Sport Horse Spotlight

Feinrich-Nr_1-12-18-10-074 Beelitz

Real Estate Spotlight

Hart_Barn 1

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • 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 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 Denali6298 View Post

    it’s a joke not a..... don’t take it so hard? Guess you think SS should follow criminal procedures. Your entitled to that. Still think it’s misguided.
    Don’t “guess you think ...” for other people and this would be a much more productive discussion (just sayin’)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Roser123 View Post

      The poster didn’t get “called out” for multiple logins, nor did she “congratulate” her alters. If y’all were as perspective as you think you are, you’d have noticed a long time ago that hlmom and horsemom (or whatever the names are) are the same person, both speaking in “I” form.
      In any case, she’s made some very valid and thoughtful posts, and that’s what people should be concentrating on ... not whether “so and so is really so and so”. It makes any FB group you’re railing against sound mature.
      During the exchange, I thought it was a little strange that the one poster would pop in with slightly different names, but understood it was the same person. I wrote some posts defending her, a couple of which she thanked me for. Apparently, my expressing agreement with her, and her expressing thanks, led these super sleuths to deduce that I was another alter.

      So you should be careful about defending her, lest people accuse you of being another alter.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

        Now, maybe FiSk123 can shed light on how much evidence to support the obvious denial that would happen is allowed by the accused during the investigation. I don’t think it’s as one sided as people make it out to be.

        .
        It is not as one sided as people say. During the investigation, the accused can present whatever evidence they want, such as written, sworn character statements, reports from forensic psychologists. The accused gets to have an advisor with them when interviewed by an investigator, but the advisor/attorney is not supposed to actively participate.

        Comment


        • Hey Everyone - sorry that I haven't responded in a bit! I've been quite busy recently but I'm catching up on the thread now and I'll try and answer as many questions as possible ASAP

          Comment


          • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

            During the exchange, I thought it was a little strange that the one poster would pop in with slightly different names, but understood it was the same person. I wrote some posts defending her, a couple of which she thanked me for. Apparently, my expressing agreement with her, and her expressing thanks, led these super sleuths to deduce that I was another alter.

            So you should be careful about defending her, lest people accuse you of being another alter.
            It would be the highlight of my day. 😉

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Roser123 View Post

              Don’t “guess you think ...” for other people and this would be a much more productive discussion (just sayin’)
              Do you have something to add to the conversation or are you here for the peanut gallery? Funny how I express an opinion and y’all can’t think of a counter argument with proof to change my mind. Lawdy

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                Do you have something to add to the conversation or are you here for the peanut gallery? Funny how I express an opinion and y’all can’t think of a counter argument with proof to change my mind. Lawdy
                I’m wondering if you, Denali6298, really need anyone else here for the conversation. You’ve repeated your position into oblivion (beginning on page one), misconstrued other peoples thoughts, and been so obtuse in general, that it’s a wonder anyone is left responding.
                What is your argument exactly? It’s hard to understand besides the whole crazy, “then teach your sons not to rape girls” blathering of earlier today.
                The point is that there are people offering thoughtful ideas about how to make SafeSport stronger, and you’re so obsessed that you can’t see the forest for the trees.
                Lighten up, sit back, listen a little. I’ve had to do it, and believe me, I’ve learned a lot.
                Peace ... truly.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  It’s my analogy; if you don’t find it useful don’t use it. I tried to explain to you that in my analogy the SafeSport investigation is NOT analogous to a trial, it is analogous to police investigation and indictment by DA, with requested penalty.

                  In my analogy, the first real “day in court” for the respondent is the appeal when SafeSport shows up as the adversary (prosecution) and has to meet its burden of proof to the arbitrator (judge).

                  In the appeal, it is not the claimant that is the plaintiff, it is SafeSport. The claimant is a witness for the prosecution.

                  I am using the criminal justice system as an analogy. Still not saying SafeSport should be the criminal justice system.

                  Still saying that modest, well defined changes are worthy of discussion. Like sworn witness statements, or other specific elements of the criminal justice system that are not currently part of SafeSport.

                  I don’t even know what you mean by “a goal of clos[ing] the 2-6% of innocent people getting hemmed up in the system”.
                  For what it’s worth I disagree with your analogy as well, for a couple of reasons. First of all, getting “your day in court” is not what SafeSport is about, nor is it how it operates. My understanding is that the appeal isn’t necessarily a review of all the evidence (or essentially a trial, in your analogy) but rather an examination whether procedures were followed correctly.

                  Most importantly I disagree with your contention that the sanction is equivalent to charges being laid, and that the accused is innocent until after the appeal. That’s not the case. The ruling and the sanctions are equivalent to a determination of guilt. Period. The investigative body (the judge, in your analogy) reviewed all the evidence, weighed what the claimant, the defendant and the witnesses had to say, and issued their verdict.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Roser123 View Post

                    The poster didn’t get “called out” for multiple logins, nor did she “congratulate” her alters. If y’all were as perspective as you think you are, you’d have noticed a long time ago that hlmom and horsemom (or whatever the names are) are the same person, both speaking in “I” form.
                    In any case, she’s made some very valid and thoughtful posts, and that’s what people should be concentrating on ... not whether “so and so is really so and so”. It makes any FB group you’re railing against sound mature.
                    Thanks, Roser. I wasn't trying to confuse anyone--I actually didn't realize my devices had separate log-ins, until someone pointed it out. My hospitalization and surgery last year required an abrupt switch from my desktop (I couldn't go upstairs) to my laptop, so I think they ended up with different default log-ins. I can be a good sport about a little good-natured ribbing-- it is the internet, after all!

                    I'm not surprised you could tell the "Mom" i.d.s were both me! I'm not a very conniving person. Those who have read my posts know that I have a daughter who rides (I no longer ride myself), and I'm an attorney working in the field of elder abuse. I share real facts about myself and, in discussions like this, I try to reason things out carefully and give fair consideration to different perspectives.

                    I really don't know who Yankee Duchess is, though I suspect I would love to know her! I regret that suspicion has been cast on her by my own poor internet practices!

                    I'm grateful to all the people who are thinking hard about these issues, sharing thoughts, and engaging on a real intellectual level. It is such a pleasure to be reminded of the challenging discussions I recall from law school and grad school. As for those whose contribution has remained at the level of calling people "morons" and other sniping... thank you for reminding us how much we treasure the more thoughtful exchanges!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                      Thanks, Roser. I wasn't trying to confuse anyone--I actually didn't realize my devices had separate log-ins, until someone pointed it out. My hospitalization and surgery last year required an abrupt switch from my desktop (I couldn't go upstairs) to my laptop, so I think they ended up with different default log-ins. I can be a good sport about a little good-natured ribbing-- it is the internet, after all!

                      I'm not surprised you could tell the "Mom" i.d.s were both me! I'm not a very conniving person. Those who have read my posts know that I have a daughter who rides (I no longer ride myself), and I'm an attorney working in the field of elder abuse. I share real facts about myself and, in discussions like this, I try to reason things out carefully and give fair consideration to different perspectives.

                      I really don't know who Yankee Duchess is, though I suspect I would love to know her! I regret that suspicion has been cast on her by my own poor internet practices!

                      I'm grateful to all the people who are thinking hard about these issues, sharing thoughts, and engaging on a real intellectual level. It is such a pleasure to be reminded of the challenging discussions I recall from law school and grad school. As for those whose contribution has remained at the level of calling people "morons" and other sniping... thank you for reminding us how much we treasure the more thoughtful exchanges!
                      I didn't realize you were posting under two screen names. I know that there are people who do that purposefully, but I am never the first to notice. ( I have noticed some banned people that have come back under a different name. Their sentence structure, grammar and syntax gives them away.)

                      I can understand how your "two logins" situation happened.

                      I don't agree with some of your opinions, but I don't believe you intended to deceive anyone.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by poltroon View Post

                        So it's important to remember we have competing claims here, not just a case of guilty or not.

                        The standard of choosing to weight any doubt in favor of the defendant is right for a case where the defendant's liberty is at stake. But in a case like this, you're choosing which athlete will stay in your sport and which will leave, because it's unlikely the sport is big enough for both, especially at the elite level.

                        There, if you settle doubts always in favor of the defendant, and particularly because of the nature of these offenses, you may have future claimants. Or just a lot of people who get a big break and then mysteriously fade in their orbit.
                        This is an intelligent argument for the standard of evidence being by a preponderance of the evidence and not beyond a reasonable doubt. As SafeSport currently has.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by BigMama1 View Post
                          For what it’s worth I disagree with your analogy as well, for a couple of reasons. First of all, getting “your day in court” is not what SafeSport is about, nor is it how it operates. My understanding is that the appeal isn’t necessarily a review of all the evidence (or essentially a trial, in your analogy) but rather an examination whether procedures were followed correctly.

                          Most importantly I disagree with your contention that the sanction is equivalent to charges being laid, and that the accused is innocent until after the appeal. That’s not the case. The ruling and the sanctions are equivalent to a determination of guilt. Period. The investigative body (the judge, in your analogy) reviewed all the evidence, weighed what the claimant, the defendant and the witnesses had to say, and issued their verdict.
                          In my analogy, the SafeSport investigation is NOT analogous to the judge, it’s analogous to a police investigation and indictment rolled into one.

                          In my analogy, the arbitrator is analogous to the judge.

                          In the appeal SafeSport has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the violations occurred. Sounds sort of like the job of a prosecutor?

                          If you think that the appeal only addresses procedural issues and does not involve evidence and witnesses, you’ve bought into more misinformation spread by Bonnie Navin.

                          FiSk123 - a ruling, please?
                          Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Aug. 27, 2019, 04:05 AM.

                          Comment


                          • I had some time today, so I read the entire SafeSport Code Book. Reminded me of my years as as Operations Director, where I was in charge of all HR functions, and wrote a number of procedural/HR/technical manuals. I can see why why not many people bother... pretty dry stuff. But to me, it is interesting. I'm kinda odd that way.

                            Anyhoo, YankeeDuchess, not sure if this addresses your question above regarding what exactly the appeal process covers or not - but this is what is stated in the manual...

                            R-2. Scope Arbitration shall resolve only whether a Responding Party violated the SafeSport Code for the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Movement (Code) and/or the appropriate sanction (if any). Challenges to, or complaints about, any organizational practices or procedures shall not be addressed and the arbitrator shall be limited to evaluating whether a Covered Individual violated the Code and, if so, the appropriate sanction.
                            ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

                            Comment


                            • I think it's only natural when you only know the accused and you know nothing about the claimant or the claims for your instinct to be to protect the accused. Especially so if you've never had any contact with a case like this.

                              These kinds of HR style investigations are essential and necessary and very often have to act on information that doesn't make a neat and tidy case. But there may be enough evidence, and a pattern, for a reasonable person to believe there's a problem. Each case alone may not be enough for a criminal conviction, but when you have multiple independent stories come to you it's not credible to believe that nothing happened.

                              I feel that many people who are upset have glossed over the fact that SafeSport has tools other than a permanent ban. They can informally mediate between the parties. They can write a letter of reprimand. They can give temporary restrictions. They can tell the claimant the claim is groundless. They can hold information against future data. We don't so much hear about those cases.

                              The temporary suspensions confused people. There are certainly still cases where that will continue to be appropriate. I don't know if they've decided to use it less. But, understand, it's exactly what we'd expect if it was a teacher or 4-H leader or scouting leader or youth coach in any other sport.

                              A permanent ban is only appropriate for really egregious cases. They've given out very few that aren't of the automatic variety that would come with a criminal conviction.
                              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


                              • Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post
                                I had some time today, so I read the entire SafeSport Code Book. Reminded me of my years as as Operations Director, where I was in charge of all HR functions, and wrote a number of procedural/HR/technical manuals. I can see why why not many people bother... pretty dry stuff. But to me, it is interesting. I'm kinda odd that way.

                                Anyhoo, YankeeDuchess, not sure if this addresses your question above regarding what exactly the appeal process covers or not - but this is what is stated in the manual...
                                Yes, thanks, that it helpful. Big Mama asserted that the appeal was focused on procedural issues, and was not analogous to a trial on whether the violation was committed, but the excerpt clearly says that the appeal process is focused on whether the violation occurred, and not on procedural issues.

                                Would still love to hear from FiSk123.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by 4LeafCloverFarm View Post
                                  I had some time today, so I read the entire SafeSport Code Book. Reminded me of my years as as Operations Director, where I was in charge of all HR functions, and wrote a number of procedural/HR/technical manuals. I can see why why not many people bother... pretty dry stuff. But to me, it is interesting. I'm kinda odd that way.

                                  Anyhoo, YankeeDuchess, not sure if this addresses your question above regarding what exactly the appeal process covers or not - but this is what is stated in the manual...
                                  "Challenges to, or complaints about, any organizational practices or procedures shall not be addressed and the arbitrator shall be limited to evaluating whether a Covered Individual violated the Code and, if so, the appropriate sanction."
                                  Eventhough the code indicates organizational practices or procedures will not be addressed, I would expect some lawyers do address it in their attempt to defend their clients.

                                  The code also says the Reporting Party's name will not be disclosed. Kathy Serio states that the infomation regarding the case cannot not shared (even to a wife); however, this is not true. Any attorney will tell you they can't defend their client and provide evidence and witnesses if they don't know the other party. So, while it appears to be a violation of the code, names are absolutely disclosed. The Responding Party's witnesses know who reported.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by BITSA View Post

                                    1. discovery
                                    2. the right to have a lawyer confront and cross examine the complainant In some cases the lawyers have cross examined witnesses.
                                    3. the ability to have the arbitrator issue subpoenas
                                    4. requiring all sworn statements to be under oath Sworn statements admitted into evidence during arbitration are signed, swearing to be the truth. All live witness take the oath before testifying.
                                    5. a statute of limitations that includes a continuing violations element (like sexual harassment claims have)
                                    As I stated before, many of these cases are within the statute of limitations. And it has been said multiple times that there isn't a penalty administered that is comparable to that of a criminal or civil trial. No jail time, no probation, no financial restitution to the Reporting Party.

                                    Comment


                                    • I do want to interject here that, although SS does not seek restitution or take any further action once a penalty has been decided, I would expect that in future, when the statute of limitations has not been exceeded, or has been waived by the state in which the actions took place, the victims would pursue civil or criminal cases. i also would imagine that a ban by SS would be admissible in evidence. (but I'm not a lawyer).

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                        Yes, thanks, that it helpful. Big Mama asserted that the appeal was focused on procedural issues, and was not analogous to a trial on whether the violation was committed, but the excerpt clearly says that the appeal process is focused on whether the violation occurred, and not on procedural issues.

                                        Would still love to hear from FiSk123.
                                        I said I understood the appeal was for procedural grounds. Happy to be proven wrong there. Doesn’t change the fact that following a thorough investigation, SS issues a verdict and may impose a sanction. Using GM as an example, he was found guilty, for want if a better word. I will now consider him guilty unless the appeal results give me reason it to. In court cases do you believe a defendant who was found guilty should still be considered innocent until after an appeal?

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Keep it Simple View Post

                                          Eventhough the code indicates organizational practices or procedures will not be addressed, I would expect some lawyers do address it in their attempt to defend their clients.

                                          The code also says the Reporting Party's name will not be disclosed. Kathy Serio states that the infomation regarding the case cannot not shared (even to a wife); however, this is not true. Any attorney will tell you they can't defend their client and provide evidence and witnesses if they don't know the other party. So, while it appears to be a violation of the code, names are absolutely disclosed. The Responding Party's witnesses know who reported.
                                          RG knew who had signed complaints against him. He shared that information not only with his attorney but with others as well. How do I know this? Because I personally know at least 4 of those who signed initial complaints against him. FWIW, I was not one of them.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X