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

George Morris on the SS list

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

    originally posted by erinmeri and thanks for posting!

    The Plaidcast posted a great interview with Sarah Nir. It starts at 31:32. It breaks down a lot of the reaction to the ban and the article, and dispels a lot of mistruths being spouted. Someone should share with those who are crying foul and bashing SS, the Times, and the survivors.

    https://www.theplaidhorse.com/2019/0...ter-sarah-nir/
    Wow - great interview. She states that there were multiple people who spoke to her, but only 1 who was willing to speak on record, because he was already banned and had nothing to lose, presumably Jonathan Sinesi. The rest were afraid to be quoted for fear of reprisal,

    So much for the "there was only 1 victim and that was 50 years ago" story.

    Comment


      Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

      I vaguely remember that IEA was incorporating SafeSport perhaps starting this fall or something- that is, IEA will be subject to SafeSport going forward but possibly the implementation date was a year or two after USEF. No university is going to want the legal exposure that would come with having a SafeSport banned individual be a coach.
      See post #2382.

      Comment


        Originally posted by Toblersmom View Post
        Once upon a time when I was looking into this whole mess I found guidelines that had been formulated by SafeSport regarding sanctions/punishments. I can’t find it again but it said something to the effect of “The highest sanction of a lifetime ban should be reserved for those cases where:” Followed by a bullet-point list that I don’t recall in any detail. Does anyone know where that is? I don’t want to misquote any details but it made it pretty darn clear that a lifetime ban wouldn’t be handed out for things like giving kids unnecessarily lengthy pats on the tushy to “check position,” one-off offenses decades ago, clearly consensual May-December flirtations, etc.
        I can't find it either, but I recall seeing something similar. The closest I can find in in this FAQ which says, in part,
        "What are the criteria for banning someone for life? Can you be sanctioned for something that’s not illegal?

        It’s possible a respondent could not have been convicted, but if we find by a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent has done something to a child they would be banned for life. If I were to harass you, for example, that’s technically illegal, but the chances of a District Attorney taking a case like that is really low. For example, if two 19-year-olds go on a trip to an equestrian competition, and they’re drinking, and one is harassing the other, no DA in United States will take that case, but we would, and we’d look into it. If we determined harm had happened, someone could be put on the sanctioned list.

        As far as banning for life, any instance of sexual assault, anything against children, or if you’re on the sex offender registry you’re out. It can be a bit confusing because for example we had a case where someone ended up on the registry because of a clerical error, and that person had to get it fixed. We’ll still look into whether something happened that warrants sanctions.

        Also, there are situations when something was adjudicated by the sport before the Center existed. If it was properly adjudicated we have to be careful about re-doing any decisions that were already made."

        But that's not a bullet list and I remember one too.
        The Evil Chem Prof

        Comment


          In other news, Kathy Hobstetter has posted a Safe Sport Overhaul GoFundMe, the intro to which states:
          Committed to a FAIR SPORT judgement process for athletes. Due process (FAIR PROCESS) for both abused and abuser is the American way. Pursuing a change in the Safe Sport Center system as it stands now that puts all athletes at risk.

          Change takes time and change takes money especially when the US Government is in charge of a flawed FAIR PROCESS system for athletes of all ages and levels!!

          The purpose is simply for awareness and securing transparency in SS. The only way to get it is knocking on doors of politicians and sending letters etc. No one is trying to stop SS, which we feel is needed, but simply work at bettering the rules at play and secure more fairness.
          The Evil Chem Prof

          Comment


            What exactly do they feel is unfair? Is that answered anywhere?

            Comment


              Originally posted by roseymare View Post
              What exactly do they feel is unfair? Is that answered anywhere?
              No, but cynical me says that the unfair thing is that their friend(s) got caught.
              The Evil Chem Prof

              Comment


                Originally posted by Peggy View Post
                In other news, Kathy Hobstetter has posted a Safe Sport Overhaul GoFundMe, the intro to which states:
                Committed to a FAIR SPORT judgement process for athletes. Due process (FAIR PROCESS) for both abused and abuser is the American way. Pursuing a change in the Safe Sport Center system as it stands now that puts all athletes at risk.

                Change takes time and change takes money especially when the US Government is in charge of a flawed FAIR PROCESS system for athletes of all ages and levels!!

                The purpose is simply for awareness and securing transparency in SS. The only way to get it is knocking on doors of politicians and sending letters etc. No one is trying to stop SS, which we feel is needed, but simply work at bettering the rules at play and secure more fairness.
                They need $25,000 to send letters? What would be a more fair process? Who is going to decide what that process should look like? SO many holes in this "overhaul" that I don't even know where to start. I think maybe I'll start with the image of a wall full of blue ribbons that's being used. If that's what they use to depict a supposed group to bring a better system of protecting our youth in the sport, that's pretty telling. Ignore the bad acts, focus on that blue ribbon.

                Comment


                  Has any other sport reacted in quite this way? I know some were in denial but this much?

                  I haven't listened to the Plaid Horse podcast with the NYT journalist but plan to do so tomorrow.

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by roseymare View Post
                    Has any other sport reacted in quite this way? I know some were in denial but this much?

                    I haven't listened to the Plaid Horse podcast with the NYT journalist but plan to do so tomorrow.
                    I was really impressed. As if I wasn't already impressed after reading her articles.
                    The Evil Chem Prof

                    Comment


                      Agreed. Definitely worth a listen. Long story short, it puts to rest that "one incident from 50 years ago" crap.

                      Comment


                        Peggy, I'm not suggesting that you're in favor of this idea, but rather than contributing $$$ to some GoFundMe with nebulous goals, let me suggest that it would be better to actually think things through and write your congresspersons with concrete suggestions for an overhaul, but that's just my .02.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by AllisonWunderlund View Post

                          IEA Region President here. This is correct. While the IEA cannot control what people advertise on their personal websites, it can control who can and cannot field a team. If a team is not approved by IEA, they will be unable to enter any IEA competitions. There are safeguards against that. Show hosts have to submit entries into the IEA website. A team that is not registered is unable to be entered. The system will not be able to find them.

                          I do encourage anyone who suspects that a banned/suspended USEF member is running an IEA program using another person as the "official" coach to circumvent the SS requirement to report it to the IEA national office. I can assure you these reports will not be taken lightly.
                          Thanks for this explanation!

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                            Peggy, I'm not suggesting that you're in favor of this idea, but rather than contributing $$$ to some GoFundMe with nebulous goals, let me suggest that it would be better to actually think things through and write your congresspersons with concrete suggestions for an overhaul, but that's just my .02.
                            Peggy didn’t write that. Kathy Hobstetter did. Peggy just shared it here.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Jenerationx View Post
                              Agreed. Definitely worth a listen. Long story short, it puts to rest that "one incident from 50 years ago" crap.
                              It also addresses the "problem" of trusting the credibility of a victim or witness who is himself a registered sex offender. The interview goes into this, but that strikes me as ironic and sad: Being sexually abused is life-changing. Not everyone abused does, in turn, become a perpetrator themselves. But I think there is data on the prevalence of that behavior being learned or cultivated (?--- not sure what terms fits). And so, to make it harder to prosecute perpetrators because their victims, as a class, tend to show the effects of their trauma is a problem that needs correction. To me, that is a high-level form of victim blaming.
                              The armchair saddler
                              Politically Pro-Cat

                              Comment


                                Out of curiosity, anyone know when, in George’s career, he stopped having live in working students? Anyone have an estimated number on how many youth male students he had working for him over the years? When he had a male student living with him.. was it just one student at a time, living alone with him?

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by Peggy View Post

                                  No, but cynical me says that the unfair thing is that their friend(s) got caught.
                                  That's not cynical, that's the truth.

                                  Let me apologize in advance.

                                  Comment


                                    Well - Bonnie Navin has gone on Facebook again with an interesting post dissecting Safe Sport processes. I’ve copied and pasted it here, as I know several lawyers are following this thread and I’m curious as to their reactions...

                                    “Someone posted the USOC Due process Checklist - lets compare the list I pasted to what SS actually does.

                                    First "notice of specific charges or alleged violations in writing and possible consequences (NOT done in any of the cases I handled with SS) and when specific charges were demanded they had to be told by an arbitrator to fix it.

                                    Second - reasonable time between charges and hearing to prepare a DEFENSE. No folks SS does NOT Give a hearing for a defense to be presented until AFTER the director issues a charge, the person seeks an appeal and pays. So this is NOT happening at all.

                                    Third - the right for the hearing to take place so the person can attend - okay AFTER they are banned and AFTER they seek an appeal and AFTER they pay $6000 they do get to attend.

                                    Fourth - a hearing before a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders. AH HA - Nope - this is pleural "fact finders" and SS only allows ONE arbitrator from JAMS whom by the way JAMS is a private company of mediators and holds the EXCLUSIVE contract with SS - impartial - nope not so much (oh PS it is widely known that SS sent its rules to JAMS for their arbitrators to offer suggestions to the rules.

                                    Fifth - the right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence and argument - but again AFTER the ban and AFTER you seek an appeal and AFTER you pay the entry fee for your appeal.

                                    Sixth - the right to confront and cross examine adverse witnesses - NOPE the accusers do not have to appear and they do NOT have to be cross examined by responding party atty but the arbitrator with selected questions.

                                    Seventh - the right to have a record made of the hearing - yes this is afforded IF the reporting party pays for it and it can not be transcribed and used as it stays confidential and the attys cannot even get a copy of it.

                                    Eighth - burden of proof on proponent of charge - well the accusers are the proponents BUT SafeSport has decided the accusers are just witnesses and SafeSport takes on the position of proponent.

                                    Ninth - a wrtiien decision with reasons - yes that seems to happen

                                    Tenth - written notice of appeal procedures bahhhaaaaaaa there are no appeal processes available under SafeSport.

                                    So as you can see - this is NOT happening the way it should be. It should be: Notice of charge, exchange evidence, have a hearing where all evidence is presented etc, before a PANEL and then a decision and punishment accessed and then an appeal. That is how its supposed to be.”

                                    Comment


                                      Originally posted by roseymare View Post
                                      Has any other sport reacted in quite this way? I know some were in denial but this much?

                                      I haven't listened to the Plaid Horse podcast with the NYT journalist but plan to do so tomorrow.
                                      I listened last night. If you’ve been following along with SafeSport, it was nothing “new,” rather Nir just confirmed what has been reiterated on this thread. I was most impressed that Sissy Wickes and her co-host Piper Klemm were loudly in support of SafeSport. We need more people in positions of stature to outright condemn the awful behavior in our sport— both the abuse, as well as the disgusting reactions/victim-shaming. While Nir had to remain impartial as a journalist, the hosts made it clear they DO NOT agree with the vitriol being spewed in defense of GM. I applaud them for that.
                                      Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                                      Comment


                                        Here is copied and pasted text of the USOC Due Process Checklist BN references

                                        USOC Due Process Checklist

                                        The Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act (TSOASA) requires that an athlete have a hearing before being declared ineligible [§220522 (a)(8)]. The USOC recommends the following be included in such a hearing:

                                        • Notice of the specific charges or alleged violations in writing, and possible consequences if the charges are found to be true;
                                        • Reasonable time between receipt of the notice of charges and the hearing within which to prepare a defense;
                                        • The right to have the hearing conducted at such a time and place so as to make it practicable for the person charged to attend;
                                        • A hearing before a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders;
                                        • The right to be assisted in the presentation of one’s case at the hearing,
                                        including the assistance of legal counsel, if desired;
                                        • The right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence and
                                        argument;
                                        • The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses;
                                        • The right to have a record made of the hearing if desired;
                                        • The burden of proof shall be on the proponent of the charge, which burden
                                        shall be at least a “preponderance of the evidence” unless the NGB requires
                                        or provides for a higher burden of proof;
                                        • A written decision, with reasons therefore, based solely on the evidence of
                                        record, handed down in a timely fashion;
                                        • Written notice of appeal procedures, if the decision is adverse to the person
                                        charged, and prompt and fair adjudication of the appeal.

                                        Comment


                                          One last note... Because I feel that it’s VERY important not to lose sight of who it is that is making these arguments, etc.

                                          Bonnie Navin has tagged Jim Giorgio in the first comment on her own post (which has now been widely shared) and asked him specifically if he cares to “jump in” - presumably about these procedural issues with Safe Sport...

                                          I went back and looked at the 2007 article written by staff writer Larry Smith and published in The Hartford Courant concerning the legal situation, and charges against Giorgio... and have shared portions of it here so that people realize exactly who this person BN tagged because... I presume she thinks he can effectively make the case ​ he was denied due process somehow and unfairly banned by Safe Sport ​

                                          “A 43-year-old former East Windsor man avoided time in jail Tuesday after pleading guilty to inappropriately touching a minor girl in 2005.

                                          James Giorgio pleaded guilty to fourth-degree sexual assault and risk of injury to a minor in Superior Court of Enfield. Judge Howard Scheinblum sentenced Giorgio to a seven-year suspended term with 10 years of probation.

                                          Scheinblum also ordered Giorgio to register for 10 years as a sex offender, have no contact with the victim, undergo a sexual offender evaluation and have no unsupervised contact with a minor under 16.

                                          Assistant State's Attorney Anthony Bochicchio said East Windsor police became aware of the situation in December 2005 after they were contacted by Windsor police. The victim, a girl under the age of 15, told police that incidents happened in East Windsor, Block Island, R.I., and Stowe, Vt., Bochicchio said.

                                          The victim, the daughter of a friend of Giorgio's, told police that on one occasion in East Windsor he inappropriately touched her under her pajamas, and on a second occasion he hugged her then fondled her under her bra and asked her to take a shower with him, Bochicchio said.

                                          Giorgio apologized to the girl for all of the incidents in November 2005, Bochicchio said.

                                          Because of the plea agreement in Connecticut, prosecutors in Rhode Island will not pursue charges for an incident that happened on Block Island, Bochicchio said. The victim agrees with the resolution of the case but did not want to be heard in court, he added.

                                          Attorney Rob Britt said his client, who now resides in East Lyme, has from the beginning sought to resolve the case in a way that did not cause the victim to have to testify or be deposed. Giorgio has said there are no winners in the resolution of the case, Britt said.

                                          "Everyone in the case has a need to move forward," Britt said.

                                          The outcome of the Connecticut charges convinced authorities in Rhode Island to drop their case after it became apparent that the prosecution in that state and the defense could not come to a resolution, Britt said. There are no legal issues in Vermont, he added.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X