PDA

View Full Version : Code of Conduct Problems in the Dressage Team?



Pages : 1 [2]

ESG
Jan. 4, 2007, 08:01 AM
Thank you, canyonoak. This rag of a magazine did nothing but incite bad feeling, deserved or not, against LM, and brought absolutely no evidence (or, even specifics of! :mad: ) of her alleged transgressions to light. I don't know the woman, have only seen her ride once or twice, and am not defending or applauding her actions. And neither should anyone else, based on this ridiculous blurb. If you're going to actually bring to public attention the inappropriate actions of anyone, then at least give facts. Don't pussyfoot around and present he-said-she-said garbage in place of substance - that's high school bull$h!t. This real estate sales sheet with pretensions did nothing to actually "expose" LM's supposed transgressions; just put something potentially juicy and eye-catching in the back to help increase readership. How low. :rolleyes: Sorry if that sounds harsh, but crap journalism always irritates the p!$$ out of me.

Adamantane
Jan. 4, 2007, 10:07 AM
Thank you, canyonoak. This rag of a magazine did nothing but incite bad feeling, deserved or not, against LM, and brought absolutely no evidence (or, even specifics of! :mad: ) of her alleged transgressions to light. I don't know the woman, have only seen her ride once or twice, and am not defending or applauding her actions. And neither should anyone else, based on this ridiculous blurb. If you're going to actually bring to public attention the inappropriate actions of anyone, then at least give facts. Don't pussyfoot around and present he-said-she-said garbage in place of substance - that's high school bull$h!t. This real estate sales sheet with pretensions did nothing to actually "expose" LM's supposed transgressions; just put something potentially juicy and eye-catching in the back to help increase readership. How low. :rolleyes: Sorry if that sounds harsh, but crap journalism always irritates the p!$$ out of me.

I totally agree, esg. :yes: That was the point many of us tried to make to begin with, and it seemed to have drifted out of sight over days and weeks, lost among the sidebars, however interesting many of those also have been.

If there are facts, print 'em. If there aren't, spike the story because it's just like barn gossip.

ESG
Jan. 4, 2007, 12:47 PM
Thank you. I can't believe people are still discussing this, considering that there's actually nothing concrete to discuss. I left high school a loooooong time ago, and this reminds me all too much of the kind of crap that jealous little girls would spout about their classmates. I didn't like it or buy into it then, and I'm even less likely to now, seeing how old and crotchety I've become. :cool:

Mardi
Jan. 4, 2007, 09:15 PM
There are some things to keep in mind about the HorseSportUSA article that was written by the publisher/editor (Mr. Braddick), and that prompted this thread.

1. According to the article, Ms. Morse was asked for her side of the story for the piece before it was published. She neither confirmed nor denied the content written about her, and only questioned the timing of the article and who the sources were.

2. Most of the article recited the factual timeline of the team selection, and the aftermath of the discord present on the dressage team (i.e. USEF officials flying back and forth to Germany to calm the herd).

3. The writer himself witnessed a heated exchange between Ms. Morse and Coach Balkenhol while at ringside at Verden, two weeks before the WEG. He also noted that the same exchange drew the attention of stewards, other riders and spectators.

4. The writer held back the publication date of the story (after the WEG issue) as to not diminish the story of our team winning the bronze medal. This was against the recommendations of some of the magazine's readers who knew that a story was being prepared, and who felt that the story needed to be told, and soon.

5. The USET Code of Conduct's enforcement policies have been strengthened because of the USET/Dressage events that transpired before, during and after the WEG.

I doubt that Mr. Braddick (whom I have never met, nor spoken with) would spend the potential revenue space in his magazine for a piece that had no backbone. The article was refreshing not just for the story it told, but because someone decided to tell it.

canyonoak
Jan. 4, 2007, 09:32 PM
If someone asks you, "When did you last hit your wife. Mr. Brown?" it might be best to neither confirm nor deny and merely ask who the sources of such a question/allegation might be as well as the timing of the question.

Velvet
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:07 PM
Okay, I'm seeing a lot of this lately. I was always taught that when it is a person's name, there is an apostrophe followed by an "s" to make the word possessive. If there is an "s" because it is plural, THEN there is no apostrophe and "s" after the word.

Where are the Grammar patrol officers hiding? (Not picking on any one person, but I've seen it a lot lately and don't have my E.B. White grammar books handy--and I don't trust most internet sources anymore except of course the COTH grammar police. ;) )

Mardi
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:23 PM
If someone asks you, "When did you last hit your wife. Mr. Brown?" it might be best to neither confirm nor deny and merely ask who the sources of such a question/allegation might be as well as the timing of the question.

If Mr. Brown had never hit his wife, why would he ask for the source of the allegation ?

ESG
Jan. 4, 2007, 11:33 PM
Maybe so he can go out and kick said source's ass, for spouting bull$h!t? :p

C'mon, Mardi - give over. Braddick, no matter his journalistic credentials, blew this one in a major way. And yes, I do think he'd "take up space" in his own magazine, if no one else paid for it. Let's face it - there's not that much left over, after the RE ads, now is there? :p

Adamantane
Jan. 5, 2007, 12:34 AM
I doubt that Mr. Braddick (whom I have never met, nor spoken with) would spend the potential revenue space in his magazine for a piece that had no backbone.

OK, then where's the backbone?:confused:

Atlantis
Jan. 5, 2007, 09:08 AM
Originally Posted by canyonoak
If someone asks you, "When did you last hit your wife. Mr. Brown?" it might be best to neither confirm nor deny and merely ask who the sources of such a question/allegation might be as well as the timing of the question.

If Mr. Brown had never hit his wife, why would he ask for the source of the allegation ?

Perhaps because such an accusation would be shocking, to an innocent person?

Eclectic Horseman
Jan. 5, 2007, 09:29 AM
OK, then where's the backbone?:confused:

I have noted a considerable amount of beating around the bush when it comes to publishing negative facts--even when undeniably true. This is undoubtedly due to fear of litigation. I don't know whether international level equestrians are considered "public figures" or not. If they are not, then a slander or libel suit could be brought quite easily in the United States.

As an example, this year at the World dressage forum, a German reporter asked Sjef Jansen some inappropriate questions and made very rude comments in front of a room full of spectators. This was undoubtedly recorded on video and or audio tape. And yet, the different dressage publications varied widely in how they reported on this incident. Dressage Today gave it one line in its published report and conspicuously didn't give the name of the rude reporter nor the publication that employed her. This was talked about on another thread, which quoted European publications that reported this incident in detail.

Finding the truth from published reports has gotten more difficult than ever.

Adamantane
Jan. 5, 2007, 10:10 AM
... undoubtedly due to fear of litigation....As an example, this year at the World dressage forum, a German reporter asked Sjef Jansen some inappropriate questions and made very rude comments in front of a room full of spectators. This was undoubtedly recorded on video and or audio tape. And yet, the different dressage publications varied widely in how they reported on this incident. Dressage Today gave it one line in its published report and conspicuously didn't give the name of the rude reporter nor the publication that employed her. This was talked about on another thread, which quoted European publications that reported this incident in detail.

Finding the truth from published reports has gotten more difficult than ever.

Can't disagree with your conclusion and the reason for it seems plausible enough.

But it raises fresh questions, questions which may have been touched on earlier in the thread -- its been a long, strange journey :yes: -- but which I may have missed:

How has this incident been reported elsewhere? Or has it even been reported elsewhere? If it has not, why would an episode that entails a mystery and implies at least some actions far more sensational than a reporter being vicious, be ignored do you suppose? No supporting videography?

The likes of gossip columnists like Hedda Hopper, Louella Parsons or even Walter Winchell thrived for years in America on innuendo, pretty much unscathed most of the time by legal action. The National Enquirer/Star outfit even in our litigious times managed to skate by (mostly) and still remain profitable.

But isn't that the whole point: what standard of journalism does such a crew set? Inquiring minds want to know.

ESG
Jan. 5, 2007, 02:58 PM
Adamantane, I think you answered your own question, in regards to "standard of journalism". The Star, the National Enquirer, and various and sundry other supermarket tabloids would undoubtedly spin a similar tale, should they deign to cover this "story". Clearly, Mr. Braddick has resorted to this type of "journalism" to help sell his RE rag. :p

nhwr
Jan. 5, 2007, 03:15 PM
"If you can't say anything nice, come sit next to me"

If you can't imagine why someone would print innuendo and gossip, you weren't just born yesterday, you were born very late last night :lol:

Speculation about someone's motivations (or lack of motivations) is proof of nothing.

ESG
Jan. 5, 2007, 03:33 PM
If you can't imagine why someone would print innuendo and gossip, you weren't just born yesterday, you were born very late last night :lol:


nhwr, I KNOW I loff you! :D

Adamantane
Jan. 5, 2007, 07:12 PM
"If you can't say anything nice, come sit next to me"

If you can't imagine why someone would print innuendo and gossip, you weren't just born yesterday, you were born very late last night :lol:

Speculation about someone's motivations (or lack of motivations) is proof of nothing.

So rather than for me to sort back through this lengthy thread, just who said (without sarcasm)they couldn't imagine why someone would print innuendo and gossip?

Inquiring minds want to know.:yes:

nhwr
Jan. 5, 2007, 08:52 PM
So rather than for me to sort back through this lengthy thread, just who said (without sarcasm)they couldn't imagine why someone would print innuendo and gossip?

Inquiring minds want to know.:yes:
There are some things to keep in mind about the HorseSportUSA article that was written by the publisher/editor (Mr. Braddick), and that prompted this thread.

1. According to the article, Ms. Morse was asked for her side of the story for the piece before it was published. She neither confirmed nor denied the content written about her, and only questioned the timing of the article and who the sources were.

2. Most of the article recited the factual timeline of the team selection, and the aftermath of the discord present on the dressage team (i.e. USEF officials flying back and forth to Germany to calm the herd).

3. The writer himself witnessed a heated exchange between Ms. Morse and Coach Balkenhol while at ringside at Verden, two weeks before the WEG. He also noted that the same exchange drew the attention of stewards, other riders and spectators.

4. The writer held back the publication date of the story (after the WEG issue) as to not diminish the story of our team winning the bronze medal. This was against the recommendations of some of the magazine's readers who knew that a story was being prepared, and who felt that the story needed to be told, and soon.

5. The USET Code of Conduct's enforcement policies have been strengthened because of the USET/Dressage events that transpired before, during and after the WEG.

I doubt that Mr. Braddick (whom I have never met, nor spoken with) would spend the potential revenue space in his magazine for a piece that had no backbone. The article was refreshing not just for the story it told, but because someone decided to tell it.I was responding to the way Mardi strung "facts" together and the way Mardi chose to interpret the "information" (which is nothing more than recycled gossip, IMO) she/he had.

It irks me that it appears that the steward might have preferred to use the back channel to communicate than rather do their job or that the writer of the article decided to write an article with smoke and mirrors. As I have said from the outset, if there was a problem, there should have been a yellow card given. And if there was no card given, there was no problem worth mentioning, end of (factual) story :yes:

Mardi
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:29 AM
I was responding to the way Mardi strung "facts" together and the way Mardi chose to interpret the "information" (which is nothing more than recycled gossip, IMO) she/he had.:

All I did was go back to the article and then summarize what was discussed in it.

I'm curious about a few things though. You seem to believe his entire article is gossip. Do you mean that none of what he wrote is true ? Or that it's hearsay ?

Do you have reason to doubt that Mr. Braddick actually contacted Ms. Morse and asked for her side of the story ?

Are you aware of a different sequence of events in the timeline he provided of the qualification process ? Is it just plan wrong the way he described them ?

Do you have reason to doubt that Mr. Braddick didn't witness a heated exchange between Ms. Morse and Coach Balkenhol at Verden ? Do you believe he was somewhere else at the time ? Or what he saw, and what others saw too, was misunderstood ?

Do you have reason to doubt that USEF has changed its Code of Conduct policies for riders on the USET ? Did they not do that ? Or did they do it, but not for the reasons Mr. Braddick wrote about ?

I'd like to find out what parts of his article are not accurate. Do you or does someone else have info that contradicts what he reported ? If so, let's get it out on the table so we can be fair to both Mr. Braddick and Ms. Morse.

canyonoak
Jan. 6, 2007, 01:10 AM
<<I'd like to find out what parts of his article are not accurate. Do you or does someone else have info that contradicts what he reported ? If so, let's get it out on the table so we can be fair to both Mr. Braddick and Ms. Morse.>>


It is a bit difficult to see how your main motive is to be 'fair' to anyone, let alone Mr. Braddick or Ms. Morse.

nhwr
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:48 AM
It seems to me that Mr. Braddick attempts to portray himself as the hard hitting, investigative reporter at ring side when who he is, in fact, is the editor and publisher of HorseSportUSA!, a magazine with the primary focus of selling real estate and expensive toys to people in Florida. The article in question is filled with a lot of facts, KB's & KK's bios, scores of other riders on the team, even a discussion of the Australian team interlaced with a lot of unverifiable information.

Mr. Braddick is careful to say that LM "was asked" for her reaction (though he doesn't say by whom) not that he actually questioned her. Most of the issues in this "article" are "reported" in a similar manner. There is a lot of discussion by Mr. Braddick about the timeline, who felt how for what reason and how everything was perceived by "the team" USEF and "the crowd". There is no actual description of any substance of the event in question nor is anyone willing to speak on the record about it. There are statements attributed to "many observers", reactions attributed to "the team", individual team members, even KB and USEF officials. What is missing? A direct quote from anyone. Mr. Braddick provides no verifiable sources for anything he asserts about this incident in his story. That is what makes it gossip rather than reporting.

Has USEF changed their Code of Conduct? I don't really know. If they have, the only fact regarding the change would be that it happened. You can speculate why the change was made. Your opinion as to why it happened is only that, your opinion and speculation.

So let review the facts. LM went to the WEG and did not perform brilliantly. I am not aware of any warnings or comments regarding her behavior that were issued by the stewards, the FEI, USEF, KB or her team mates. Ken Braddick, editor and publisher of HorseSportUSA!, writes an "article" for his magazine. In my opnion, he is trying to portray himself as insider to the International dressage scene. His (probable, IMO) motivation? To make himself look "connected' so he can make more money for his magazine :yes:

I am not saying that I think highly of LM. But if her conduct is a problem, it should be addressed in a substantive way, with real information, not by trash pieces in real estate rags.

kkj
Jan. 6, 2007, 12:29 PM
I am not saying that I think highly of LM. But if her conduct is a problem, it should be addressed in a substantive way, with real information, not by trash pieces in real estate rags.

I don't know what happened, but I don't assume it is untrue gossip because of the magazine in which it was reported. "Reputable" magazines like Dressage Today or Practical Horseman or the USDF or whoever, do not touch the dirt. They portray a clean sunny ideal horse world that is more like Never Neverland than any reality I have ever experienced. A lot of silly fluff articles and the like.

Moreover, while I don't take the stuff I read in Star or US or wherever as the gospel truth, there is often more than a thread of truth in the articles. Not that I give a rats a** but who was reporting that Jessica and Nick where on the rocks long before the split? There is often a lot of truth in the dirt. Sometimes the dirt is the only one with the balls to tell the truth.

I am rather certain there is an awful lot of down and dirty stuff that goes on in the horse world that does not get reported anywhere. I would welcome and read a horse magazine that did dish dirt. There probably is a good market out there for "International Horse Enquirer" or the like.

If you think the horse world operates by some ideal where bad doers automatically get yellow carded or don't win medals, I think you are pretty naive.

nhwr
Jan. 6, 2007, 01:36 PM
It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

I think back-channel communication of this nature actually perpetuate the official code of silence. It allows people to feel like "something is being done" about a possible problem when in reality nothing is. But hey, it does keep people talking. Look how long this thread has been going on :rolleyes: If what Mr. Braddick witnessed was that bad and he was concerned, he could have filed a complaint. But he didn't, so how bad could it have really been? He has a serious problem with creditability here.

Frankly, the focus of the whole discussion bothers me. I don't see it as a big deal that a rider may have a public disagreement with a coach. LM isn't known for her tact and KB isn't renown for his flexible nature ;) USEF ought have known what they were getting into when they put those 2 together. But really, who cares? It concerns me more that something might be rotten in Denmark. Who is looking out for the horse's wellbeing in all of this? If a rider is being rough with their horse, they ought to be cited. If a rider isn't cited, if no one is willing to speak on the record, there are a couple of possibilities as to what really happened. 1) Nothing 2) Something. If something truly happened, you'd think that KB, with all his concern for horses in the dressage world, would have filed the protest himself. I have a hard time respecting or giving any creditability to a self righteous spectator like Mr Braddick who will talk and talk and talk but essentially do nothing.

egontoast
Jan. 6, 2007, 02:15 PM
I don't see it as a big deal that a rider may have a public disagreement with a coach.

Yes, exactly.

kkj
Jan. 6, 2007, 04:58 PM
The idiot doth (sometimes) speaketh the truth.

Anyway, he is a reporter, not an official. He can just go about reporting and not need to intervene. Reporters don't pick up guns and join the war you know.

Maybe KB should have done something. If it went down like reported, certainly the officials should have done something. Still often for whatever reason, nothing is done.

siegi b.
Jan. 6, 2007, 05:22 PM
Quote by kkj - "I would welcome and read a horse magazine that did dish dirt."

What is so good about reading "dirt"? You would rather read a bunch of trash alluding to all kinds of bad things done by the US Team and then figure out at some later point in time if there was any truth to it???? Is that really what you're saying?

Oh well.......

kkj
Jan. 6, 2007, 05:41 PM
No Siegi I don't mean dirt to the degree of like Star but more personal stuff and gossipy stuff sure. I like that junk, and I freely admit it. (I do think there would be a good market for it, but remember I am the one who wants to see a dressage version of Dancing with the Stars on TV) I like to know who is dating whom and who punched out whom at the ingate. Show me pics of the riders partying in Vegas or wherever. Let me know who is stepping out on his wife with the working student.

On a more serious note, I like the articles in Horse International. Although they are not trash, they are more indepth and not just fluff and overly simplified articles like the popular US horse magazines. I want a little more grit and a lot more meat.

nhwr
Jan. 6, 2007, 06:13 PM
Anyway, he is a reporter, not an official. He can just go about reporting and not need to intervene. Reporters don't pick up guns and join the war you know. Nope, he is not a reporter. He is the editor and publisher of the magazine. That speaks volumes.

Ken Braddick threw any journalistic standard for that piece out the window. That may not bother you. It does cause me to question his motives and the veracity of his claims.

Let every eye negotiate for itself and trust no agent :yes:

Mardi
Jan. 6, 2007, 10:52 PM
[QUOTE=canyonoak;2119442

It is a bit difficult to see how your main motive is to be 'fair' to anyone, let alone Mr. Braddick or Ms. Morse.[/QUOTE]

I have no axe to grind, no agenda, no ulterior motives, really I don't.

There are many posts here that are against Mr. Braddick's article, for various reasons. And some people liked it, also for various reasons.

What I am looking for is someone to actually dispute the accuracy of what he reported. But so far no one has come forth (yet). No one has said "I was there and it actually happened this way."

Right now many of the posts say that what he wrote is gossip, poor journalism, and his magazine is a "rag", etc.

So to be fair, if someone has info that disputes the veracity of what he reported, I'd like to know (wouldn't you ?), so we can get the other side of the story. And if the new info proves that his article was just a sham, then that's what it was.

This would be fair to Ms. Morse, in that someone may have info that exonerates her in some way.
It also would be fair to Mr. Braddick, because right now, people are calling his reporting mere gossip when no one (so far) has proven his article to be inaccurate.

canyonoak
Jan. 6, 2007, 11:13 PM
<<This would be fair to Ms. Morse, in that someone may have info that exonerates her in some way.>>

I dont think one has to be Sigmund Freud to see that you believe Leslie Morse has some need to be 'exonerated' in the first place.

Therefore, you have a built-in perception, let alone agenda, in keeping this ridiculous thread going.

I do not believe anyone needs to come forward with anything.
I find this entire thread distasteful--not because it is negative, but because it is based on insubstantiation, innuendo , hearsay and no facts.

The Joe McCarthy school of reality.

I read Mr. Braddick's piece and thought--what a load of piffle!
You read the same piece and apparently thought there were enough nuggets of truth that it be incredibly important to air and re-air...and re-air..the parts of the article.

potayto potah-to.

Please notice I am not saying you are wrong and I am right.
I am merely saying: enough already.


This entire thread belongs on horsespy.com

ESG
Jan. 7, 2007, 11:02 AM
No, canyonoak - it belongs on the "locked" list. But since that's not my call, I think I'll just leave. nhwr stated my opinion better than I could have; I'll let her comments stand for me, and vacate. :D

nhwr
Jan. 7, 2007, 11:24 AM
I don't know if Ken Braddick was even actually present when this "incident" supposedly occurred. Do you? Your whole premise here is because this guy says it, it must be disproved. That is a bunch of crap as far as I am concerned. The tone of his article, the fact that he tells a story but none of the players who were known to be there are directly quoted in his piece, demonstrate to me that he has an agenda that lacks credibility.

Don't take lack of response to your request as proof of your point. It isn't. You may choose to believe whatever you read and reward this kind of "journalism" by investing effort behind it. Many people won't. If someone like KB, KK, a team member, a USET official, a steward who was present wants to speak on the record about this incident, I am all ears. Otherwise, this horse has flatlined, as far as I am concerned.

Adamantane
Jan. 7, 2007, 05:55 PM
Who knows if this thread should end or not.

Does seem as if the thread has hardened into two camps, but I don't think it is exactly a trainwreck since the people involved are being civil. (Kudos all around.) Maybe we simply must agree to disagree, and drop it until there is more information. (Last I checked, no other publication or site who could be found in a search engine news query, so far has elected to address the issue.)

But since our thread remains open for the moment, I want to follow up on the question of remembering the Mexican barn helpers (documented or not documented; don't ask, don't tell) where we board.

Split the proceeds for the lesson I missed over the holiday between the two of them when we finally crossed paths yesterday, Jan 6, the last day of Christmas in the part of the world whose calendar never changed.

The reaction was one of puzzlement -- makes me think nobody ever has remembered them at Christmas before :eek: -- but our appreciation for the care our gently aging Arab receives is sincere, and I am glad this thread along the way reminded me to do what was long deserved and overdue. Hope if nothing else that they send it to relatives back in Mexico to brighten someone's day.

So something good came of our discussions anyway.:yes:

Eclectic Horseman
Jan. 8, 2007, 11:29 AM
It is published on Dressagedaily.com

A bit vague, actually. Does not respond to the factual allegations at all. :no:

Velvet
Jan. 8, 2007, 01:12 PM
Still not sure if any of it was true or not, just as most gossip and slander about horse trainers is usually a fabrication by an annoyed party. If it is true, the appropriate people involved have to take action. (As in this case, where the USEF and any other parties should be stepping up and disclosing any and all facts, and taking any actions necessary to clear up the matter.)

There's another thread out here by Horsedances accusing Americans of behaving a certain way, based on one experience. He doesn't even know for sure if the person's reaction was based on his actions. This is what leads to damaging gossip and feeds the rumor mill. Seems we American's do love one thing, and that's gossip. Doesn't have to be true, but we all seem to take it as gospel--never questioning the source. (Just look at the rags on the shelf at the grocery store.)

I've seen heard and witnessed too many situations where a person is black balled because of one other person's comments. If it's not validated by other people, but it's only validated by more rumors (which usually stem from the same source), judge things for yourself. Don't take their opinions. Don't listen to the gossip. Go ahead and meet the person. Watch the person ride (in warm up rings, in this case) at shows. Watch them ride at home. Just don't believe everything you hear. Many people make up stories to get attention. Or they skew the situation to involve something that they know will make it sound more exciting, nasty, or downright evil just to take revenge. And often the situation was completely benign, but that person was on the losing end or in the wrong, and they just don't want to have to accept that view of their own behavior.

Judge individuals on facts you can uncover yourself. The media is often being wagged by the tail, rather than being the tail that wags the dog. :yes:

Horsedances
Jan. 8, 2007, 01:44 PM
Did you notice that at the last World Cup Competitions, Sunrise (Imke), Ollright (Laurens) and Gribaldy (Edward) looked happier than ever and scored higher than ever.

OK, shoot........ what the reason could be. In casu let start the Gossip.

Theo

Mozart
Jan. 8, 2007, 01:45 PM
Did you notice that at the last World Cup Competitions, Sunrise (Imke), Ollright (Laurens) and Gribaldy (Edward) looked happier than ever and scored higher than ever.

OK, shoot........ what the reason could be. In casu let start the Gossip.

Theo

Magic mushrooms. Toad licking. Or maybe both.

Adamantane
Jan. 8, 2007, 02:19 PM
It is published on Dressagedaily.com

A bit vague, actually. Does not respond to the factual allegations at all. :no:

But the article -- some kind soul sent me a link: http://www.dressagedaily.com/2007/dd_200701/dd_20070108-morse.html (http://www.dressagedaily.com/2007/dd_200701/dd_20070108-morse.html) -- does note that "A call put into USEF confirmed that there was no one there who supported or contributed to any of the so called facts which were written." So there's an official denial, fwiw. And this very thread made the article!

Incidentally, in case anybody was confused, since several (but not all) of the posters here are in common to both threads, a post or two back I alluded to some comments that properly belonged on the other one. But it's all upbeat, so what the heck, I'll just leave it. :lol: (Heck, early one afternoon last week I zoned out while tacking up and a moment later noticed that I'd plopped the saddle pad down backwards, not too much worse than two weeks before, when I tried it upside-down. All pretty standard stuff during the onset of senility.:yes:)

When people repeat things until they take on a life of their own, it really is more damaging than hostile barn gossip. (Always amazing to learn astonishing things people have said about you, when you have a couple drinks with people who were there when it was said. :eek:) Guess the big difference is that as long as folks know the original source of the tales, they can and do calibrate their truth, or lack of truth. When they don't know, as ancient Roman politicians supposedly said -- bet it sounds so much better in Latin -- some of the s*** sticks.

It's good to see things are lightening up here a bit.

Kathy Johnson
Jan. 8, 2007, 03:24 PM
A call put into USEF confirmed that there was no one there who supported or contributed to any of the so called facts which were written." So there's an official denial...

No, that's an official in denial. They neither confirm nor deny, but nobody at USEF said anything to the press! That's all they care about.

Eclectic Horseman
Jan. 8, 2007, 03:47 PM
No, that's an official in denial. They neither confirm nor deny, but nobody at USEF said anything to the press! That's all they care about.

Yes, I read that as basically "no comment." And not a particularly enthusiastic one, at that.

STF
Jan. 8, 2007, 04:50 PM
Why does everyone care so much?

egontoast
Jan. 8, 2007, 05:26 PM
Why do people care?

Because they loooove gossip , especially if it fits with what they already think about someone.

STF
Jan. 8, 2007, 05:36 PM
Why do people care?

Because they loooove gossip , especially if it fits with what they already think about someone.


Obviously!

MEP
Jan. 8, 2007, 05:41 PM
Why does everyone care so much?

Because the team riders represent us.

And, as others have said before, I don't care at all what team members do in their private lives, but I do care how they behave and treat their horses when they are representing us and if there is a pattern in private training, it may show in public. With that said, I'd say that we must keep in mind that we each have opinions and interpretations about what is appropriate - and while we may subscribe to the same general principles, we do not necessarily agree either on the details nor on what we think we see. Remember the experiments where an incident is staged and "witnesses" reports give widely varying accounts.

So, while I don't want to pay too much attention to gossip and innuendo, the reality is that we all have inquiring minds and seek out information. And, I'll say again, if there really was a problem in the warm-up at WEG, then something official should have been done, either there on-site or in the form of an inquiry within the team.

While it must be a tremendous thrill to be on the team, it does mean that an individual's behavior is under intense scrutiny. So, this is the responsibility side of the privelege of being on the team. I would hope that neither the team members nor observers/reporters would abuse their priveleged positions, at the same time realistically knowing that sometimes competitors cross those elusive lines, and that sometimes observers/reporters exagerate reality or have axes to grind.

STF
Jan. 8, 2007, 05:46 PM
And nobody every loses their temper or acts up at any other shows? No other upper level rider has ever had a bad day. There is more than one side to every story, hell there are 3 and 4.
Dont believe all you read unless you were there to witness it first hand.
This industry LOVES gossip and LOVES to beat people up (or down, I should say). Someone could have mistaken something very simple and rewrote it into a nightmare of an article to get attention.
Unless we were there, actually witnessed this behavior and then KNEW the details behind the behavior, we have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE another.

Eclectic Horseman
Jan. 9, 2007, 09:05 AM
Unless we were there, actually witnessed this behavior and then KNEW the details behind the behavior, we have NO RIGHT TO JUDGE another.

Spoken like a member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. :winkgrin:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

ESG
Jan. 9, 2007, 09:12 AM
Spoken like a member of the Roman Catholic hierarchy. :winkgrin:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Who are the world's best at keeping secrets. :winkgrin:

STF
Jan. 9, 2007, 09:32 AM
I am " a papered Cathoilic" :lol:

But it did sound like a episode of "Rome" on TV! :lol:

shoos
Jan. 9, 2007, 09:34 AM
Geez I think I just witnessed a public lynching. :rolleyes:

pophorse
Jan. 9, 2007, 09:45 AM
The truth is that Leslie's note on Dressagedaily fails to address several key allegations made on the article. Nonetheless I believe this whole uproar has served its point by having her address the issue in such a public way; I'm sure from now on she will be more careful about the way she does things in public, either as a part of the US team or not.

Adamantane
Jan. 9, 2007, 10:30 AM
...this whole uproar has served its point by having her address the issue in such a public way; I'm sure from now on she will be more careful about the way she does things in public, either as a part of the US team or not.

Couldn't agree more.:yes: You must be psychic or read over my shoulder a PM I wrote on that very point!:winkgrin:

And that, I suspect, is all there is in the short-medium term that will come of this. Perhaps we can draw some inferences down the road based on selections for future teams. Whatever the situation here, one blunder on anyone's part that caused no serious and lasting damage, should not be career-ending. Maybe the bit of self-examination it has prompted for all competitors will prove beneficial.

Is there any of us who hasn't at some point profited, though perhaps at the time painfully, from some kind of unexpected wake-up call? (I got one almost twenty years ago that privately bruised my ego a bit but was otherwise harmless, yet it led me to gradually and completely revamp for the better my style in my professional life, something that paid off for everyone in the long run.)

abls18
Jan. 9, 2007, 10:25 PM
I am behind the trend, but I think I've read enough to catch-up, and honestly, doesn't everyone have something better to do? I am not saying that, if in fact she did "rough up" her horse, that it is at all or ever right, but people throwing out claims of hearing that she piaffed a horse an hour and that the horse was all lathered, that's ridiculous! Does anyone ever wonder what has happened in the past, that due to technology and press, we have no clue ever happened? It is disrespectful to make claims about someone in a business like horse-business (or any professional), where a bunch of people with nothing better to do than talk about professionals and their techniques, good or bad, can make or break someone. If anyone ever wonders about the degradation of our sport and its morals, look at all the people who gossip and put down others, and not even when the riders lose, but also when they win.

I agree that Leslie didn't address the claims, and if she wants to clear up her name, she needs to be straight about everything. I am curious to know what it is exactly that she did. And one more thing, you can say what you want about any one of the team members, but it isn't fair. In part, because, honestly how many of us know what it is like to have to ride in that type of atmosphere, and have something like the responsibility of your team and country, when you are heading into the ring? That is a lot of pressure, and shouldn't we display more respect to our country's riders, instead of worrying about their night-life? And if she did party too much, I would assume that a less than glamorous score would be retribution enough for her.
That’s all I have to say. I just think people should look more into the facts, if there are any, and maybe worry more about future of the sport, than who did what and when.

wildpony
Jan. 29, 2007, 11:47 AM
Unfortunately, this thread appears to have taken a personal and unproductive track. It seems helpful to discuss our definitions of abuse in the warm-up and the duties of Technical Delegates or even how we would like the system to change, but to attack a person's personality, looks, sexuality and style is cruel and vindictive. It seems that people have used this opportunity to bring up any and every negative encounter they have had with Leslie Morse and that is a shame, because the topics of welfare of our horses, politics at the big shows and procedural policies are lost along the way.

Adamantane
Jan. 29, 2007, 12:39 PM
Unfortunately, this thread appears to have taken a personal and unproductive track. It seems helpful to discuss our definitions of abuse in the warm-up and the duties of Technical Delegates or even how we would like the system to change, but to attack a person's personality, looks, sexuality and style is cruel and vindictive. It seems that people have used this opportunity to bring up any and every negative encounter they have had with Leslie Morse and that is a shame, because the topics of welfare of our horses, politics at the big shows and procedural policies are lost along the way.

Who can disagree with this, WP? I hope you truly are a new poster rather than using an alter, because there is no reason whatever for you to keep such sensible remarks at arm's length from your identity.

That the thread has wound down of its own accord is a good sign, but I'm glad it remains open for the sake of the occasional constructive comment like yours.:yes: