Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You're responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it--details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums' policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it's understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users' profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses -- Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it's related to a horse for sale, regardless of who's selling it, it doesn't belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions -- Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services -- Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products -- While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements -- Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be "bumped" excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues -- Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators' discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you'd rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user's membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

Bob McDonald Banned from USEF through Safe Sport

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Originally posted by Mardi View Post

    What does "higher status wife" mean ?
    That she’s more of a big deal in the dressage world than he is in the hunter jumper world.

    Comment


      We could do some mental gymnastics to justify her words as meaning something other than how they're written-- "He is innocent!" could mean that she has doubts about his innocence but feels obligated to stick to the party line to give him benefit of the doubt, or... I mean it could indicate that she believes that "He is innocent!"

      Comment


        Originally posted by FitzE View Post

        I also disagree. The quote in the article from her facebook is very clear [bolding mine]:
        Debbie said in a statement on Facebook: “Right now we cannot say much. But just because it was Bob as the accused don’t think for a moment after 42 years of marriage it doesn’t affect the entire family. And the truth will come out! He is innocent!”
        "The truth will come out" reminds me of a certain other poster...

        Comment


          Originally posted by cnm161 View Post
          We could do some mental gymnastics to justify her words as meaning something other than how they're written-- "He is innocent!" could mean that she has doubts about his innocence but feels obligated to stick to the party line to give him benefit of the doubt, or... I mean it could indicate that she believes that "He is innocent!"
          By her own admission in interviews and articles, she and her husband have been (extensively) physically separated for long periods of time by their respective careers as trainers in different disciplines, so she cannot make a claim that he is wholly innocent of wrongdoing in this matter, unless whatever evidence her husband has presented to her is irrefutable enough to exonerate him, when all is said and done. To be frank, it is completely possible that she has not been privy to anything that SafeSport has presented to her husband and she is simply taking the position of The Good Wife. We will simply have to see where the chips fall in the end.
          Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

          Comment


            Originally posted by NotGrandPrixYet View Post

            I’ve been saying it wrongly all of my life. 🤣

            It wasn't the saying, it was the writing.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Tarlo Farm View Post


              It wasn't the saying, it was the writing.
              It was a joke. 😧
              Banter whenever you want to banter....canter whenever you want to canter.

              Comment



                Comment


                  Originally posted by LexInVA View Post

                  By her own admission in interviews and articles, she and her husband have been (extensively) physically separated for long periods of time by their respective careers as trainers in different disciplines, so she cannot make a claim that he is wholly innocent of wrongdoing in this matter, unless whatever evidence her husband has presented to her is irrefutable enough to exonerate him, when all is said and done. To be frank, it is completely possible that she has not been privy to anything that SafeSport has presented to her husband and she is simply taking the position of The Good Wife. We will simply have to see where the chips fall in the end.
                  His position is that he never committed sexual misconduct with minors during any of those periods in which they were separated geographically. In general it’s almost impossible to irrefutably “prove” a negative. In the arbitration, SS will have to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one or more “positives” in the form of incidents of sexual misconduct with minors. He doesn’t have to irrefutably prove a negative in the appeal, he will win the appeal if SS fails to meet its burden of proof that stuff happened.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                    His position is that he never committed sexual misconduct with minors during any of those periods in which they were separated geographically. In general it’s almost impossible to irrefutably “prove” a negative. In the arbitration, SS will have to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one or more “positives” in the form of incidents of sexual misconduct with minors. He doesn’t have to irrefutably prove a negative in the appeal, he will win the appeal if SS fails to meet its burden of proof that stuff happened.
                    I dont think that's how the arbitration works, I think McDonald has to prove there were procedural problems, right?

                    (I could be totally wrong, but this isn't having a whole new investigation, it's the arbiter looking at whether investigation and ruling are in line with established standards and procedures)

                    Moderately unrelated, but this is also when other victims tend to come out of the woodwork.
                    Let me apologize in advance.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by cnm161 View Post
                      We could do some mental gymnastics to justify her words as meaning something other than how they're written-- "He is innocent!" could mean that she has doubts about his innocence but feels obligated to stick to the party line to give him benefit of the doubt, or... I mean it could indicate that she believes that "He is innocent!"
                      I'm with you. I prefer to look at someone's declarative statement and give it a straight forward read.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by carolprudm View Post

                        "The truth will come out" reminds me of a certain other poster...
                        I thought this, too. Just wait, it will all come out, big surprises!!11!!!!1!

                        Comment

                          Original Poster

                          Robert Dover advocates for SS changes in letter to USEF board.

                          https://dressage-news.com/2020/06/19...-to-safesport/

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Mardi View Post
                            Robert Dover advocates for SS changes.
                            https://dressage-news.com/2020/06/19...-to-safesport/
                            Of course, because as he said last year, if George morris didnt have sex with his super hot husband when he was in his 20s, he definitely never forcibly sodomized tween boys.
                            Let me apologize in advance.

                            Comment


                              Robert Dover also, just a reminder, briefly tried to set up a GoFundMe for Morris last year during his appeal. It was taken down almost immediately, presumably gone private.

                              This is not new.
                              Let me apologize in advance.

                              Comment


                                "This is not new." Actually, it is. Perhaps you should read the letter and the changes advocated. I'm not defending McDonald, RG, GM, or any others. But - guilty until proven innocent, with little and quite belated opportunity to prove one's innocence IS a violation of constitutional rights, among other things. SS is necessary. That have done worlds of good since inception. That doesn't mean they are infallible, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't have third party oversight. How can that be harmful?

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Mardi View Post
                                  Robert Dover advocates for SS changes in letter to USEF board.

                                  https://dressage-news.com/2020/06/19...-to-safesport/
                                  I don't get why he'd even send that letter to the USEF board. USEF has literally no say about the process. They are constrained to respect and follow it by federal law.
                                  If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                  Comment


                                    Mondo,

                                    A) safe sport is the third party oversite of our ngbs for Olympic sports.

                                    B) there is a detailed reporting process, there are extensive investigations and interviews, there is a ruling about ability to participate in a sport club

                                    C) there is a third party appeals process.

                                    That's where McDonald is now.

                                    No one is constitutionally guaranteed the right to participate in a club sport.
                                    Let me apologize in advance.

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                                      I don't get why he'd even send that letter to the USEF board. USEF has literally no say about the process. They are constrained to respect and follow it by federal law.
                                      Because these people still dont understand the purpose or process, because they have decided to remain willfully blind and ignorant, because it has always worked for them before.

                                      See America today.
                                      Let me apologize in advance.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by Mondo View Post
                                        "This is not new." Actually, it is. Perhaps you should read the letter and the changes advocated. I'm not defending McDonald, RG, GM, or any others. But - guilty until proven innocent, with little and quite belated opportunity to prove one's innocence IS a violation of constitutional rights, among other things. SS is necessary. That have done worlds of good since inception. That doesn't mean they are infallible, and it doesn't mean they shouldn't have third party oversight. How can that be harmful?
                                        They have been “proven guilty,” for want of a better phrase, by an in-depth investigation, interviews with the claimant, the accused, and witnesses (including rebuttal witnesses provided by the accused), consideration of all the evidence, and a ruling.

                                        Third-party oversight is provided by the independent arbitrator, should an accused person wish to exercise their right to that option.

                                        Sounds more than fair process for what amounts to being kicked out of a club. I love Robert Dover but he looked like a fool with his stance on GM, and this is no better.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                          His position is that he never committed sexual misconduct with minors during any of those periods in which they were separated geographically. In general it’s almost impossible to irrefutably “prove” a negative. In the arbitration, SS will have to establish by a preponderance of the evidence one or more “positives” in the form of incidents of sexual misconduct with minors. He doesn’t have to irrefutably prove a negative in the appeal, he will win the appeal if SS fails to meet its burden of proof that stuff happened.
                                          SS has already concluded that the preponderance of evidence supports the claimant. The arbitrator will re-examine everything to ensure the investigation was conducted properly

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X