." Then the resolution itself pointedly states that "the Resolution shall not be interpreted to limit or restrain the proper functioning of the USOC or the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee in accordance with the Act and the USOC Constitution and Bylaws."

Translation:

We really screwed up when we tried to turn this thing into a Complaint rather than a Challenge in the final order, and ordered them to try to create a new organization. We had to do that, because the remedies we were allowed to come up with in connection with a Challenge are very clearly spelled out in the Sports Act, and we went waaaaaay beyond them. We couldn't just make the USET the NGB outright because it was in such bad financial shape and had such problems even we wouldn't try to get away with that.

So, it's pretty clear that we're going to lose big time in this arbitration, since there isn't much question that we didn't bother to follow the law. But now, Gunter Seidel (who rides for Dick Brown, USET Treasurer), has very conveniently filed a Complaint and the Membership and Credentials Committee (contrary to its stated policy that it will not pursue a compliance review while an NGB Challenge is pending) has started a compliance review based on that Complaint. So, if we jerk this thing out of arbitration and out of the court, and we stall the Challenge long enough, then the M&C Committee can do the compliance review and issue an order based on the Complaint that does what we want to do, which is try to put the screws on USA Eq and put the power in the hands of our friends at the USET.

Of course, that's just my personal cynical opinion. I could be wrong.

poltroon
Sep. 23, 2002, 12:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yd:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by beameup:
The usoc and the uset are an embarrassment.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And USAEquestrian isn't? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I'm not embarrased by USA Eq. Your Mileage May Vary! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

USOC: "Oh, you meant for us to READ all those documents you faxed and mailed? We must've put them in our other pants."

woodbern
Sep. 23, 2002, 12:40 PM
is blowing in George Steinebrenner's ear. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

They both have baseball and USOC in common after all.

And God knows, the USOC could use some financial bailing out.

His Greyness
Sep. 23, 2002, 12:52 PM
Why doesn't somebody start a RICO (Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organizations) action against these clowns? Donations raised from the public appear to be being used for purposes far different from those given during their solicitation. Or does every horse in international competition now need to be accompanied by a lawyer as well as a groom? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

armandh
Sep. 23, 2002, 12:54 PM
since the request for arbitration came from USAeq they would have to be the one to withdraw it, and even if the USOC reversial left some of the issues moot it seemed to me that there were more than just those in the request. the arbitrators will have to examine each issue to see if it can be ruled moot. or is this old hunter barkin up the wrong tree? where is the spell check when ya need it!

Snowbird
Sep. 23, 2002, 01:22 PM
OK! slowly now.

USET files a complaint to the USOC says that USAE is not in compliance because they signed the agreement the USET insisted they needed.

USET decides they're on a roll so they change it to a Challenge to be NGB.

USOC holds hearings and gives no response but finally they say you have to have a 50/50 deal between you and dump all your officers and Directors and play nice. And, they say that this is not a Challenge but a Complaint again.

USOC confirms this is their position.

USAE went to Arbitration and also requested that the FEI continue to recognize them to keep the status quo in that USAE is now nad has been the NGB, the USET went to the USOC whined and cried ao the USOC said OK! we will send you the money directly we won't make you go through the NGB.

USAE went to court to get a restraining order against the USOC because that would not maintain the status quo.

USOC says OOPS! we better go back and straighten out the record so we don't look like jerks. This time we'll get it right and......what?

Does this mean new hearings once again? I note the time is of the essence for September 25, 2002 which suddenly is only 48 hours notice for their Board to decide to void everything and re-step the steps.

We still don't know if the New Jersey Court is satisfied with the compliance of the USET under New Jersey Corporate law! That case I think has been renewed and is pending.

USET adds to the court case that Alan Balch can't be a member of the Board of the USET because he has a conflict of interest. And, we don't know if the USET complies with the law, has the money or what structure they may be planning to put in place.

Does this make anyone but me feel that something is really rotten in the manure pile?

GotSpots
Sep. 23, 2002, 01:22 PM
Portia, I think you might be right on the decision to keep this out of the federal courts -- do you know if they did arbitrate it, if they'd run it under JAMS or the AAA? Both have provisions to seal the proceedings. Granted, federal courts do as well, but there's been alot of recent hostility to sealed documents in the federal courts (see, e.g. Baxter Int'l, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, No. 02-2039 (7th Cir. July 16, 2002)).

poltroon
Sep. 23, 2002, 01:26 PM
It's AAA. What would be the justification for sealing the hearing?

Portia
Sep. 23, 2002, 01:32 PM
armandh, I firmly believe -- admittedly without having done any comprehensive research into the issue -- that the USOC lost any and all jurisdiction over the Challenge or to re-visit its Order as soon as USA Eq filed its demand for arbitration. At that point, it became an arbitration matter and the only authority with jurisdiction over the proceedings is the arbitral panel (when it is established), and in the meantime, the AAA (on a procedural and non-substantive basis).

To my knowledge, the question has never been tested before in this context, but there is absolutly nothing in the Sports Act or the USOC Constitution that suggests that the USOC can "reassert jurisdiction" over its final order on a Challenge once it has gone to arbitration.

To me, it is just like a situation where a district court issues a final judgment or an administrative agency issues a final order or ruling in a contested case. There is an appeals procedure established by law, and once that appeals procedure is initiated, what happened below is frozen -- the court or agency whose judgment or order is being challenged loses any further jurisdiction to act.

If that weren't the case, you could never get a final order on anything, because as soon as it looked like the district court opinion or agency ruling was going to be overturned, the court or agency could say "Stop! Do over!, and start the whole process again.

It's not like the court or agency doesn't have a chance to fix a mistake before it goes to appeal. That's why there are almost always rehearing procedures available and a period of time allowed by law before the final order is truly final. In this case, during the period between when the Hearing Panel issued its Recommendations and the Board adopted that recommendation as its final order, USA Eq expressly asked the USOC to reconsider the Hearing Panel Recommendations, pointing out the legal deficiencies in that order. If the USOC wanted to play Do Over, then that was its opportunity to do so.

[This message was edited by Portia on Sep. 23, 2002 at 06:25 PM.]

Portia
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
OK! slowly now.

USET files a complaint to the USOC says that USAE is not in compliance because they signed the agreement the USET insisted they needed.

USET decides they're on a roll so they change it to a Challenge to be NGB.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The USET never filed a formal Complaint. Instead, the USET, starting with the secret correspondence and meetings with D.D. Matz and Jane Clark, got the USOC involved based on their claim that the USET and not AHSA should be named the NGB. That's what first led to the USOC-brokered Operating Agreement. Things were OK for a few years under the OA, but when it was getting ready to expire, the USET went back to the USOC and again secretly complained about the arrangement. This time they used the existence of the Operating Agreement itself as proof that AHSA had impermissibly delegated its authority as NGB to the USET. Based on these informal USET complaints (complaints with a small "c", not a capital "C" Complaint under the Sports Act), the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee initiated a compliance review. But that was something it allegedly did on its own, not based on an athlete or affiliate Complaint.

It was after that compliance review started, just a day or so before the February 2001 meeting with the M&C Committee, and just days before the OA expired, that the USET filed its first formal pleading, the Challenge. At that point (like I explained in the post on the other thread about the federal court injunction action), the M&C Committee said it no longer had jurisdiction to act because it was the official policy of the USOC that any compliance review had to cease immediately upon the filing of an NGB Challenge. (That's the official position that they now say was just a guideline and not something binding, so they claim to be free to continue the compliance review based on the Gunter Seidel Complaint.) The Gunter Seidel Complaint is the only official capital "C" Complaint that has ever been filed, and it was only filed last month.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
USOC holds hearings and gives no response but finally they say you have to have a 50/50 deal between you and dump all your officers and Directors and play nice. And, they say that this is not a Challenge but a Complaint again.

USOC confirms this is their position.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well, they said it was some kind of hybrid between a Challenge and a Complaint, because there was no way they could get where they wanted to go (forcing the two orgs to join together and give control over all the international to the USET) under just a Challenge. As you'll recall, the Sports Act is very clear that the only thing they can do in response to a Challenge is one of 4 things, (1) uphold the incumbent NGB, (2) find the challenger should be the NGB, (3) find the incumbent NGB is not in compliance but only in relatively minor ways that can be fixed and therefore put the NGB on probation, or (4) declare a vacancy. The Sports Act gives them more leeway to fashion a remedy under a Complaint proceeding. So, they decided to call a spade a hoe, as it were.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>USAE went to Arbitration and also requested that the FEI continue to recognize them to keep the status quo in that USAE is now nad has been the NGB, the USET went to the USOC whined and cried ao the USOC said OK! we will send you the money directly we won't make you go through the NGB.

USAE went to court to get a restraining order against the USOC because that would not maintain the status quo.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not exactly. What happened is that Gunter Seidel conveniently filed his formal Complaint, and the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee used that as an excuse to initiate a compliance review (contrary to their previously stated official policy of not conducting compliance reviews while a Challenge is pending.) USA Eq, I believe quite rightly, believes that the continuing compliance review was an improper attempt to undercut the authority of the arbitrators in examining the USOC's actions with respect to the Challenge and the NGB situation thus far. So, USA Eq did the only thing it could do to stop that interference with the arbitral process, go to federal court and ask the court to enjoin the USOC from continuing with the compliance review and interfering in the arbitration process.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>USOC says OOPS! we better go back and straighten out the record so we don't look like jerks. This time we'll get it right and......what?

Does this mean new hearings once again? I note the time is of the essence for September 25, 2002 which suddenly is only 48 hours notice for their Board to decide to void everything and re-step the steps.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
That's pretty much it. Except, I (cynically perhaps) don't believe they have any intention of trying to get it right substantively; they only want to cover their butts so the arbitrators don't hand those butts back to them in a box for having blatantly disregarded their statutory responsibilities.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>We still don't know if the New Jersey Court is satisfied with the compliance of the USET under New Jersey Corporate law! That case I think has been renewed and is pending.

USET adds to the court case that Alan Balch can't be a member of the Board of the USET because he has a conflict of interest. And, we don't know if the USET complies with the law, has the money or what structure they may be planning to put in place.

Does this make anyone but me feel that something is really rotten in the manure pile?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You are not alone.

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

Portia
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:04 PM
It is AAA and cannot be sealed under the law. The Sports Act expressly provides that the proceedings shall be open to the public.

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

Snowbird
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:13 PM
They have their meeting at the same time the USOC is voting to rescind their decision which is an action they cannot legally do. I find it more than coincidental these things always seem to pop up during a meeting.

Well, I'll tune in.

armandh
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:13 PM
the USOC and the USET are going to get their pants yanked down in public

Snowbird
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:16 PM
I'm not sure I want to see those body parts. Rather see their knickers twisted in knots.

brilyntrip
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:31 PM
I am continually astounded by all of this...How can USET(or do I mean USOC ?) actually think they can do this switcheroo thing??Puleeeezz someone Put bags over all of their heads .CHRIST!
This is giving me another migraine UGH!

[This message was edited by brilyntrip on Sep. 23, 2002 at 10:57 PM.]

mbp
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:34 PM
Not embarassed by USAEq

WOuld pay good money to go see the "de-panting" /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Possible fundraiser for our NGB to be? /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

USOC is really playing fast and loose with the rules on this one - the arbitrators or the Fed Court system one is going to tighten the slack, and certain organizations might want to remove their necks first.

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 23, 2002, 02:45 PM
gloves off.

duggieboyus
Sep. 23, 2002, 06:14 PM
Is this really as embarassing as it appears to me? I mean does the USOC now say "we screwed this whole thing up and before it gets to some federal court we want a DO-OVER?"

If USAE takes back the demand for arbitration, what should they see one year from now - another screwed up OSOC decision to also take to arbitration?

I say stick it to 'em NOW!!

Also, should USAE ask USOC to pay them back for the legal fees spent since the decision was "ratified" by the USOC Board to get to the arbitration case filed?

canyonoak
Sep. 23, 2002, 06:17 PM
...Ive read this thread a few times now...and part of me wants to write something pithy and intelligent and scathingly acute.

And part of me is reeling and wheeling, muttering, whaaaaatttttttt???

uunnnhhhhh-uunnnhhhh....agaiiiiiiiinnnnnnnn?

And part of me wants to ride over there, grab the major players in this farce, throw them into a room, and tell them the Israelis are not going to let them out until they give us ALL the names AND sign a new resolution.

And even then, if we dont approve of this new resolution, why they can stay in there, with one steenking toilet for all of them, until the world of horse sports is restored to a semblance of order.

Marty Mankameyer wants to hear from any of us who have an opinion and feel that the USOC decisions may not be, ah, the correct one?

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha aha aha aha aha aha ah

(excuse me while I choke quietly in the corner..)

agedbayhunter
Sep. 23, 2002, 07:11 PM
This endless battle (will our grandchildren still be following it??) is frustrating, headache-provoking, nauseating -- and - I have to admit - fascinating. I certainly hope that someone in the mainstream (non-equestrian) press is working on an investigative piece about it.

duggieboyus
Sep. 23, 2002, 07:20 PM
The USOC Audits were done recently. Did they see what USAE "whined" about for months - we found out that the USET's financial condition is actually worse than suspected?

1-800-Dial-A-Distance
Sep. 23, 2002, 07:32 PM
I am so lost!!! Between the legalese and the anacronyms... Tell me that this isn't what our yearly dues are paying for...
1-800

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

Snowbird
Sep. 23, 2002, 07:38 PM
We really wanted to believe that Big Brother was going to come in and make the right decisions and the men in the white hats would ride off into the sunset singing don't fence me in.

Well it seems life no longer works that way. It seems to me the guy with the biggest club wins because we have returned ourselves to the Neanderthal.

So what does an intelligent and civilized person do when faced with uncivilized instincts for self perservation?

We are supposed to be a country of "law". That's what civilized people do they obey the law. Can you imagine the extensions of such a philosophy as that proposed by the Hearing Panel of the USOC? Imagine now that the holes have been labeled and numbered they get to go back and fill in the holes.

As Portia said, there would never be a Final Decision anywhere any place anytime. Suppose a Zoning Board makes a decision and then when the opponent files an appeal they get to read the evidence and go back and modify their opinions. Suppose every judge who found out there was an appeal against his decision got to plug the loop holes.

So what do we have?

Has anyone read anything that even implies there is some sense of guilt for a job poorly done from the USOC? I think in fact there is no one who is going to make this right, I think we are the last line in the defense of a free and open system.

ErinR
Sep. 23, 2002, 07:48 PM
Then maybe some network or newspaper hungry for scandal could pick it up and the wrongdoers could be shamed into resigning. Unfortunately I think that probably less than 1% of USEq members or USET small contributors are following this mess. Given that this group is only a small fraction of the horsey population, which of course is only a small percent of the general population, this will never get any attention given how complicated it is.

I am intrigued by the RICO idea, could the US Attorney for New Jersey be convinced that this is worth his or her while. Or what about the New Jersey Attorney General given the consistent violation of NJ corporate law.

Maybe a New Jersey registered voter could contact these folks. It will probably be futile given the small group that is interested, but you never know. You do occassionally run across a government lawyer who wants to do the right thing. (I have to believe the last statement, as I am such an animal, please be kind /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

[This message was edited by ErinR on Sep. 23, 2002 at 11:30 PM.]

Snowbird
Sep. 23, 2002, 07:57 PM
Could anyone convince a Democratic Administration that it mattered to anyone in his real world of inner city kids who was on the Olympic Team?

All the people you mention are Governor appointees. I know from my experience with our Equine Activity Law there was not one Democrat that would support the law. We succeeded because there was a Republican Senator who was retiring and he had a long successful record so he proposed our Bill as his last act in his career, that's how it became law.

I made an earlier reference to the fact that the Ted Stevens is planning not to run again for election. Just perhaps as the name sake of this bill which is being warped and twisted, someone on this board could reach his heart and get him to care. Maybe there is someone who could put together the magic words to make him care enough to reform the USOC.

canyonoak
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:03 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by ErinR:
<<... Unfortunately I think that probably less than 1% of USEq members or USET small contributors are following this mess. Given that this group is only a small fraction of the horsey populations, which of course is only a small percent of the general population, this will never get any attention given how compicated it is.>>


Yes.

This is what USET has been counting on.

This is what USOC was told was the Way It Is--so take those bribes, chillun, and dont worry your little heads about any problems down the road.

This is how Business is done.

So--Snowbird, Portia,SGray,Weatherford--to pick the first names that come to mind:

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

I want to do something. Im not going to give up without a fight. These are OUR organizations and by dad by gum, they can answer to us!

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO????

How about ,for starts, a round-robin email, one to the other, saying what can be done,..perhaps Portia could start it and then the next one send it on..? etc..and anyone who wants to be part of such a discussion say so and provide an email and we will draft some document/some course of action..

WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO??

I am more than prepared to give it a shot. I just want it to be the best shot possible. And to me, that means as many people as possible pooling their brains to come up with something.

It may not solve anything, but I feel we will never know if we do not try.

SO: WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?

agedbayhunter
Sep. 23, 2002, 08:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ErinR:
Unfortunately I think that probably less than 1% of USEq members or USET small contributors are following this mess. Given that this group is only a small fraction of the horsey populations, which of course is only a small percent of the general population, this will never get any attention given how compicated it is.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree that if the focus is simply on the equestrian aspect of this issue, then the appeal IS going to be narrow. But if the focus is on the fancy footwork of the USOC, then a much broader public is going to pay attention. Those stories about the Salt Lake City organizing committee and the former USOC head made the front page of the New York Times. I think that if the right person looked at the bigger picture here, there would be a great article -- and a big audience for it.

Snowbird
Sep. 23, 2002, 09:52 PM
It's already on the table in Congress. Can we find out which Senators are on the USOC Task Force? Can we find out which Senators are on the Horse Caucus? There also has been an IOC Investigation.

The Congress established the USOC and the USOC is responsible to the Congress.

Anyone have any contacts with Investigative Reporters looking for a headline to protect the Olympic Movement? Who can check out how many law suits are being filed and charges against the USOC for mismanagement. How many sports are involved?

Maybe if we do our homework we can make a case. This is an election year and this is a nice polite topic as compared to what else is on the table. Wouldn't even cost much money and might save a lot.

Then there is the issue of mismanagement of a 501C Corporation for personal gain.

armandh
Sep. 24, 2002, 03:29 AM
"Then there is the issue of mismanagement of a 501C Corporation for personal gain."

I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you
[not really]

you can be sure that if the USAeq is confirmed the NGB by the courts they will take back the governance of the USET leaving the NJ corp with zip. actually less than zip.

this has gone down hill from an insistance on financial disclosure to an all or nothing battle

[This message was edited by armandh on Sep. 24, 2002 at 09:59 AM.]

SGray
Sep. 24, 2002, 08:06 AM
I was out tending to the mundane yesterday - went to field to pick up hay so that the ponies would be happy over the winter -- I'm trying to catch up now

read 9/20 ltr Rawls to Satrom - particularly enjoyed
"USA Equestrian's response to this question appears at item number 4 in our letter to you of September 13, 2002, replying to your letter of July 19, 2002."
--- oh, gee, Lori thinks that they should be reading our correspondence?

Portia
Sep. 24, 2002, 08:06 AM
One of our posters very rightly reminded me that there may be, probably are, some folks who haven't been around forever like some of us /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif who may not be aware that I am currently a member of some USA Eq committees, and am therefore not totally disinterested in the NGB dispute.

I've been a member of Legal Review for about a year or so, and Sunshine Task Force for several months. I'm also the chair of an ad hoc committee on Rulebook Reorganization that was officially formed earlier this year.

I've mentioned how I came to be involved with USA Eq a few times before, but in case some of you care and didn't know about it, here it is again.

Other than being a member, I didn't have anything to do with AHSA before the fall of 2000, and how I got involved came directly through these BBs. Snowbird posted asking me a question about finding something in the AHSA Rulebook. After it took me 4 hours and I still couldn't get a clear answer, I started complaining here about how badly the Rulebook is organized. Since I wanted to be free to bitch to my hearts content, and couldn't do that in all fairness if I didn't at least offer to try to help correct the problems, I put together a memo laying out what I thought were the major problems in organization of the AHSA Rulebook and how they might be fixed. I of course assumed that it would be roundly ignored, and I would be free to bitch to my heart's content. Little did I know how much AHSA management had changed in recent years ...

Linda Allen saw my posts on the Rulebook and contacted me out of the blue, encouraging me to submit the memo to the AHSA and putting me in touch with the rulebook people. Then Alan Balch e-mailed me out of the blue to thank me for caring about the sport and being willing to volunteer to try to help improve things. Seems I got caught in the drive to get more regular members involved in the organization and let them know they were welcome. That's how the(ongoing) Rulebook Reorganization Project got started, leading to the formation of the ad hoc committee earlier this year responsible for doing the reorganization.

So, that's how I first got involved in AHSA/USA Eq. How I got to where I am on the NGB issue is a somewhat different story. When the whole thing first blew up a couple of years ago I was a member of both the USET (a pledging and paying donor to the Endowment Fund even) and the AHSA, though my only real involvement with either of them was writing my membership checks.

I don't know if the threads from back then are still available, but it would be interesting at this point to go back and track "the education of Portia." /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif If you can believe it, I think my first post on the NGB subject, back in October of 2000 or so?, was along the lines of "What's the problem? The USET does everything the NGB is supposed to do anyway, so why shouldn't it be made the NGB?" Then I read the Sports Act and its requirements and saw how much broader than just fielding international teams the NGB duties are, spoke to some people about the background of the dispute, and -- at the request of several posters since I was relatively nearby -- went to the February 2001 USOC Membership and Credentials Committee meeting in San Antonio (I wasn't on any AHSA committees at that time). I got my education fast, came to my conclusions about which side I wanted to support, and in the course of it got further involved with AHSA/USA Eq. I tnen attended the entire USOC hearing in Austin, and wrote twice a day summaries of what was going on for the USA Eq website.

So, for anyone who cares /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , that's my full disclosure. Well, not really full disclosure. If I were going to make full disclosure, I'd have to admit that sometimes when I come into the office on the weekends I don't wear a bra. But that would be too much disclosure I think. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

Duffy
Sep. 24, 2002, 09:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:


So, for anyone who cares /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif , that's my full disclosure. Well, not really full disclosure. If I were going to make full disclosure, I'd have to admit that sometimes when I come into the office on the weekends I don't wear a bra. But that would be too much disclosure I think. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

_"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur."_ Dogbert<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


We loff you, Portia! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Only you could make me laugh/smile when reading anything about this bullshit! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I can justify anything!"

SGray
Sep. 24, 2002, 09:31 AM
but will Portia be braless while she watches, as armandh puts it, "the USOC and the USET are going to get their pants yanked down in public"?

sorry - couldn't resist

Duffy
Sep. 24, 2002, 09:34 AM
I think we must insist, SGray! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I can justify anything!"

SGray
Sep. 24, 2002, 09:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by armandh:
"Then there is the issue of mismanagement of a 501C Corporation for personal gain."

I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you
[not really]


[This message was edited by armandh on Sep. 24, 2002 at 09:59 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

armandh - that might be worth your while to investigate - isn't there some provision for reward for whistle-blowers? boy, howdey, if you got a % of $s used for personal gain (while being written off on taxes) - well, the mind boggles with the possibilities

Snowbird
Sep. 24, 2002, 10:25 AM
I don't know about all those guys with their pants down, my guess is they might really be embarrassed by a full disclosure of their true assets.

In case there is someone who doesn't know, I attended the conventions for only one reason, they never talk to you to your face but there were great scenes when a person was absent. So I simply went for self-preservation. Accidentally I wandered into the Planning Committee of which then Alan Balch was the Chairman. They presented a spectacular far sighted projection of marketing ideas that would assist the entire industry, from an 800 number that would be available to answer questions for every Mom/Dad with a query as to how to go about have their Suzie or Tommie learn to ride a horse.

There was a prototype of a generic information manual for all members of the non-horse group. And, an idea to go back to the State Associations for nominees for the Zone Committees. I was very impressed.

Well years went by and as we all know nothing happened. Then there was the dawn of the NHJC and many of us made efforts to suggest ways to improve things, many of us had ideas that would help and many of us were curious about what happened to the money.

The NHJC had it's own BB where we participated and it was personally monitored by Larry Langer. When the dialog did not go in the direction or express the opinions Larry Langer liked it was abruptly shut down. That's how we all came to the Chronicle BB.

Larry had this attitude that they were all hard working volunteers and we were ungrateful and unappreciative of how well they managed our affairs. SOooooooo!

We took his suggestion and proposed the rule changes and the Revisions to the By-Laws and Constitution of the NHJC which would make it a representative association for us hunter folks.

There were 10 proposals which I fully expected would wind up in that limitless round file in the corner. Anyone who wishes to more about the papers, suggestions and proposed rule changes will still find them out on the website I created for communication. United States Hunter Jumper Association (http://www.hunterjumper.org)

I was surprised by the welcome of the AHSA when I went to the convention and the opportunity to actually present our thoughts to the Board of Directors in person. Our biggest issue was the "Right to Know".

I like Portia was amazed that I was not only not rebuffed but that my ideas were considered. The Right to Know and the Right to Vote were not tabled but sent to the Planning Committee for consideration and implementation. Changes to the Purpose of AHSA were immediately implemented to include and upgrade the position of our horses.

NHJC was required to consider our proposed revisions to the By-Laws of NHJC. I found that the AHSA had opened it's doors and every meeting was open in spite of the dismay of some Committee Charmen. I was presented with Financial Reports from both my Zone and the NHJC which had been previously never available.

I did not know why the USET was no longer meeting at the Convention. They had always had a Luncheon or Dinner where they reported and presented sundry awards at every convention and had no clue about the storm brewing until I attended the Board Meeting at the Convention.

It seems illogical and strange because the USET had always been a Committee of the AHSA, I couldn't really believe this would amount to much of a battle, just a little tiff which is not unusual in any horse association.

Later, now that we were able to be informed and see documents on our own, reading the information and speaking first hand with many people involved. I did reach a conclusion that USET was behaving badly. I was surprised when I was invited to participate on two Committees and the Sunshine Task Force. It did make sense since one is Competition Management and one of my complaints was there was no one representing the needs of anyone not involved exclusively or at least a majority of the time in the AA five shows. I was the token C Show representative.

The other Committee Marketing and Development is about something which is close to my heart i.e. Marketing is ways to make the Membership feel better and participate more in the association and development is the need to find national sponsorships to implement a better awards programs.

The Sunshine Task Force is an off shoot of the Marketing and Development Committee. It's purpose is to evaluate the needs of the members and to what degree these needs can be supported within the structure of the association. For example we discussed this issue of closed committee meetings at the convention and what information should be or could be available to the membership. How Equestrian Magazine could better serve as a newsletter for those who are computer situated yet.

I don't think my position on these committees alters any of my basic convictions for an open representative asociation. I know that any opinions I express are based on my personal experience and knowledge and from some party position that is sent out and all members of all committees must follow. I have never been required to sign and non-disclosure statement, nor has anyone even suggested how I must vote on any issue. I like Portia felt that I had to participaate since I had made so much noise about improvements, and was being invited to put up my time and effort to help it happen.

I am old enough and financially independent enough that I do not feel obligated to anyone to make my existence more profitable so I have no conflict of interest with my judgments.

I don't think it is prejudicial to want to see a more representative Hunter Committee or Association, so that it will be equally concerned with those members who believe children should go to school and adults should work at some constructive occupation.

I was a member of the old Hunter Incentive Committee headed by Sally Wheeler and respected the efforts that were made and which at least did result in the Zone programs and the Zone Finals horse shows for those people who wanted to come home and sleep in their own beds at night.

So I hope this resolves anyone's questions and if there is anyone with more please email me personally.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Sep. 24, 2002 at 04:12 PM.]

buryinghill1
Sep. 24, 2002, 10:36 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
headed by Sally Wheeler .<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mrs Kenneth Wheeler, Jr was "Sallie," not Sally.

pwynnnorman
Sep. 24, 2002, 10:44 AM
I have colleagues here at the university who can get this story into the press, and I happen to believe that airing the dirty laundry will help the side I favor (which is USAEq's side) at this point. One of my colleagues is an ex-Bureau Chief (and one of the most popular Associated Press reporters in history, apparently), while the other is a Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative reporter.

What I would do is write up a brief summary, including links to this BB and to background information on the personalities involved (which I think is significant--like the all-too-recent IOC/figureskating scandal, it's the people and their vested interests here that are causing us all to loose money, time and respect as a sport, IMO!). I would give that summary to my colleagues (the AP guy has already expressed his willingness to pitch the story to his old buddies) and let it go from there.

Folks, should I do it? Is it time to try to take this story beyond our little corner of the world and let the general public know what has been going on?

dublin
Sep. 24, 2002, 10:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Mrs Kenneth Wheeler, Jr was "Sallie," not Sally. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I personally was far more interested in what Snowbird had to say in her post than in one misspelling, yd, but whatever floats your boat, I guess...

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

SGray
Sep. 24, 2002, 11:02 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:

What I would do is write up a brief summary, including links to this BB and to background information on the personalities involved (which I think is significant--like the all-too-recent IOC/figureskating scandal, it's the people and their vested interests here that are causing us all to loose money, time and respect as a sport, IMO!). I would give that summary to my colleagues (the AP guy has already expressed his willingness to pitch the story to his old buddies) and let it go from there.

Folks, should I do it? Is it time to try to take this story beyond our little corner of the world and let the general public know what has been going on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


oh pwynnnorman - I think that would be FABULOUS

links http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/ and
http://www.equestrian.org/webcasts/7-9-2002/index.asp (along with the numerous discussions here - do you need help with finding all those?) would give anyone a damn fine start

-- note: in the board meeting info there is a synopsis timeline of the 'troubles'

undoubtedly, Alan B would be more than happy to answer any questions from the Press

agedbayhunter
Sep. 24, 2002, 11:04 AM
Maybe Portia would provide one of her wonderfully lucid Cliffs Notes versions of the whole saga!

Sleepy
Sep. 24, 2002, 11:08 AM
It is definitely time for USOC to pay the piper. I say let's out them.

poltroon
Sep. 24, 2002, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canyonoak:
And part of me wants to ride over there, grab the major players in this farce, throw them into a room, and tell them the Israelis are not going to let them out until they give u s ALL the names AND sign a new resolution.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it should be like the WEG: the nearest toilet is 1/2 mile in one direction, nearest food or drink 1/2 mile in the other. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anne FS
Sep. 24, 2002, 12:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Folks, should I do it? Is it time to try to take this story beyond our little corner of the world and let the general public know what has been going on?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

YES, do it. Just make sure that the reporter has GOOD sources from all sides and that he/she is inundated with FACTS. Both sides here can spin and speak fluently to beat the band. Facts have to be emphasized, not spin.

cbv
Sep. 24, 2002, 12:26 PM
in the general press....

There is the risk of just making horse sports look worse than they already do to some non-horse folks. While those on this board seem, by and large (though certainly not 100%) to support usa-eq...the whole ugly mess may not produce a 'good guy' in the eyes of non-horse folks....just more images of 'rich folk' acting foolish.

And with the current recommendation to remove eventing from the olympics, might this just make it worse?

Of course, I suppose scandal didn't hurt ice skating..

beameup
Sep. 24, 2002, 12:50 PM
yeah, but ice skating has all those pretty costumes with skimpy skirts and lots of PR. you're right cbv, in worrying that it will make the horse community look like a bunch of overindulged snobs squabbling over power. which, of course, is very far from the truth, at least concerning the USAEQ....the rest of them? hmmm.....

armandh
Sep. 24, 2002, 01:22 PM
it is the money
despite not being as easy to put cameras on XC, about as bad as golf, if equestrian games draw enough support they will be in. this dispute will make little difference on that issue.

as to the press...let the sun shine [in]

Snowbird
Sep. 24, 2002, 01:27 PM
Appearances are not more important than truth. Oh! Pwynn this like deja vu again. I would like to let everyone know that it was Pwynn who worked so hard to properly prepare our Rule Change proposals with me. And, it was Pwynn who paid for a bunch of buttons for us to wear when we were seeking the Right to Know and the Right to Vote. (Still have some of those buttons).

I think it would be wonderful if we have open news coverage of these shenanigans. I think it would be wonderful if the news attracted the interest of Congress, the President, the Attorney General and whoever else there is that still cares about fair play. I think the truth and the whole truth never hurts honest people.

As to my mistake spelling in the proper spelling of Sallie, I apologize for my ignorance. I guess I didn't realize I was mispelling Mrs. Wheeler's name because in the two years that I was on the committee with her she never corrected me. If she had it would have been in my memory chip. But, then it was just that kind of good manners that made everyone love her so much.

lawgrl
Sep. 24, 2002, 01:38 PM
His Greyness:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Or does every horse in international competition now need to be accompanied by a lawyer as well as a groom? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Wait! Wait! I think this is a wonderful idea, quit trying to avoid it.

By the way, please call me for available dates.......I'll even give a 10% discount on my fee...

mbp
Sep. 24, 2002, 01:52 PM
Yeah, but which of you will go bra-less like Portia?
ROFL

SGray
Sep. 24, 2002, 02:06 PM
In order for the USOC to re-evaluate it's decision - wouldn't (shouldn't?) it have to ask the party that filed for arbitration to recind its request?

Snowbird
Sep. 24, 2002, 02:08 PM
What's the big deal? Women have been bra-less since all the libbers burned the bras. Flower children are bra less. The only reason for a bra is to keep the male of the species mentally competent during business hours.

armandh
Sep. 24, 2002, 02:29 PM
re withdrawing request she covered it about the begining of page 2

rosinante
Sep. 24, 2002, 02:34 PM
Seems to be a good follow up on the ice skating scandal and the SLC Summer Games.

The Balch v USET lawsuit plus the documents on the USAE website and references to links on this BB should get a good investigative reporter's nose twitching....

Greed, power, money...(is there lust???)...all the makings of good tabloid readings....hell even the Wall Street Journal talks about Jack Welch's extra marital affairs, so dirt sells even in the most staid of rags.....

Who's the guy in Court TV that does the scandal sheet....did the piece on the downfall of Calumet Farm????

Heck, there's stuff for the financial pages in here...Finn Caspersen, the sale of Gladstone at the time Beneficial is sinking???? Who knows what a good reporter could uncover.....

Winglet
Sep. 24, 2002, 02:40 PM
I can see it now... the social circles of the horse world will be judged on clothing, income, plastic surgery, and lawyer rating... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Fool me once, shame on... shame on you...... Ifulmah... can't get fooled again!" - George W. Bush
www.geocities.com/winglet18 (http://www.geocities.com/winglet18)

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 24, 2002, 02:41 PM
If I had friends in the media, I would be begging them to cover the Peter Wylde/Fien Cera/WEG story, (Geez, he braids his own horse), instead of the childish actions of a few egotistical adults quibbling over power and money.

That kind of coverage would be far more beneficial to our industry.

Dominic Dunne where are you?

Snowbird
Sep. 24, 2002, 03:06 PM
This issue is the misuse of 501C corporations, and this issue is about open acreage, this issue is about riding trails, this issue is about an agricultural product and it's value to the GDP which is endangered.

JulieMontgomery
Sep. 24, 2002, 04:03 PM
Simply priceless......

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
As to my mistake spelling in the proper spelling of Sallie, I apologize for my ignorance. I guess I didn't realize I was mispelling Mrs. Wheeler's name because in the two years that I was on the committee with her she never corrected me. If she had it would have been in my memory chip. But, then it was just that kind of good manners that made everyone love her so much.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

JulieMontgomery
Sep. 24, 2002, 04:12 PM
Every time there has been a situation similar to this one (intrigue, deceit, backstabbing, etc) in sports, the sport has been the better for it after all the dust settled.

This has happened a number of times... boxing and major league baseball comes to mind. The layers below those two were a labyrinth of chaos and dirty tricks.

Is it more important to overlook all of this yet again, or cut out the rotten parts as best possible and get on with it?

I grow weary of folks who say, "Oh what the hell, why rock the boat? If it isn't group A with the dirty tricks or group B with the dirty tricks, some group will have dirty tricks, so why bother?"

If that were the best mantra available, think of how little progress would have been made in any area over the year....

armandh
Sep. 24, 2002, 04:34 PM
USET getting caught in ones own dirty tricks?

vineyridge
Sep. 24, 2002, 06:39 PM
Strategically speaking, the demand for arbitration by USAEq was brilliant. Since the USET has also filed for arbitration of the USOC order, seems neither party is in a position to "accept" NGB status from the USOC.

Am I correct that there are two demands for arbitration, a NJ lawsuit and a fed lawsuit, which has been filed--where?

It occurs to me that a preliminary injunction, followed by a declaratory judgment on the arbitration issue (followed by appeals?) will be the fastest way to get the matter in front of the arbitration panel.

I am really impressed with the quality of USAEq tactics.

Portia, you doing good.

Snowbird
Sep. 24, 2002, 07:20 PM
So now what about what we can do!

Who knows how to locate the members of the USOC caucus and the members of the horse caucus in the Senate?

Who is the best one to compose our presentation to them to intervene?

pwynnnorman
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:36 AM
Let's hope it works. Thank you for your permission. I would not have proceeded if people were uncomfortable with it (and I agree about the risk in tarnishing an already not-so-good image when it comes to horse sports).

And thanks tremendously for those links. That will help a lot.

I'm going to take the PP guy to dinner and see if I can get him excited (about IT, that is--alas, nothing about me excites anyone).

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 07:04 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rosinante:

Greed, power, money...(is there lust???)...all the makings of good tabloid readings....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. I'm sure the USET side will recommend that the reporter read the equine press coverage as background & of course they'll recommend Horse of the Del Val--make sure el reporto knows the background on that.

P.S. I never thought this situation would get so out of hand either. I, too, always looked at USET as a committee of AHSA and when this first started I thought, what's the problem? AHSA delegated International stuff to one of ITS OWN COMMITTEES, the USET, so it wasn't at all like delegating to an outside organization. I still think that's the way it is.

GotSpots
Sep. 25, 2002, 07:08 AM
I think there's already a reporter in D.C. looking into this issue (in connection with fights going on in other sports). I don't know if it's going to go anywhere though.

On another note, I'm wondering if USET's attorneys have warned them about the IRS' new "market segment surveys" and "client reeducation programs" (also known as audits, in market-friendly language) started in response to a consensus that many tax-exempt organizations have taken advantage of formerly lax enforcement.

[This message was edited by GotSpots on Sep. 25, 2002 at 10:20 AM.]

pwynnnorman
Sep. 25, 2002, 07:28 AM
GotSpots, do you have the name of that reporter?

I'm trying to keep it simple, folks, but there's a name out there I don't have/can't remember. Who is Seidel connected to?

Also, I need some documentation on the top donors to USET OR to a link/comment/whatever that talks about the anonymity issue (I remember it was out there, but I can't find it--don't like this BB's search function much).

And, if anyone knows where I can get bios of the majors, you'd save me some time.

Thanks.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

Flashy Gray
Sep. 25, 2002, 07:38 AM
There is an ad hoc "horse caucus" that is mainly concerned with issues relating to the racing industry or more agricultural issues. During last year's aborted-foal crisis in KY, I believe Sens. McConnell and Bunning led the charge for federal emergency funds for breeders who got hit hard.

Also, as USAEq is headquartered in KY there would definitely be an interest by home state Members in hearing about all of this and how it could impact USAEq's bottom line. Congressman Ernie Fletcher represents the 6th C.D. which is mostly Lexington.

However, it all boils down to committee jurisdiction, and as previously noted, Senator McCain opened up a can of worms when his committee, Commerce, looked into the scandals surrounding the SLC Olympic bid.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 08:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
Who is Seidel connected to?
========= rides for Dick Brown, uset treasurer, also does (or did) ride one of Jane F. Clark's horses ===========

Also, I need some documentation on the top donors to USET OR to a link/comment/whatever that talks about the anonymity issue (I remember it was out there, but I can't find it--don't like this BB's search function much).
===========the new uset confidentiality agreement can be found at http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/USOC/letter-8-20-2002.pdf=============



And, if anyone knows where I can get bios of the majors, you'd save me some time.

Thanks.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message was edited by SGray on Sep. 25, 2002 at 11:29 AM.]

pwynnnorman
Sep. 25, 2002, 08:34 AM
Thanks, SGray. Actually, though, I'm looking for that COTH BB thread where people were talking about anonymous donors to USET.

Next up, I need a list of Olympic Team horses and their owners.

Also, anyone know if Jane Forbes Clark is still a USOC director?

[BTW, that funding stuff for breeders passed already. If you had losses from the mare loss syndrome, you can apply for loans through it, but the deadline, I think, is fast approaching.]

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

lauriep
Sep. 25, 2002, 09:38 AM
you'll have to be more specific on horses/owners, as these change with every major competition.

Laurie

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:04 AM
check out USOC response
http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/USOC/letter-satrom-9-20-2002.pdf

I'd say it's about 2 years late

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:10 AM
but Peter Alkalay says it better
http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/USOC/letter-alkalay-9-24-2002.pdf

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:13 AM
Yeah, I'd say that's disingenous at best. I'm just waiting to see what the Federal Court in Lexington does with respect to the USOC's attempt to "reassert jurisdiction" in derogation of the arbitration process.

Don't forget the webcast of the Executive Committee meeting this afternoon at 4:00 EDT.

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

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:18 AM
Sue Blinks, Flim Flam (owner Fritz and Renate Kundrun)
Robert Dover, Rainier (owner Jane F. Clark)
Gunter Seidel, Foltaire (owner Dick & Jane Brown)
Christine Traurig, Etienne (owner Haas family)
- alternate - (who was shipped to Sydney even though she would not be eligible to compete /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif )
Kathleen Raine, Fidelia (who owns Fidelia?)

It's sad but true that I couldn't find a place to check the owners on these horses; please correct me if I made a mistake.

[edited to show Erin's correction to Flim Flam's ownership]

[This message was edited by poltroon on Sep. 25, 2002 at 03:03 PM.]

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by armandh:
"Then there is the issue of mismanagement of a 501C Corporation for personal gain."

I'm from the IRS and I'm here to help you
[not really]

you can be sure that if the USAeq is confirmed the NGB by the courts they will take back the governance of the USET leaving the NJ corp with zip. actually less than zip.

this has gone down hill from an insistance on financial disclosure to an all or nothing battle

[This message was edited by armandh on Sep. 24, 2002 at 09:59 AM.]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It wasn't the IRS and I don't know about other principal players but the Leones already have experience with giving back money. $1,225,218 is a decent chunk of change (at least to my budget) that they had to give up to the SEC after a little problem with "short swing" speculation. According to court documents, the whole family got into the action: Armand, Sr, Rita, Peter, Mark, Armand, Jr, Ri-Arm Corp and PAM Associates.

lauriep
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:28 AM
Let's keep the individuals out of this. It is a topic on the USOC and its actions, not the Leone FAMILY.

Do you have any respect for anyone's life that happens to be attached to the acronym USET? Geesh! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Laurie

woodbern
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:42 AM
Despite what certain posters may think, no one died and left any one poster "queen of the bb".

Nothing you said was earth shattering.

Carry on.

Erin
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
Sue Blinks, Flim Flam (owner Sue Blinks?)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, Fritz and Renate Kundrun (sp?), if I remember right. Check the COTH WEG rosters.

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 11:56 AM
But if we keep airing one's personal laundry that has no bearing on the issue at hand, we would hardly be left discussing the issues, would we?

The issue at hand certainly has plenty of fodder for discussion, I should think. And I have to say that the USOC's apparent failure to follow their very own procedure is dissapointing to say the least. However, that would be one of the better things about our legal system - it does rather insist that one follow both your own rules and those that are required by law.

As an intersting sidebar, while I am disappointed in the USOC's actions, I am not particularly surprised. I once had a few drinks with an FBI agent while we waited for our planes (God Bless the Crown Room), and this (very handsome) agent was in the middle of investigating SLC, the USOC and Atlanta for potential misdeeds. Whether actions were taken or not, he left it pretty clear that misdeeds abounded! So much so that he wanted to get back to his regular post of "honest" criminals in South Florida!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:04 PM
ROTFLOL!!!!!

Thanks - I needed that!

Til I think about it harder, and then it gets depressing. Rather like the comment to me from the author of Hot Blood - who has given up investigative reporting... "Doesn't surprise me one bit - some very nasty players in a nasty business..."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Found the view, but too expensive

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:07 PM
I particularly like #5 in Peter Alkalay's letter.

How very circumspect of him ... who was looking for lust? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

armandh
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:16 PM
the uset with it's own corp may have acted as a committee of the ahsa but now it appears to take the buisness to it's self and shut out its boss.
in the buisness world that would be theft by fraud.

Snowbird
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:28 PM
All's fair that's on the record. We may be all so disenchanted with what we learn that we will move to New Zealand and join Greg Best.

That's the pity of it, we don't need to be disillusioned more than we already are disappointed.

However, perhaps it is the responsibility of this generation to endure the pain so that we can leave the young people with a better sport and a better industry than we found.

Pwynn, you can use the BB search engine to find all those quotes but do it quick because some of it may be missing by next week when they move this whole thing to a new server.

I just checked a few phrases like secret donors and came up with the threads you want.

It was FDR who hit the nail on it's head when he said "We have nothing to fear but fear itself". Let the chips fall where they may and let's expose the scoundrels whoever they may be, and whoever did the deed.

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:54 PM
The final team of four horse/rider combinations that will compete for the U.S. is (in alphabetical order):

NAME HORSE OWNER
Nina Fout of Middleburg, VA 3 Magic Beans Nina Fout
David O'Connor of The Plains, VA Giltedge Jacqueline B. Mars
Karen O'Connor of The Plains, VA Prince Panache Jacqueline B. Mars
Linden Wiesman of Columbia, TN Anderoo Barbara and James Wiesman

Riders selected to participate in the individual competition are (in alphabetical order):

NAME HORSE OWNER
Julie Black of Newnan, GA Hyde Park Corner Jim & Janet Richards
Robert Costello of Southern Pines, NC Chevalier Deirdre Pirie
David O'Connor of The Plains, VA Custom Made Xandarius LLC

The reserve horse/rider is Rebecca Douglas of Lansing, KS with Highland Hogan. owned by Faye C. and David Woolf.

(Note that in the case of this team there was quite a bit of reshuffling due to soundness, etc after the initial team announcement, which is worth noting if you're paying attention to the selection process.)

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:02 PM
#1: Margie Goldstein Engle/Perin/24.25
#2: Nona Garson/Rhythmical/28.5
#3: Laura Kraut/Liberty/28.75
#4: Lauren Hough/Clasiko/31.75
---------------------------------
R: Todd Minikus/Oh Star/32.25

I don't know the owners on any of these horses. This team was selected solely on objective scores.

pwynnnorman
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:07 PM
I need ALL owners of ALL team horses for, say, the past 10 or so years. I'm told to look for a pattern.

In fact, I had lunch with the PP guy, who says he'll talk to the editor of the Lexington Herald-Ledger about the story, too. I did a search online to see what, if anything, the Herald had published on USOC, but all they've done has focused on the site selection issue.

They may not even know that the legal dispute is going on in their juridiction. I did discover, however, that they have published some positive articles on USAE and some of its KY partnerships in the past, which bodes well.

The PP guy urges me to follow the money and document it, but I'm still worried about the anonymity of donors issue. He says I should look into their IRS I 990 forms, which I will, but we've discussed those before, haven't we, and they weren't much good.

Anyway, I'm going to target the KY paper first, with the PP guy's help, and then if they print something, I will be able to use that to approach the AP. I'm going to go now and listen in on the exec. com. mtg. before continuing. I may fax the USOC Sept. 20 letter and the USAE response (Sept. 24) to the contact at the Herald tomorrow if I think I can pull it all together sufficiently.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:12 PM
I believe the Krauts own Rhythmical and know that the Minikuses own Oh Star. Perin is Hidden Creek's Perin, so he's owned by Hidden Creek Farm (but don't know who owns Hidden Creek).

Other than that, I think USA Eq and/or the USET can and should provide the information on the horses and owners. Also, don't forget the horses and owners at the other competitions that are important to the USOC and involve the non-Olympic disciplines, the Pan Am Games and the WEG, so the list would include drivers, vaulters, endurance, and now reiners.

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:21 PM
My God, did you hear Armand Leone whining like a spoiled child about the motion on the resolution to congratulate the athletes who medaled and did so well at the WEG? He demanded that the resolution make clear that USA Eq "had absolutely nothing to do with that result" and everything USA Eq has done this year and this whole fight hindered that effort, and USA Eq didn't give any money and can claim no credit and is only responsible for hurting the sport, and that success was all the USET's doing and so on.

Then David O'Connor rightly said that this was not the place to turn such a resolution into a petty tit-for-tat, it meant to honor the American athletes and should not be made a part of the fight, and he was somewhat offended as an athlete that it was being treated that way. When Linda Allen added that she also found the objection offensive, Leone snaps back with "Offense meant." Now that's such mature behavior. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:26 PM
Krauts would own Laura's horse (Liberty?), not Rhythmical.

Horses were selected purely on scores. The fact that they remained on the team - despite soundness issues - IMHO - was due to serious conflicts of interest.

Pwynn - it is not just who OWNS the horses, it is also about who is buying and selling them and the conflicts of interest there. There is less, IMHO, in the Eventing group than in the Jumpers and Dressage - perhaps because in order to be successful at eventing, you have to be hard-headed and independent.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Found the view, but too expensive

Erin
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:40 PM
Pwynn, the people from the Chronicle know these owners off the tops of their heads. It's been a few years since I proofread horse show results, so my memories are a little foggier. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You should consider getting in touch with John or Tricia. Or even go out to M-burg and just browse through issues of "American Horses in Sport" in the National Sporting Library. Owners are all listed, and in the case of the ones that are corporations, John and Tricia can tell you who they are.

Aren't Todd's horses owned by that YZ Partnership or something like that? The actual owner's last name is Weise, or something similar.

Hidden Creek Farm is Mike Polaski.

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:16 PM
Liberty is not owned by one individual.

R is owned by the Kamine Family.

rosinante
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:44 PM
Actually it IS about individuals....individuals who, sitting as officers, directors and board members, have a legal fiduciary responsibility to act as trustees of the donor's funds....and not just my checks for $10's of dollars, but of people who have donated $10's of THOUSANDS of dollars and seen their donations wasted away.

Personally, I want to know all about the Leone family, Finn Caspersen, Jane Clark and any sitting officer, director or trustee, so I can see who is "watching out" for my money/donation.

I want to know all about the horses and riders sent to major international events within the last 10 years and of those, I want to know how many of those horses were owned by those individuals or whose riders were in the employ of those individuals.

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:37 PM
In eventing, there is a lot less prize money, and therefore a lot less to be made in the buying and selling. You can't compete as often, and even when you compete you don't generally win as often.

In Dressage, you can pretty much be assured that once a winner, you'll stay there for a bit barring large faux pas. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Sparky
Sep. 25, 2002, 04:20 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Erin:



Aren't Todd's horses owned by that YZ Partnership or something like that? The actual owner's last name is Weise, or something similar.

Hidden Creek Farm is Mike Polaski.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hey Erin, say "Weise" out loud
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

paw
Sep. 25, 2002, 09:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
My God, did you hear Armand Leone whining like a spoiled child about the motion on the resolution to congratulate the athletes who medaled and did so well at the WEG?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And that, IMO, is the bulk of the problem. Leone hasn't been able to rise above the personal animosity he feels for Balch, so isn't going to play or allow anyone else to.

I stopped contributing to the USET a year or so ago, when it was clear that this childishness was going to continue until one or the other organization was on the rocks. Over time, I've gone over to the USAEq camp totally, since they're at least better at hiding the pettiness. Ok, and also because they don't send me begging letters every time I turn around...

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:32 AM
What's the deal with USET contributions and voting these days? How much of a contribution gets you a vote? Is it in writing? I think we ALL should join at the voting level and change the organization from within.

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 07:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rosinante:
Actually it _IS_ about individuals....individuals who, sitting as officers, directors and board members, have a _legal_ fiduciary responsibility to act as trustees of the donor's funds....and not just my checks for $10's of dollars, but of people who have donated $10's of THOUSANDS of dollars and seen their donations wasted away.

Personally, I want to know all about the Leone family, Finn Caspersen, Jane Clark and any sitting officer, director or trustee, so I can see who is "watching out" for my money/donation.

I want to know all about the horses and riders sent to major international events within the last 10 years and of those, I want to know how many of those horses were owned by those individuals or whose riders were in the employ of those individuals.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

feel free to email me if you would like more details on the insider trading

I think that we had a pretty good list of horses/riders working for JFC in an earlier thread - though I think we left out reiners in that list

as far as I have ever heard, Finn used to participate in driving (four-in-hand) but I don't know if he does any more (there were some fun-Finn-facts in an earlier thread also)

MAD
Sep. 26, 2002, 08:38 AM
I hate politics and I have no idea what is going on anymore, and can't understand most of this.

What I *think* is going on is that you are trying to ascertain all of the horses and owners that have represented the USA.

Shouldn't that include every horse and owner that has EVER represented the USA? Every time a rider wants to show internationally - for each separate competition - they must pay a waiver fee ($50, I think). If you want a COMPLETE list of EVERY horse and owner, shouldn't you be looking at even the children jumpers that represented the USA in the FEI competition in Wellington last year? Or the riders that compete on the Nations Cup teams, or the riders that show internationally week after week?


These are just my thoughts - remember, I don't even own a horse, or for that matter, belong to the USAEq or USET until this is resolved!

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:32 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MAD:

Shouldn't that include every horse and owner that has EVER represented the USA?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the point of pwynnnorman's question is not all international competitors but those that rode for the USET TEAMS

rosinante
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rosinante:
Actually it _IS_ about individuals....individuals who, sitting as officers, directors and board members, have a _legal_ fiduciary responsibility to act as trustees of the donor's funds....and not just my checks for $10's of dollars, but of people who have donated $10's of THOUSANDS of dollars and seen their donations wasted away.

Personally, I want to know all about the Leone family, Finn Caspersen, Jane Clark and any sitting officer, director or trustee, so I can see who is "watching out" for my money/donation.

I want to know all about the horses and riders sent to major international events within the last 10 years and of those, I want to know how many of those horses were owned by those individuals or whose riders were in the employ of those individuals.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



feel free to email me if you would like more details on the insider trading

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SGray.....I asked those questions for pynnorman...you should PM her.....

I figure any investigative reporter might be interested in the intrigues going on here

And just to highlight WHY an editor should be interested in such a piece of prose, is that "joe-schmoe" in the sidelines would be interested in this Peyton Place playground of the rich and not so (in)famous as that dirt sells newspapers.

It will even sell more if the dirt can be linked to what the great unwashed are worried about these days....their shrinking 401(k)'s and corporate greed.

If my dim aged mind recalls correctly, Finn Caspersen, former USET Prez used to drive 4-in-hands....what would be interesting to note is whether his team were at all financed with USET funds....then concurrently to ask what was the financial health of Beneficial Finance at that time and if there are any linkages to certain real-estate deals for the personal enrichment of some corporate heads.

It's all out there in public documents. All it takes is a few people with long memories that can help a reporter make the linkages and point out why this would sell papers...an important point when selling a story....I can see a nice feature in NY Times Sunday Edition......with pictures of farms, horses, etc.....lifestyles of the Rich & Famous....

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:16 AM
I dunno, rosinante. Why shouldn't Finn Casparson get USET funds? I'm not into penalizing the rich. If they want to pay out of their own pocket, that's generous, but if the USET provides funds for a team to compete, he's entitled to have his team funded too and not have to pay everything out of his own pocket.

So what if Beneficial contributed? Corporations contribute to car races and yacht races, I think it's great if they would contribute to equestrian sports. I don't think that's evil.

Rich people don't HAVE to give a dime; I think it's great when they do.

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rosinante:

....It's all out there in public documents. All it takes is a few people with long memories that can help a reporter make the linkages and point out why this would sell papers...an important point when selling a story....I can see a nice feature in NY Times Sunday Edition......with pictures of farms, horses, etc.....lifestyles of the Rich & Famous....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

see "Securities and Exchange Commission v Armand Leone Sr. and Rita F. Leone United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 88 CIV 2818"
and
"National Westminster Bancorp, NJ, Plaintiff v. Rita Girolamo Leone, DR, Armand Leone, Peter Leone, Ri-Arm Corp and PAM Associated -- Civil Action No 88-2000 United States District Court for District of New Jersey"

poltroon
Sep. 26, 2002, 12:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by MAD:
What I *think* is going on is that you are trying to ascertain all of the horses and owners that have represented the USA.

Shouldn't that include every horse and owner that has EVER represented the USA? Every time a rider wants to show internationally - for each separate competition - they must pay a waiver fee ($50, I think). If you want a COMPLETE list of EVERY horse and owner, shouldn't you be looking at even the children jumpers that represented the USA in the FEI competition in Wellington last year? Or the riders that compete on the Nations Cup teams, or the riders that show internationally week after week?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Most of those athletes have never been served by USET. USET only has anything to do with ~ 14% of the few thousand American riders who compete internationally. All the rest have all their international paperwork handled by USA Equestrian.

MAD
Sep. 26, 2002, 12:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>posted by SGRAY:
I think the point of pwynnnorman's question is not all international competitors but those that rode for the USET TEAMS <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't your focus narrow?

Nations Cups are made up of TEAMS, aren't they? Didn't, for instance, Spruce Meadows have a TEAM? I thought that there is sponsorship funds made available for those TEAMS, and individual riders and owners make up those TEAMS. Therefore, to be fair, I'd think any rider or owner that has accepted funds (or even grants?) from the USET would be part of your investigation.

If you are just investigating the OLYMPIC team horses, I guess I'd need an explanation.

buryinghill1
Sep. 26, 2002, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:

see "Securities and Exchange Commission v Armand Leone Sr. and Rita F. Leone United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, 88 CIV 2818" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ha. SEC called me about this one too. I didn't get a million dollar fine, though.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

pwynnnorman
Sep. 26, 2002, 12:49 PM
Erin, thanks for pointing out horses in sport. I knew the lists were there, but I couldnl't remember if they mentioned owners. (Luckily, I keep ALL of them, year after year!)

I inquired to see if the Lexington paper had ever picked the story up from press releases and was told that, for reasons unknown, it never has. I'm going to get my PP friend to find out if there is a reason, so that I can present this issue in a way they might be more likely to accept.

My plan is to get everything together (I printed out REALMS of pages from the press releases, I-990s, quotes from this BB, etc. and am trying to boil it all down to something interesting) and have it, short and sweet, on people's desks first thing Monday morning.

Should be an interesting weekend.

Bet you guys didn't know that both Henry Kissinger and Bill Bradley are/were on the USOC Board of Directors in 2000?

Also, unfortunately, while I have a list of all of the donations to both organizations (in 2000) and although the form includes areas for contributors' names and addresses, neither organization lists them. The largest 2000 donation for USET was $305,000, but there were a fair number in the $250,000 range, too.

Most of this stuff I won't use, however--it's not simple and sensational enough. One thing that would be would be resale values on horses who make the Olympic team, stuff like that to show the high stakes that are involved. (Impossible to document though, alas.)

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

lauriep
Sep. 26, 2002, 01:10 PM
on the "Olympic Team" horses, as opposed to horses that have competed as part of any officially sanctioned "Team" event, i.e. the various Nations Cups over the past 10 years.

And, any reason for the 10 year limit? Just curious! Because for the majority of the last 10 years, the selection process has been objective whereas prior to that it was almost entirely subjective.

Laurie

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 01:21 PM
pwynnnorman - are you reading your email?

Coreene
Sep. 26, 2002, 02:19 PM
'ssssamatterofact, I would be able to write an entire season based on this stuff.

MAD
Sep. 26, 2002, 04:01 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>posted by coreene:
I see another episode of Law & Order brewing here!
'ssssamatterofact, I would be able to write an entire season based on this stuff. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Forget a season! You could write your own series: Law & Order - EVU (Equestrian Victims Unit)

DMK
Sep. 26, 2002, 04:03 PM
I guess I would be a little confused about the pupose of knowing horses/riders/owners of Olympic teams. It's nice information to have (you know - a blurb to catch human interest, like Gibson and Peron or Margie's incredible string of fluke injuries that kept her of the Olympic team until 2000), but other than that, I don't know what journalistic advantage such information might have.

Maybe it would be useful if things were like they were in the old days when horses were donated to the USET and a few people called the shots (albeit very good shots), but those days are so long gone and over with that it boggles the imagination!

If one wants to find the power/money trail, horses/riders/owners in an objective system isn't the origin in my opinion. People who control things are those that pay to make the rules or place their people where rules can be made. Of course THAT has been the topic of a few discussion already!

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

rosinante
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:09 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Why shouldn't Finn Casparson get USET funds? I'm not into penalizing the rich. If they want to pay out of their own pocket, that's generous, but if the USET provides funds for a team to compete, he's entitled to have his team funded too and not have to pay everything out of his own pocket.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AnneFS, I also am not into penalizing the rich.

HOWEVER, when people, whether rich or poor, take advantage of a priviledged position, then I take exception.

The trustess/offices/board members of the USET have the legal fiduciary responsibility to administer the members' donations/funds/contributions to the betterment of the stated goals of the organization.

When those trustees/officers/board members, rich or not, use their priviledged position NOT to be stewards of the members' funds, but instead to use their priviledged position of "insider" to finance their personal hobbies, then I have a problem.

The reason I bring up relating the financial situation of certain individuals is the determine whether:

1-There was personal financial gain received by their priviledged position on the USET board;

2-Whether that position gave them "preferred advantage" to be selected personally or to have their horses/riders be on the Team;

3-And finallly....I don't know that I want individuals with known records of convictions for civil misdeeds regarding financial matters, or of corporate mismanagement, being the "watchdogs/stewards/trustees" of MY funds.

rosinante
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:41 PM
Also, regarding corporate contributions....

Obviously Rolex and Volvo have made major contributions to the sport of equestrian....but I don't hear of the CEO of Rolex or Volvo fielding a string of horses in international competition. Those corporations have donated funds for the marketing exposure it brings their companies. Period...paragraph...

Regarding Beneficial....again, I would need to dig up the old biz publications, but if my aged mind serves me right, that company went belly-up by going into "high-risk" lending to poor credit customers. The worse your credit, the higher the interest you have to pay for a loan. It looks great on paper, until the deadbeats don't pay, default on the loan, and the company holding the debt is left holding the (empty) bag.

Beneficial owned the old Brady farm where the USET headquarters had been situated since its inception. Beneficial was bought out by Household Finance. I believe it was the financial difficulties brought on by the foray into high-risk lending that required Beneficial to divest of assets....including the Brady Farm.

The bulk of the Brady farm was scheduled to be turned into a golf course and housing development. An investigative reporter should look into who still has financial interests in that property.

agedbayhunter
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by rosinante:

The bulk of the Brady farm was scheduled to be turned into a golf course and housing development. An investigative reporter should look into who still has financial interests in that property.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, one name that leaps to mind (and I'm not sure whether or not they've managed to dump their interests at this point) is (Ta Da!!) LUCENT. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

ahf
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:53 PM
Lucent, eh?

Could be worse, I suppose. Could have been Global Crossing.....

canyonoak
Sep. 26, 2002, 07:24 PM
SGray, could you please email me?
I have a question for you.

thanks.

Lexi
Sep. 27, 2002, 09:01 AM
I think the figure of the USET assisting some 14% of people competing "internationally" is wrong.
For the most part, the USET is involved with people competing internationally ABROAD, which is just a few hundred people, and I think they are serving 14% of those few hundred. Since the vast majority of the people competing internationally are competing only in the US, I would guess the actual figure is more like 5% or less based on approximately 1500 people competing internationally, here and abroad, in 2001. A lot of people, at the USET in particular, do not seem to know what "international" means.

poltroon
Sep. 27, 2002, 12:04 PM
Here's where the 14% comes from:

http://www.equestrian.org/EquestrianGovernance/arbitration/demand-for-arbitration.pdf (page 8):

"Of the athletes particpating in international competition outside the United States in 2000, the USET served only 58 of the 439 served by the Federation. In 2002 thus far, the USET has served only 23 of 430 such atheletes."

So you're right, that percentage does not include anyone competing exclusively in the US.

Peggy
Sep. 27, 2002, 12:16 PM
Kathleen Raine owns both Fiddle (Fidelia) and Vinnie (Avontuur), the horse with whom she was an alternate for Atlanta. She may have owned one or both of them at some point with her mom.

Coreene
Sep. 27, 2002, 12:18 PM
Just reading about Kathleen's mom in your post is sad; she was such a neat lady and we were all so sorry to head about her passing when it happened.

MAD
Sep. 27, 2002, 01:01 PM
"In 2002 thus far, the USET has served only 23 of 430 such atheletes"

Were the 23 that were served in 2002 part of a Nations Cup TEAM? Because if they are, then we are back to my original question, why investigate only OLYMPIC horse owners and riders? And for only the last 10 years as LaurieP pointed out?

And as far as I know, 2002 is not an Olympic year, but 23 were served in 2002. Why are you only interested in the horses used every 4 years?

Weatherford
Sep. 27, 2002, 01:03 PM
I think, MAD, she is probably interested in more than that, but it is easier to start with a defined number, then work your way out to include more. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Found the view, but too expensive

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 27, 2002, 01:25 PM
And exactly what does "serving" mean? Actually providing one of those 23 with funds or simply completing the necessary paperwork?

If one was to consider the entire membership of US Tennis or the US Track and Field (or any other organization which parallels USAE) I'm guessing less than 20% of their membership would be elite or international athletes.

Snowbird
Sep. 27, 2002, 01:31 PM
The whole point is that an NGB is supposed to be creating opportunites as well and awarding money based on need to those up and coming grassroots. The top guys don't ever stay there forever. Except maybe Tiger Woods. He's got a long way to go.

The point of the comment I think, correct me if I'm wrong and surely you all will, is that in the context of the NGB frame the USAE is doing just that which is their function as an NGB.

pwynnnorman
Sep. 27, 2002, 02:28 PM
Here's the pitch I'm developing which I tried posting on the other thread to no avail. I asked you before if you felt I should try to get this conflict some attention and enough people said yes that I went ahead and discussed it with some contacts and got their advice on how to proceed. Now I need your help to fill in the most salient issues.

The following is a story pitch. It is NOT the actual story. What I'm trying to do is get the press to pick up the USOC/USET/USAeq story. (Why? I dunno. Maybe I just like to see, in the spirit of experimentation, if it's possible to DO something instead of just grumble about it.)

Anyway, please recognize that what I've written is an angle or approach which you may not AGREE with (I don't necessarily agree with it myself, especially the wording of it), but also recognize that I'm not writing for knowledgeable, involved horse people, OK? I'm writing to try to involve the uninvolved--thus I'm painting with a very broad brush.

Where I need your help is in identifying the VERY BEST X, Y and Z (see below) to insure that this pitch will encourage a reporter to question what is going on. [Also, please notice the verb tenses used: "have been" indicates the past, not the present (for those splitting hairs about accuracy)].


Background: The USOC

Mandated by federal legislation and supported by federal taxes, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) oversees US participation in Olympic sports. Federal legislation also mandates that each Olympic sport must have its own national governing body. Through its recognition, oversight and financial support, the USOC determines what organization is a sport's national governing body.

* There can be a lot of conflict in the governance of Olympic sports.
* There can be a lot money at stake in the governance of Olympic sports.
* There is a lot of story potential in recent USOC decisions about the governance of Olympic sports.

Equestrian: More Scandal at the USOC?

In only one Olympic sport can the athletes' "equipment" be sold for millions of dollars afterwards: equestrian. Moreover, in no other Olympic sport have the fortunes of this country's wealthiest families and businessmen been used to determine who gets to compete for and cash in on Olympic gold.

So what does the USOC do when a group of revolutionaries challenge the elites to open up equestrian sports' governance, opportunities and rewards?

* It does X.
* It does Y.
* It does Z.

Why? To expose the answer, follow the money.

[X, Y, and Z need to identify specific things USOC has done in a way that reinforces and/or clarifies that there are two groups in conflict with each other (not with the USOC) and that the USOC is a third group whose X, Y, and Z actions raise questions about impartiality OR maybe just competence. Again, I don't know and don't really care because I'm not trying to interpret USOC's actions, just get them in front of the media.]

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

SGray
Sep. 27, 2002, 02:35 PM
Definately agree with that approach

vineyridge
Sep. 27, 2002, 04:33 PM
X-when one of the richest, old money supporters of equestrian could no longer serve as president of the current NGB, she trucked off to the USET, formerly a committee of the AHSA. Because of secret contacts between her and other old money supporters and the USOC, the USOC demanded that the AHSA formally recognize the USET's "responsibilities" for international competition with a memorandum of understanding. This is used by the USET as grounds under the Ted Stevens Act to challenge the AHSA for NGB status.

When the USET threw all its board members who were opposed to its challenge off its board of directors, changed its bylaws and refused to divulge both donors and its financial condition to its own trustees, an AHSA lawsuit brought in the name of its president, as USET trustee, was successful in obtaining a judgment that the USET had illegally breached corporate governance laws, with the result that its actions were null and void during the period when the challenge was conceived and implemented. The USOC was told of this court decision against the USET and refused to table the USET challenge until the USET had gotten itself in compliance with the laws of the state of its incorporation.

When faced with allegations that the USET was financially insolvent and dependent on contributions of a few wealth supporters to make up its deficits from year to year and was in fact virtually broke, in debt two million dollars to two of its old money supporters, had few, if any hard assets and had been using its endowment to fund its day to day operations and its legal challenge, the USOC refused to reopen the proceedings to take evidence on the financial capabilities of the AHSA and the USET.

After numerous attempts at mediation under USOC auspices, which were scuttled by the USET, the USOC adopted its hearing panel report finding, primarily based on the USOC required memorandum of understanding between the USET and AHSA, that the two organizations had been sharing the duties of the NGB and, if they did not merge, a vacancy would be be declared. After the USOC issued its ruling and demanded actions that are not authorized by the Ted Stevens Act, both the AHSA and the USET appealed to arbitration.

The USOC mixed and matched procedures under the Ted Stevens Act in an attempt to give itself the power to demand a merger of the two organizations as equal partners. After the USOC became aware from the demands for arbitration that its handling of this NGB dispute was procedurally questionable, it started trying to wash its dirty linen. It has attempted to withdraw its order and reopen the dispute from the hearing panel stage. It has waited until after its "final" order to formally investigate the finances of the two organziations.

Although the USOC supposedly has a rule
prohibiting complaint/compliance reviews while a challenge is pending, it has accepted and is acting on a complaint brought by an international rider who is and has been under contract to old money supporters of the USET.

Finally, since the AHSA was and always has been the NGB, was not removed by the USOC order, and has filed for independent arbitration under the Ted Stevens Act against the USOC, it should function as NGB until it is removed or replaced, whch has not happened. However, the USOC has interfered with the status quo in the following ways:

It has funnelled money directly to the USET that formerly went through the AHSA.

It has ordered the AHSA not to interfere with the USET during the period of team selection and attendance at the World Equestrian Games, which have just ended.

It has been in secret negotiations with the USET regarding the IOC proposal to drop eventing from the Olympics.

I don't know if this is any good or not--it's way too long

bonfire
Sep. 27, 2002, 04:49 PM
At the very beginning of this whole sorry affair, I asked a very prominent horseman who he thought would prevail.
His answer: "The USET. Never underestimate the power of spoiled rich people who want to get their own way."
I know that in an ideal world, fair play, democracy, a broad based constituency,basically all of Alan Balch`s objectives, would be what the majority wants.If my somewhat cynical friend is correct, that won`t be the final result. And IF that IS the result, then we who believe in those objectives are going to have to figure out what role a badly weakened USAEq has to play in a horse world ruled by a powerful, arrogant USET.

JulieMontgomery
Sep. 27, 2002, 04:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bonfire:
"The USET. Never underestimate the power of spoiled rich people who want to get their own way."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OTOH.... that's what the French rulers thought as well, until the revolution dispelled them of that lingering notion...... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

rosinante
Sep. 27, 2002, 05:50 PM
It was the best of times....it was the worst of times....

Madame Lefarge keeps on knitting....