• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

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 are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

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 1/26/16)
See more
See less

AT Hearing update

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

  • AT Hearing update

    http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2007/06/159.shtml
    www.australiancolouredperformancehorses.com.au

  • #2
    The people giving testimony mostly had obvious functions -- the FEI veterinary guy, the ground jury guy, the horse's owner, the U.S. coach, the FEI eventing director -- but I wonder what testimony Karen O'Connor and Wayne Roycroft were there to give?
    I hope another news source will post something slightly more detailed.
    I evented just for the Halibut.

    Comment


    • #3
      Attornies? Wow....

      Comment


      • #4
        armed to the teeth she is....

        Comment


        • #5
          Lawyers wouldn't be uncommon in this kind of proceeding. Interestingly, though, both these lawyers are from high-powered firms -- think of anywhere between $400 to $750 per hour each, probably including the travel back and forth, etc. I'm also betting each one of them has spent at least 100 hours each so far on the matter. She, like everyone else, is absolutely entitled to the best defense she can get, that's not my point. My point is that that's a lot of money -- one wonders if USEF, USEA, or one or more of her sponsors is footing some or all the bill. If it's one or both of the associations, it would be pretty ballsy to spend member funds, particularly given what seems to be the prevailing (not universal, but prevailing) sentiment.

          Comment


          • #6
            [QUOTE=JAM;2523621] My point is that that's a lot of money -- one wonders if USEF, USEA, or one or more of her sponsors is footing some or all the bill. QUOTE]

            One does not have to wonder to long about that....I seriously doubt a fire fighter earns that type of money...and if she did, I am in the wrong business.

            Money money money...always sunny...in a rich man's world. (Thank you ABBA)

            Comment


            • #7
              Both of the lawyers present with Amy Tryon mentioned in that article are litigation lawyers and USEA personnel.
              Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

              Comment


              • #8
                Lex

                Do you know if they are doing it totally pro bono (including the disbursements such as the travel)? Or, since they are USEA personnel, are they doing it under the auspices or with the financial support of the USEA? I thought the USEA had taken a public stance of neutrality, and many posters here have assiduously distinguished b/w the USEA and the USEF in this matter. If, and I recognize it's an if, the USEA is directly or indirectly supporting the cause, the distinction may be quite a bit blurrier than previously postulated.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I would be VERY surprised if membership money was being used in this instance to foot the bills. Sure, it could be one of her sponsors, and if so, it is entirely their right to do so. For all we know, it could be a pro bono case as well and/or a matter of her simply knowing the right people to put her in contact with these attorneys/firms who are willing to help. There are any number of ways to come up with the money to pay for this representation - family, friends, etc. Is it really anyone's business so long as the money isn't coming from USEF or USEA membership funds?
                  "I was not expecting the park rangers to lead the resistance, none of the dystopian novels I read prepared me for this but cool."

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by JAM View Post
                    They doing it pro bono?
                    Heck if I know but this may be politics at play. I don't know who her sponsors are but I would imagine she still does have friends with influence and it is very much possible these two litigation lawyers are doing it pro-bono, have been chosen by her sponsors, or they could both in fact be sponsors of hers as they don't work for the same litigation firms and they are both on the USEA executive board in addition to being eventers themselves. As for the other eventers there, they are present to provide their own experiences running the course and to act as expert witnesses to provide whatever professional testimony is requested. Just for the record, I think the USEA could very well be footing the bill because of her status as an upper level competitor and US team member.
                    Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Given that they are both on the USEA Exec. Bd., one would hope the USEA would inform its members exactly what resources, financial and otherwise, it is providing for the defense of this case, particularly given the public statement the USEA previously made and the posture of neutrality it has sought to stake out. Why didn't the USEA disclose that two of its Exec. Bd. members were representing her in this matter? One also wonders when these lawyers were retained for her defense. For example, were they (or either of them) representing her when the USEA (presumably through its Executive Board, of which they are members) decided to issue the press release. Were they, or either of them, involved in the drafting of the press release? What role, if any, have they had in decisions regarding her while they have been representing her in this matter?

                      These questions and comments have nothing to do with AT -- as I said before, she's entitled to her defense, and the two lawyers are entitled to represent her on whatever terms they and the client agree on (and provided that all actual and potential conflicts have been disclosed to all relevant clients and have been consented to by those clients). It's the association's conduct here -- i.e., the failure to disclose and the at least potential conflicts of interest -- that seems disturbing, at least to me.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Since when is it immoral, unreasonable or even the least bit suspicious to have an attorney? Or to avail oneself of the services of an attorney that is on retainer for an organization of which one is a member? Jump to conclusions much? Jeez. Not every attorney is something from a television trial drama. More often than not their job is less "LA Law" and more interpreting the law, deciphering contractual language, etc. Plus Kevin Baumgardner is a high-level USEA official whose job description is far wider than "legal counsel". It didn't say anyone was "representing her", only that they were present.
                        Click here before you buy.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by LexInVA View Post
                          Just for the record, I think the USEA could very well be footing the bill because of her status as an upper level competitor and US team member.
                          IF this is the case, and I repeat IF...then would USEA MEMBERS effectively be footing the bill?!!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by deltawave View Post
                            ...It didn't say anyone was "representing her", only that they were present.
                            The official FEI press release makes clear that Baumgardner and Temkin were there on her behalf. See http://www.horsesport.org/c/news/news.htm.
                            Last edited by JAM; Jun. 25, 2007, 10:25 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JAM View Post
                              Given that they are both on the USEA Exec. Bd., one would hope the USEA would inform its members exactly what resources, financial and otherwise, it is providing for the defense of this case, particularly given the public statement the USEA previously made and the posture of neutrality it has sought to stake out. Why didn't the USEA disclose that two of its Exec. Bd. members were representing her in this matter? One also wonders when these lawyers were retained for her defense. For example, were they (or either of them) representing her when the USEA (presumably through its Executive Board, of which they are members) decided to issue the press release. Were they, or either of them, involved in the drafting of the press release? What role, if any, have they had in decisions regarding her while they have been representing her in this matter?

                              These questions and comments have nothing to do with AT -- as I said before, she's entitled to her defense, and the two lawyers are entitled to represent her on whatever terms they and the client agree on (and provided that all actual and potential conflicts have been disclosed to all relevant clients and have been consented to by those clients). It's the association's conduct here -- i.e., the failure to disclose and the at least potential conflicts of interest -- that seems disturbing, at least to me.

                              I don't think they are likely to disclose the specifics given the fact that everyone involved seems to be at the top levels of eventing but maybe that will change.
                              Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by snoopy View Post
                                IF this is the case, and I repeat IF...then would USEA MEMBERS effectively be footing the bill?!!
                                Given the interconnected nature of the USEF/USEA/USET and how they more or less have the same high level sponsors, officials, and cash flow, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case. All it would take is someone with pull at the USEF to put the plan in motion. If that is true then it only confirms my beliefs about what really goes on.
                                Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Lex

                                  I agree with you that the reality is that the USEA will not likely voluntarily disclose such matters, but the leaders do have certain obligations to the membership (defined by such things as the law, the association's by-laws, the membership agreement, etc.), and these obligations likely include financial disclosures and disclosures about activities being undertaken on behalf of the membership at large -- the question is how detailed they need to be.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    OK, maybe they're "representing" her. But this is not a criminal hearing. They might be there in a capacity to represent the USEA, for all we know.
                                    Click here before you buy.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by JAM View Post
                                      I agree with you that the reality is that the USEA will not likely voluntarily disclose such matters, but the leaders do have certain obligations to the membership (defined by such things as the law, the association's by-laws, the membership agreement, etc.), and these obligations likely include financial disclosures and disclosures about activities being undertaken on behalf of the membership at large -- the question is how detailed they need to be.
                                      I think the horse world is run just like the business world. You have an obligation to your shareholders (the people/clients) but your ultimate goal is to get as much money as you can to continue doing what you do. I'm sure Amy Tryon's investors have a lot at stake here and those same investors probably have a lot of money invested in the USEF/USEA/USET organizations so only time will tell.
                                      Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        From horseport.org--the FEI site

                                        Report on the hearing in the case of alleged abuse at CCI 4* Lexington

                                        The hearing in the case of alleged abuse at CCI 4* Lexington involving rider Amy Tryon (USA) and horse Le Samurai, which had occurred on 28 April 2007, took place today 25 June 2007 at the FEI Headquarters in Lausanne.

                                        Composition of the hearing:

                                        Panel of the FEI Tribunal:
                                        Ken Lalo
                                        Patrick Boelens
                                        Erik Elstad

                                        Present for the FEI:
                                        Alex McLin, FEI General Counsel;
                                        Laetitia Zumbrunnen, FEI Legal Counsel

                                        Present for the rider:
                                        Amy Tryon
                                        Kevin Baumgardner, Attorney
                                        Andrew Temkin, Attorney

                                        The following individuals gave evidence at the oral hearing:
                                        Christian Landolt
                                        Wayne Roycroft
                                        Catrin Norinder
                                        Frits Sluyter
                                        Rebecca Broussard
                                        Amy Tryon
                                        Mark Phillips
                                        Karen O’Connor


                                        The hearing began at 9h00 Lausanne time and finished at 16h30. The panel examined the evidence received, which included numerous witness statements and video footage in addition to the testimony of those listed above.

                                        The panel accepted the evidence presented and will issue its motivated decision within a short time and in any event no later than 30 days of today.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X