The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 103
  1. #21
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    We can certainly restrict it to felonies having to with horses.



  2. #22
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    They are good thoughts and valid points.This sort of the way a Leadership Council works instead of a Board of Directors.



  3. #23
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    You can print or download the form we will need to complete from the Rules Link at the USEF Web Site.

    It Requires
    Rule # Chapter # Article # Title

    Type of Rule Change - Standard or Extraordinary if the latter the reason

    Is this a change to a rule passed in the past two years? Yes No

    is this an ADD (new Rule) Delete (existing Rule)
    or Change to read

    Exact words for Rule or Change

    Proponent Contact


    Intent of the Proposal


    Effective Date:

    Signature of Proponent Date submitted.



  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan. 31, 2000
    Location
    OvertheHillBillies Land, where PD\'s roam & thongs are dependable
    Posts
    1,345

    Default

    People who applied for judge, steward, course desginer used to be listed in the magazine. X amount of time was given for people to reply concerning said individual. It was stated above their names, all information would be confidential. Why not have that same thing for people who are going for reinstatement? Then the membership is actively involved.



  5. #25
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    As I understand it this is simply a Rule Change which does not change any procedures just gives the Members the right to be Notified and to submit their opinions and evidence that it is based on in writing to the Hearing Committee. And any members who wish to attend the Hearing may be heard.

    Another Rule Change can also be submitted to ban those found guilty for life.

    A third could be submitted regarding being found guilty multiple times for drug abuse through the Drug Testing procedure. For example a three times and your out.

    Lastly, we have talked about a procedure where we could put into the search engine a name to see how many violations there have been for whatever cause. This would surely help show managers who could check and see if a person who gave them a non-negotiable payment had a history of doing so. I don't know if that's a Rule Change or a procedure change that just requires the cooperation of the Technical department.

    It would include only information that was already public record having been published in Equestrian.

    I don't think any of these suggestions could lead any more "elitism" than we already have in the system.

    A totally separate issue would be "sexual offenders".

    Radio Talk I think we could suggest that and it could be included in the rule change.

    Once we get something of a consensus of opinion we can put all the issues to a poll vote. I think this is being constructive and proactive contrary to the opinion of many who disagree and like the status quo.



  6. #26
    Join Date
    Mar. 8, 2004
    Posts
    191

    Default

    It would nice to be able to cross check a person for previous violations. We have the technology. Maybe only posting in Equestrian is outdated? Snowbird, you may not hear it often, but I would like to say thank you for your time and effort, as well as War Admiral, and other busy people.



  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar. 8, 2004
    Posts
    191

    Default

    Here's the USHJA trainer link...


    http://www.ushja.org/searchTrainer.cfm

    Here's the disclaimer:

    "

    Search our Trainers Database for a trainer close to you.

    TRAINERS DIRECTORY DISCLAIMER

    The USHJA Trainers Directory is compiled and published by the United States Hunter Jumper Association ("USHJA") as a reference source of demographic and professional information on member hunter/jumper/equitation trainers in the United States. The only permitted uses of this directory are for (i) the personal convenience of individual members of the general public to facilitate quick access to professional information and location about member trainers and (ii) for individual trainers to view their personal listings or those of colleagues for professional purposes such as client referrals.

    The USHJA reserves the right and hereby provides notice that it will be monitoring use of this website for compliance with the permitted use described above. Neither the USHJA Trainers Directory nor any of its data, listings or other constituent elements may be downloaded, republished, resold, duplicated or "scraped", in whole or in part, for any purpose other than the personal uses permitted above.

    Disclaimer of Warranties and Liabilities

    The material included in this web site is for informational purposes only. The USHJA undertakes reasonable efforts to keep the information contained in the Trainers Directory accurate and current. However, because the USHJA compiles such information from the individual trainers choosing to participate and may experience reporting and processing errors or delays, it makes no representations or warranties of any nature with respect to the information contained in this Web site including, without limitation, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for any particular purpose.

    The inclusion of a trainer’s professional information in this directory does not imply USHJA referral, endorsement or recommendation of that trainer, nor does the omission of any individual indicate USHJA disapproval. The USHJA shall not be liable to any individual(s) for any decision made or action taken in reliance on the information obtained from this site nor for any damages, claims or actions resulting directly or indirectly from its use."



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    I'm way too tired & brain dead to contribute anything sensible here tonight other than to bump it up in hopes someone else has something smart to say!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c.../icon_razz.gif

    I'll sleep on it overnight & hopefully be more sensible on the morrow.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief



  9. #29
    Join Date
    Oct. 15, 2005
    Location
    Chesapeake, Virginia
    Posts
    2,996

    Default

    Well War Admiral I don't know if what I have to say is smart but I definately have an opinion http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c.../icon_wink.gif

    I would be thrilled to have something in place to help others in the future. And with all do respect Saddlebag I understand your concerns but feel there could be some sort of rule(?) regarding matters related to horses. I do not care if someone has smoked pot in college or whether they inhaled or not. It does not have to be a witch hunt, blackballing or the parking lot reserved for lawyers. There is a common ground that can work and it's time to put horsemanship back into this sport.

    I feel strongly about this because I HAVE been a victim in a Federal Fraud case regarding horses. I hope no one EVER has to go through 6+ years of what myself and others went through. There were dozens of victims in 7 states.....everyone called the AHSA/USEF, state associations and other horse organizations....not one group would help, provide guidance or even offer information. If something had been in place then there is no doubt there would have been fewer victims. No system is full proof but there has to be a better way to deal with these issues. I have stated it before and will state it here again that everyone in the Dept of Justice who was involved in this case has been in disbelief regarding the fact there is no horse association or governing body that addresses these issues and/or trys to protect its members.

    I will not pretend to say I have an exact answer to correct the problems that obviously exist but am thrilled to know there are others who feel the same and I will be more than happy to do whatever I can to make the horse industry a better, safer enviroment for our future equestrians. They deserve as much.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    May. 6, 1999
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    10,417

    Default

    I think notification wouldn't be too burdensome if it were limited to those convicted specifically of cruelty to animals AND whose suspension was directly related to cruelty (spelled out as specifically as possible so that using prohibited drugs would not trigger the process, but excessive use of the whip or use of soring agents--like ginger under the tail--would).

    Employers do background checks all the time--there are agencies which specialize in the service and I suspect they aren't that expensive. Nor would this occurance be that common (at least I would hope not).

    Moreover, doing at least SOMETHING might actually be very good PR for the organization, given the third element in its Mission Statement:

    (3) Protect and support the welfare of horses by inspecting, monitoring and testing to deter use of forbidden substances and other cruel, unsafe and/or unsportsmanlike practices and by adopting and enforcing rules to prohibit such practices.
    In fact, the last line of The Sportman's Charter is a pretty intriguing statement in light of this discussion:

    That the qualities of frankness, courage, and sincerity which mark the good sportsman in private life shall mark the discussions of his interests at a competition.
    And then there's also this clause in the Vision Statement:

    ...promoting the pursuit of excellence from the grass roots to the Olympic Games, based on a foundation of fair, safe competition and the welfare of its human and equine athletes...
    At the very least, I'd suggest including in your proposal language that connects these statements to your own goals.
    Sportponies Unlimited
    Athletic Thoroughbred crosses for the highly motivated, smaller rider.



  11. #31
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
    People who applied for judge, steward, course desginer used to be listed in the magazine. X amount of time was given for people to reply concerning said individual. It was stated above their names, all information would be confidential. Why not have that same thing for people who are going for reinstatement? Then the membership is actively involved.
    I agree that this is the most straightforward, easy method. Why not list everyone applying for reinstatement? Then each member could decide how he/she feels about each case, rather than assuming folks will want to only know about certain types of offenses.
    Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores



  12. #32
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 1999
    Location
    Rosehill, TX
    Posts
    6,916

    Default

    my apologies if I missed it - is there a proposal in there that would cover the fraud case - that someone convicted of fraud in the purchase or sale of horse would be suspended?
    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

    The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”



  13. #33
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 1999
    Location
    Rosehill, TX
    Posts
    6,916

    Default

    I suspect that the organization would have to institute rules regarding having trainers/coaches certified and in-good-standing before they could really enforce anything to do with who we train with and given the track record thus far of usdf trainer certification (the only one I'm familiar with) I would be opposed to that
    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

    The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”



  14. #34
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    No there isn't as yet. It seems to me that unless the USEF itself chooses to enforce some rules it just doesn't happen.

    If we can't define it and have the authority to enforce the rules there are pages of them that are useless. Just window dressing to make everyone feel good.

    We're still working on those convicted in a Court for the death of a horse. If we can define a system for that then we can consider what to do about Members in Good Standing who are sitting in jail for fraud.

    It seems to me if we have no way to prove that any rules have been broken or wiggled some anything we propose has to have a broad brush.



  15. #35
    Join Date
    Nov. 24, 2002
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    4,410

    Default

    I cannot understand why, under any circumstances, if someone was suspended for the crimes that we are all speaking of here, were convicted in and/or plead guilty in a criminal court, that these people are permitted to EVER apply for reinstatement. Let the USEF take a page from major league baseball, Pete Rose ain't ever gettin' back in and all he did was gamble on baseball. (actually his big sin was lying about it). Why instead of the membership trying to find a one size fits the people that piss us off because they do something so abborhent that it defies definition, do we not just say if anyone at anytime conspires to or assists in killing or injuring an equine for no other reason than profit, add insurance fraud and whatever else legalese you wish to throw in there, they can never ever apply for reinstatement, be on a recognized show ground, etc, ad nauseum? We are not, unlike the criminal justice system, bound in a way to consider this person rehabilitated, we are a private, member funded organization that may refuse or expell members for violations of not only rules, but moral violations as well. why on earth does this organization even need to consider this? Was it that the rules when written could not imagine a crime this awful? How we know, why we can only imagine (after all, are not these kind of greed crimes often committed by people who least need the money) who is apparent as well. Just as I believe that there are some people so evil that they should not get out of prison, there are some people so evil that they should be excluded from the club. Let them go work at a slaughterhouse, lable them as the executioners they are, but reinstate them as if they had committed a crime that involved killing horses in a brutal fashion for nothing more than money to go on to the next victim? Well, hell, lets just forget excesive use of the whip, do away with the vet box at three days and forget about police-ing the warm up arena to look for horses that are "lunged to death", sort of brings all that into a new perspective. So forget notifying the membership, seems we already know. Change the rule that allows that person to ever apply for reinstatement. A convicted felon (and it doesn't matter what the felony was) can never vote or carry a firearm. Ever. So if a person was 21, and got convicted of writing a bad check for $450, when they are a far wiser 40 yr old, they cannot vote, or protect their family or their home.. And the USEF wonders why they have trouble attracting members. They can justify the mileage rule, they can justify the helmet rule, but I can see nothing but a negative impact on our sport from reinstating vile, heartless individuals with no morals or concience.



  16. #36
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    2ndyrgal I couldn't agree with you more.Our problem is how to convince the powers that be that money is not who we all are?



  17. #37
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    Yo! Where are my idealists and my rebels. Where are the youngsters learning about law nd order?
    Have we already given up this quest to write Rule Changes that satisfy the needs of the "grassroots" members or should I just start selling ribbons on Ebay?



  18. #38
    Join Date
    Dec. 16, 1999
    Location
    Northern California
    Posts
    313

    Default

    http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c...n_rolleyes.gif You guys!!! There already IS a rule about reciprocity in cases of people convicted in a court of law on an animal cruelty charge. It has been there for YEARS, and is enforced when an appropriate case comes up. I don't have my rulebook handy, but the gist of the rule is...Any person who is convicted of an act toward a horse that would likely be deemed abuse, should it have occured at a USEF show, is automatically called before the Hearing Committee, and that case is reviewed. If the Hearing Panel feels that the respondant's actions would be a violation of USEF rules, then, the Hearing Committe imposes such penalties and/or suspensions as it deems fit.

    I was on the Hearing Committee for quite a few years, and sat on such a case...and a fairly high profile one at that.

    Now, I guess all you folks think that I am soft on crime, pro-horse abuse, and consider fraud to be an industry standard, http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c...on_biggrin.gif but really guys...that ain't the case at all. What I object to is vigilante emotional uprisings on the COTH BB threads that violate the civil rights of persons who you folks decide are "the bad guys". In most cases, they ARE the "bad guys", but that doesn't make it right for the general membership of USEF to usurp the power and legality of the USEF hearing process. Especially, when you do not have all the facts of a case at your disposal. Making a judgement about a person's actions, and then demanding that the Federation act on your version of justice is, IMO, wrong, and violates the whole notion of fairness.

    The USEF is not a co-op organization, ruled by popular opinion. We members don't get to "vote" on who we like or don't like, and decide if someone should be in our "club". Now...just suppose this rule passed to let members influence who can or cannot be let back in "our club". How on earth is a Hearing panel going to know if that flurry of letters or that petition is anything other than a hate campaign generated by a few "disgruntled" folks with an ax to grind? The Hearing process relys on facts and proof in making their decisions. Vigilante justice is fueled by emotion and gossip. I just choose to support the estalished legal hearing process...even if it means that a few "bad guys" slip through the cracks.

    And BTW...even though I am one of those evil, abusive, dishonest, money grubbing "trainers" you love to flay on these threads, I do agree that the issue of fraud in horse sales is a very serious one, and needs to be addressed. Fortunately, as we speak, people within the USHJA are working on this issue, and also on the issue of trainer certification, which also has become extremely important. It may take a bit of time, but I believe that we will shortly be seeing rules and policies that will offer protection to both consumers (clients and buyers) and trainers/agents alike. I am not going to spend the next hour writing about my feelings on this topic, but if any of you would like to talk to me about this, feel free to PT or email me, and I will be happy to pontificate!



  19. #39
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2004
    Location
    Virginia
    Posts
    229

    Default

    A convicted felon (and it doesn't matter what the felony was) can never vote or carry a firearm. Ever.

    Actually, this is not true. A convicted felon may apply to have their voting rights and firearm rights re-instated, and such rights may be granted by the Governor.
    ------------------------------
    \"I ride because the partnership with horses fills my mind with perfections of cadence and rhythmic excitement and intensities of communion.\" Dick Francis




  20. #40
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    saddlebag I have no doubt that those few involved directly with the USEF are all individually very good people with very good intentions. You dedicate a lot of your personal time to be useful which is gratefully appreciated. It is that collectively you all seem to forget that there is a big world out here that feels disenfranchised.

    [quote]The USEF is not a co-op organization, ruled by popular opinion. We members don't get to "vote" on who we like or don't like,[/quote

    Exactly, and that is the pity of it. The total lack of communication in advance of decisions and the process of making decision is kept secret until it is finally announced as a done deal.
    and decide if someone should be in our "club". Now...just suppose this rule passed to let members influence who can or cannot be let back in "our club".
    I don't think I would ever be a convicted felon convicted by a court; and I trust the vast majority would also never do such a thing. The point saddlebag is that we are working on a definition that will carefully exclude only those.

    As for the private club, it is that now. The thing the rest of us are needed for, is our money and our opions are ignored. Edits are passed from on high for rules about which we know nothing. The Staff at USEF get's more opportunity to modify and propose rules than we as members get the opportunity to discuss.

    [quote]How on earth is a Hearing panel going to know if that flurry of letters or that petition is anything other than a hate campaign generated by a few "disgruntled" folks with an ax to grind?[quote]

    That's there job as a quasi-legal group. Especially since there is no appeal to their decisions.How the Hearing Committee will know is by utilizing the methods of evidence as the courts.(Zoning Boards-Planning Boards). Ask for copies of entry forms from every show the past three years attended by these persons recognozed as students and boarders. The name of the students are the property of USEF. Ask for financial disclosure analyzed by a furensic accountant.The Hearing Committee has a lot of tools they choose not to use for some people and which are used to penalize other people.

    I think those that have been penalized with punitive fines would feel much better if they saw others treated equally harshly or else then treat everyone with equal leniency.

    The Hearing process relys on facts and proof in making their decisions. Vigilante justice is fueled by emotion and gossip. I just choose to support the estalished legal hearing process...even if it means that a few "bad guys" slip through the cracks.
    This action is not vigilatism it is activism against those whose crimes are official have been tried in a court of law and which many thousands feel equally are so heinous and self serving they should be made an example of as do other sports.

    Cases in point "Tanya Harding" she didn't do the deed hereself. "Pete Rose" and just look at the superb effort by the IOC against a banned trainer at this winter's Olympics.



Similar Threads

  1. What do you think of this proposed rule change?
    By Rel6 in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Oct. 28, 2011, 10:29 AM
  2. USEF Proposed Rule Change for Eventing - Helmets
    By Innocent Bystander in forum Eventing
    Replies: 111
    Last Post: Feb. 3, 2011, 11:00 AM
  3. Proposed rule change....USEF
    By JRG in forum Dressage
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Feb. 23, 2010, 08:34 PM
  4. Proposed USHJA rule change STINKS
    By elizuhowell in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 261
    Last Post: Dec. 7, 2009, 10:45 AM
  5. Replies: 44
    Last Post: Apr. 16, 2008, 07:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness