The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 103
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Feb. 25, 1999
    Location
    Aiken, SC
    Posts
    1,633

    Default

    Saddlebag, for heaven's sake, no one's civil rights are being infringed upon, and no powers are being usurped.

    The website and petition are there for people to read and either sign or not sign. There is absolutely no reason they should not do so. If you look at the website, you will realize this is not about one individual but rather all of the persons suspended for the horse-killings.

    I believe these cases fall into a category of their own in terms of their seriousness, and that is the impetus behind the petition, and the topic of this thread, which is a rule change proposal so that people can be INFORMED about upcoming reinstatement hearings--at least that's what the title of the thread is.

    I'm personally quite taken aback by your assumption that anyone who signs the petition, writes a letter, or does not write a post supporting PV's character and entitlement to reinstatement is a hate-crazed vigilante with an axe to grind.

    Why do you assume that people 1) have not given careful thought to their opinions; and 2) are completely unable to distinguish gossip from facts?

    I dislike vicious and unfounded gossip quite as much as anyone; however, to suggest that this is the *only* motive behind the signatures and the many well-thought-out opinions expressed is frankly, not credible, and borders on insulting.

    I would hope that the Hearing Committee and other USEF officials, who after all, have access to facts that we may never have, have sufficient discernment to read many varying opinions and weight them accordingly.

    I think it is equally unfair to discredit the opinions of many people by dismissing their considered thoughts and actions as gossip. That's an awfully easy way to dismiss it--but that is just your opinion, one person's read.

    I agree with the person--DMK? and others--who suggested that all of the information and discussion in this hearing (if PV does in fact apply for reinstatement) be made public. BTW, if people did have facts available to them, they might be just as reasonable and objective as the Hearing Committee. Why not assume that?

    Quite a number of national sports organizations have codes of conduct for membership that are very stringent regarding behavior which will result in expulsion.
    Tinwhistle Farm



  2. #42
    Join Date
    Nov. 24, 2002
    Location
    Northern KY
    Posts
    4,493

    Default

    Ok, I am aware that felons may apply to have rights reinstated. So, does that apply to all felons as in I killed dear old granny for the money in a horrible and grusome manner, may I carry a gun again please? Or, I wrote a hot check when I was 20 for $450, or hey, that stuff really was for personal use, I just have a bad habit? I do not think that the right to apply for reinstatement to carry a firearm applies regardless of the crime. And we are talking about rights taken away by the government and restored the same way. Not a membership to an organization. Tonya Harding will never again be a member of or compete in a USFSA competition, and Pete Rose will not ever be a member of MLB and probably not eligible for the Hall of Fame. And no physical harm was done to anyone or anything(if you believe ms harding had no knowledge). It's a bit like one crook telling on another, they tend not too if their own hands are not clean.



  3. #43
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    I think saddlebag it is clear that the vast majority of the membership does not have the confidence in the Hearing Committee that you share.

    If we knew for a fact they would check and see if we are all just gossips or if the Hearing Committee will now require to be presented with the whole truth as is their responsibility.



  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jun. 5, 2000
    Location
    Phoenix, AZ, USA
    Posts
    582

    Default

    Erin, There are basically 3 kinds of suspension.

    A Most have a fixed term- 90 days starting on date X. No need to apply for reinstatement.

    B The ones that are based on bouncing checks or not paying fees usually have an indefinite term- until the financial obligation has been fixed. That is a form of reinstatement, but I don't know if they have an actual hearing, or if it is "automatic" once the check clears.

    C The ones associated with the insurance killings (and maybe a few others) have an indefinite term, with the opportunity to "apply for re-instatement after X years", where X varies.

    Since I can't find the ANYTHING about reinstatement, I don't know if the rules treat B and C differently. C is what Snowbird is interested in.



    I think Janet had this right. The notification could be limited to teh descripton of "C" above. USEF could use their website to publicize the request for reinstatement, so that it would not have to work around the print deadline for the magazine. This could allow 60 day advance notice on requests.



  5. #45
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    Yes! Hillary exactly. What is the criteria of proofs required in the C class suspension. My guess is there has never been any other such situation so there is no precident.

    Those involved believe they should skate free if they've followed the old formula which says if the rule dioesn't say you can't then you can.

    I don't believe there is any remorse for the horses but for themselves.I think we are in a position where we have to draw the line somehow. I don't have any particular person in mind but there is a principle and it extends to those who have caused severe damages as those two in Virginia.

    I think as an association we need to decide where the line is drawn over which anyone can not go and still stay in the sport officially. Skating did it with Tanya Harding even though she didn't do the deed directly. I think they were right. It's that first case that sets the model and the example.

    I think the same with drug violations and it could be three times and your out. I think the IT department needs to post a record with the search engine so anyone can find out how many violations anyone else has been found guilty.

    New people coming into the sport need to be protected from those we know are not trustworthy. Not by hearsay, not by rumor or gossip but by a Conviction in the Courts whee as a profession we honor the decisions of the Legal System.



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Originally posted by Saddlebag:
    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?
    I think the members just want the chance to lodge their views on reinstatements. During state and federal law-making, the populace is allowed to comment. If a bill is coming before the house or the senate, I am allowed to send a letter in opposition or support of the legislation. And I'm allowed to rally a group in a letter-writing campaign. Then it's up to the members of congress to weigh those opinions.

    I think that process could apply here, if the Rule was created to allow public comment on reinstatements. The USEF would weigh the comments and make their final decision with those comments in mind.
    Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores



  7. #47
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 1999
    Location
    Rosehill, TX
    Posts
    7,090

    Default

    USEF allows comments on officials that are applying for promotion - on members that are trying to become officials - there should be no problem with allowing the same for reinstatement
    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

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



  8. #48
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    That is a very good point SGray. There is a pecedence for our position.



  9. #49
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    Ahem! We want to be constructive and make suggestions how to fix the problem...do we not?



  10. #50
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 1999
    Location
    Rosehill, TX
    Posts
    7,090

    Default

    Back to the BBB kind of thing - before I placed my horse with a trainer I would like to know if the trainer had been convicted of: cruelty to or neglect of an animal, fraud, and ______ (fill in the blank).
    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

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



  11. #51
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    I think enough of us know that it would not be a big deal with a search engine to publish on the web the same information which is printed in Equestrian and already public record so that you could do a search by name and find their history.

    I can see where the historical parts prior to the computer or prior to the Equestrian Magazine could be tedious and time consuming. But thre is no reason currently except a lack of interest by the administration.



  12. #52
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    I think it would be viable even if we just started with now. Eventually there would be a historical record for new people which is better than never. I certainly could support that as a proposed rule change.



  13. #53
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,645

    Default

    Originally posted by N&B&T:
    Saddlebag, for heaven's sake, no one's civil rights are being infringed upon, and no powers are being usurped.

    ...

    I agree with the person--DMK? and others--who suggested that all of the information and discussion in this hearing (if PV does in fact apply for reinstatement) be made public. BTW, if people did have facts available to them, they might be just as reasonable and objective as the Hearing Committee. Why not assume that?
    We have a winner! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c.../icon_wink.gif


    Originally posted by Saddlebag -- 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.

    Nobody is suggesting this come up for national vote or anything. As a process, that would be bound for failure. But I do think if members feel strongly about the reinstatment or denial of reinstatement of any person on an indefinite suspension, then they have the right to be heard. But this is a two way street. If you have a strong case to make FOR the reinstatement of someone, then you have equal rights as someone who thinks otherwise. I'm not opposed to the hearing committee making a decision based on the facts, In fact I am for it wholeheartedly. But Saddlebag needs to explain to me how this process is made less fair/worse by opening some portion of the process to public discussion?
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.



  14. #54
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    That DMK is the real question. Why is it better to confine decision making to a small exclusive group? We face the same question in the USHJA. Why is the membership not consulted or ntified. It is obvious from this BB that there are a lot of valid opinions and eloquent debaters here who might open the doors and windows if they were heard.

    I think there would be less suspicion with more openness.



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quickly bumping this up...

    The one problem I see about requesting that apps for reinstatement be published in Equestrian is, as others have said, the lead time. The mag takes 90 days to go to press, then if you add on top of that a further 30, or 60, or 90 (or whatever) days for the membership to submit comments, that delays any reinstatement application for anywhere from 4-6 months from the date of application. Even I'm not sure that's fair! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c.../icon_razz.gif And it might in fact violate the order of the Hearing Committee, not sure about that.

    HOWEVER, it's pretty dang easy and cost-free to put the same information on the USEF web site.

    What would y'all think about that?

    Another point to be considered is that, in enforcing the order of the Hearing Committee of its predecessor the AHSA, USEF is going to have to investigate each separate application for reinstatement anyway. The terms of the order require that.

    So any and all the reinstatement applications from the insurance fraud crowd are going to cost USEF (and us) money & time, regardless of whether there's a rule change or not. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_c.../icon_wink.gif This is, of course, assuming USEF enforces that order and doesn't just rubber-stamp the reinstatement applications as they come in. As things stand now, we're probably not going to be advised of that.

    So back to Snowy's original question - should that change & if so, what is the mechanism we should submit?
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief



  16. #56
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    The dilemma is that the USEF has mutitudinous times expressed the opinion they are not the successor of the AHSA/USAE but a new corporation starting with no past record at all on December 1, 2003. In fact when they started and were not incorporated yet they had a management contract with the AHSA/USAE.

    So what they have written into their rules is theirs alone. That means they do not have to recognize those suspensions at all or they may choose to accept them as a matter of regular business. They are not even compelled to have a Hearing Committee decision.

    The question we have to propose as a Rule Change as a definition of who is eligible to be a member and who is not eligible. These people could have a USHJA Membership even if disapproved by USEF and pay a non-member fee for USEF.

    Our proposal has to include any "National Affiliate Membership". If you go back to the Chronicle before USHJA was accepted as our National Affiliate, John Long decribes his vision of two options for how the USEF should govern and apparently the first version has been what is accepted.

    In that format each National Affiliate manages it's own affairs independently and the so-called "umbrella" is simply at bookeeping system to cut the office costs of each discipline.

    As to posting the notice in Equestrian, it is written that all "official" notices must be published in Equestrian as the official publication and means of communication with members. The web site is only a second alternate means under the laws I believe of New York as it is in New Jersey.

    Technically the USEF if they were to index all violations to be researched would only go back to December 1, 2003 and has no obligation to go back over the decades. I think a proposed Rule needs also to include from that date an indexed file of all violators.

    I'm not a legal person and if I'm wrong would be happy to concede my lack of knowledge.



  17. #57
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    I'm sure that official notice of hearings would have to appear in print. Why couldn't they just back up the notice publication deadline, in order to give the members time to comment?
    Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores



  18. #58
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    On second thought, the date of publication could drive the date of the hearing. Something like this:

    "Reinstatement hearings will be held 90 days after publication in the Equestrian. USEF members may submit comments to the hearing committee. These comments will become a part of the public record."
    Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores



  19. #59
    Join Date
    Feb. 3, 2000
    Location
    Nokesville, VA
    Posts
    35,500

    Default

    Just bear in mind that, if you submit a rule change proposal this spring, it will be voted on in Jan 2007. If approved, it would go into effect Dec 2007, for the 2008 competition year.
    Janet

    chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Nov. 13, 2005
    Posts
    249

    Default

    Originally posted by Janet:
    Just bear in mind that, if you submit a rule change proposal this spring, it will be voted on in Jan 2007. If approved, it would go into effect Dec 2007, for the 2008 competition year.
    Right. Anything relating to PV would have to happen under the current system.
    Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores



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