Stallion Spotlight

BushyGeneology copy

Real Estate Spotlight

IMG_0213
  • 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 YankeeDuchess View Post

    The suggestion by HLMom to consider giving SafeSport the power to subpoena witnesses during arbitration might have prevented the apparently guilty Lopez brothers from escaping a lifetime ban, without changing the fact that SafeSport was explicitly created to operate outside the bounds of the criminal/civil justice system.
    Under what authority do you suggest that SafeSport has the power to subpoena witnesses? SafeSport is (let's all say it together) an extra-judicial administrative body. SafeSport's lack of authority to compel people to do anything they don't want to do is baked into the structure.

    As anyone who has ever watched Law & Order knows, the court system has the authority to compel someone to appear. If the person fails to appear, a warrant can be issued and the police can fetch them. The person can be declared in contempt of court and tossed in jail.

    So let's say we do what you suggest. Poof! SafeSport, you may now issue a subpoena ordering a witness to appear without involving the courts. How do you propose that SafeSport will enforce that subpoena? What if the person refuses to show up? What do you want SafeSport to do about it? Call up the police and say, "Hey, would you all please go down to 124 Oak Street, slap Victim A in handcuffs, and drag her ass back here to testify in this arbitration hearing? We sent her a strongly worded order to appear but she didn't show up." Yeah, I'm sure the police will get right on that.

    Enforcing a subpoena requires the authority of the justice system. It is impossible to give SafeSport the power to subpoena a witness and enforce that subpoena without having SafeSport also operate within the criminal/civil justice system.

    "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
    that's even remotely true."

    Homer Simpson

    Comment


    • Have any of you been in a workplace where a sexual harassment claim is filed? The accused is usually suspended immediately pending investigation. In this case, an investigation happened before the suspension, so that's more "due process" than in any other profession I'm aware of. You can scream due process til the cows come home, but the #1 priority and reason for existence of SS is to STOP child predators, to remove them from the organization immediately. Sure, they can be reinstated if the allegations prove to be false, but if you would risk your child being molested or raped after reports have been made, but before the appeal process, then you should consider relinquishing your parental rights because you're not equipped to be a parent.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

        You have made similar inane, flip rejoinders. “Just tell an innocent man accused of rape, that he shouldn’t have been standing around with a tight T shirt”, then “explain” that the “point” was to demonstrate the inanity of saying rape victims are at fault for being raped, as if you thought there was a single person on the board that had failed to understand that point for 30 years.
        Actually there was a poster earlier on the thread that thought that junior riders should go back to the old flared breeches since the newer show clothing was too tight and sexy. Somebody mentioned juniors sticking their butts out for photos to look sexy in their breeches so yes there is at least one person on this board that feels that sexy riding clothes contributes to the problem. (Sorry I suck at multiple quotes.)
        As there were a few replies to that individual I am guessing Denali6298 was addressing that point.

        And yes there are still people think that if you dress sexy or wear tight clothing that you are either asking for it or are at least partially to blame if you get sexually harassed or assaulted. But only if you are female. Yes, some of those people are COTH forum members.
        Oh, well, clearly you're not thoroughly indoctrinated to COTH yet, because finger pointing and drawing conclusions are the cornerstones of this great online community. (Tidy Rabbit)

        Comment


        • I wonder if the Lopez brothers case was processed under the pre-codification of safe sport--that is what was in place per the USA Olympic committee.

          it looks like safe sport was enacted in 02/14/18. Further Congress seems to speak to any civil actions (which again might prevent a repeat of that case), as it prescribes the remedy for personal injuries, that:

          SEC. 102. CIVIL REMEDY FOR PERSONAL INJURIES. Section 2255 of title 18, United States Code, is amended-- (1) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following: ``(a) In General.--Any person who, while a minor, was a victim of a violation of section 1589, 1590, 1591, 2241(c), 2242, 2243, 2251, 2251A, 2252, 2252A, 2260, 2421, 2422, or 2423 of this title and who suffers personal injury as a result of such violation, regardless of whether the injury occurred while such person was a minor, may sue in any appropriate United States District Court and shall recover the actual damages such person sustains or liquidated damages in the amount of $150,000, and the cost of the action, including reasonable attorney's fees and other litigation costs reasonably incurred. The court may also award punitive damages and such other preliminary and equitable relief as the court determines to be appropriate.'';
          Last edited by omare; Aug. 27, 2019, 06:02 PM.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

            Ok, he has a calendar on his website with lots of names like "Kendall" and "Kylar." What does that prove? Do you know anything about these riders? Are any of them showing in regional equitation finals or winning championships in junior hunters? For all we know, these are all up-down riders whose show career consists of being in the annual barn horseshow.

            Is anyone really going to argue that a lifetime ban by SafeSport has no significant impact on a h/j trainer's livelihood?

            If that is the case, then I would expect to see a lot of sanctioned trainers not even bothering to appeal, since the ban won't affect them at all! Why spend thousands of dollars hiring lawyers and going through arbitration if the impact is so trivial?
            Ok I will say it. Level of showing is not definitively related to NET income. More input often means more output. I wonder how many are actually living paycheck to paycheck like their colleagues training for local shows. Maybe even moreso as there are more keep up with the Joneses when you are a bnt.



            ​​​​I suspect there are as many non USEF trainers making at least as much net income if not more than USEF trainers.

            Comment


            • SonnysMom thank you. I’m not sure why that particular poster thinks all negative posts that do not quote a post or name a poster are directed at her.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                The suggestion by HLMom to consider giving SafeSport the power to subpoena witnesses during arbitration might have prevented the apparently guilty Lopez brothers from escaping a lifetime ban, without changing the fact that SafeSport was explicitly created to operate outside the bounds of the criminal/civil justice system.
                But maybe that would result in a ruling for them in civil court. Is that a better outcome for the victims?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                  Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom



                  Well let's look at Tom Navarro, who as Denali says has never exactly been a BNT, despite his claims to the creds for it.

                  "Tom Navarro has 30+ years of experience with horses in almost every aspect of horsemanship. He has started more than 300 horses under saddle, worked with top competitors on the Hunter/Jumper circuit, and managed his own barn and business with top-notch care as a number one priority. Tom has successfully Trained and Assisted Horses and Riders from beginners to Grand Prix Jumpers from Local Schooling to AA and 5* competitions." (The quote is from his bio on his web page)

                  According to the August, 2019 schedule on the RCF website, he's pretty much doing business as usual, with a full day of lessons just about every day. Judging from that it doesn't look like he's lost much business because of the ban.
                  Yep, and according to him, he's doing "millions of dollars of business" each year. So I guess the ban hasn't hurt him too much!

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post
                    . . .
                    Enforcing a subpoena requires the authority of the justice system. It is impossible to give SafeSport the power to subpoena a witness and enforce that subpoena without having SafeSport also operate within the criminal/civil justice system.
                    That makes total sense to me. SS can't straddle the fence between civil/criminal/law enforcement and administrative arbitration. It has to be one or the other - can't be both. It reports to law enforcement/criminal court when the situation dictates, but can't step over that line and act as either law enforcement or the criminal/civil justice system.

                    There is no such equivalent as a "hostile witness" in the SS code (that I found). If an accuser or reporter or witness or accused doesn't wish to participate OR decides to stop participating at any point in the process, s/he can't be compelled to do so.
                    ~~ How do you catch a loose horse? Make a noise like a carrot! - British Cavalry joke ~~

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                      Your dismissal of local circuit riders is quite jaw dropping. Using those riders as proof of Navarro’s livelihood being impacted by the ban as if somehow local circuit trainers are unsuccessful because they don’t play at the top is equally jaw dropping.

                      ETA: A conviction didn’t alter Navarro’s business. Highly doubt the ban would if that didn’t.
                      Ok, so this Navarro fellow was a small-time trainer with no national aspirations before the ban and has remained a small-time trainer with no national aspirations afterwards. I'll take your word for that.

                      My question to you remains: Is it your argument that a SafeSport ban never has a significant impact on a h/j trainer's business?

                      And if that is your position, then please explain why they spend so much time and money appealing it.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                        Ok, so this Navarro fellow was a small-time trainer with no national aspirations before the ban and has remained a small-time trainer with no national aspirations afterwards. I'll take your word for that.

                        My question to you remains: Is it your argument that a SafeSport ban never has a significant impact on a h/j trainer's business?

                        And if that is your position, then please explain why they spend so much time and money appealing it.
                        I do not think it would hurt business at all nor do I think it ever would. People KNEW about these things before the ban and still trained with now banned. Not a H/J trainer but Randall Cates’ barn was being advertised by his city’s tourism website. People on this thread said regardless of the ban they would still ride with GM. The clinic with GM in Aiken was still taking riders and auditors up until the 18th of this month despite the ban. It only got cancelled because GM cancelled until after arbitration.

                        They spend time and money appealing to stay a part of the USEF and probably for ego as well. I highly doubt any of them are worried about their livelihoods. There are way too many examples of low level to famous trainers being banned that still have successful careers in the horse industry.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sticky Situation View Post

                          I’ve heard people saying that SafeSport bans are analogous to getting fired from a job for sexual harassment, and I have to strongly disagree with that.

                          If someone is fired from a job for sexual harassment, they’re still free to seek employment with other companies in the same area of business, other areas of the country. The reason for their getting fired is not made publicly known and listed on a website along with the nature of the harassment claim.
                          This is actually pretty variable.

                          If you're actively removed from any job in education it will be pretty hard to get another, even if the reasons aren't public.

                          It can be hard to get another job any time you were fired rather than you resigned. Heck, it can be hard to get another job if you don't currently have one.

                          For jobs that involve interacting with children, I think it would be really quite challenging to get a new job after a substantiated accusation of sexual harassment in a workplace.

                          Most investigations in a workplace will be quite a bit less objective and less thorough than what SafeSport does.
                          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 NoSuchPerson View Post

                            Under what authority do you suggest that SafeSport has the power to subpoena witnesses? SafeSport is (let's all say it together) an extra-judicial administrative body. SafeSport's lack of authority to compel people to do anything they don't want to do is baked into the structure.

                            As anyone who has ever watched Law & Order knows, the court system has the authority to compel someone to appear. If the person fails to appear, a warrant can be issued and the police can fetch them. The person can be declared in contempt of court and tossed in jail.

                            So let's say we do what you suggest. Poof! SafeSport, you may now issue a subpoena ordering a witness to appear without involving the courts. How do you propose that SafeSport will enforce that subpoena? What if the person refuses to show up? What do you want SafeSport to do about it? Call up the police and say, "Hey, would you all please go down to 124 Oak Street, slap Victim A in handcuffs, and drag her ass back here to testify in this arbitration hearing? We sent her a strongly worded order to appear but she didn't show up." Yeah, I'm sure the police will get right on that.

                            Enforcing a subpoena requires the authority of the justice system. It is impossible to give SafeSport the power to subpoena a witness and enforce that subpoena without having SafeSport also operate within the criminal/civil justice system.
                            This is a very interesting question.

                            As I've stated, we arbitrate cases in front of JAMS regularly, and JAMS has the power to subpoena witnesses. So my thinking was that SafeSport should adopt the regular JAMS rule regarding subpoenas. (Technically, it is the tribunal that has the subpoena power, and the parties are allowed to issue subpoenas in the tribunal's name).

                            USEF has its members agree to all SafeSport rules as a condition of membership, right? The subpoena rule could be added to the existing set of procedural rules. As for how it would be enforced, disobeying the subpoena would be a violation of SafeSport rules that could subject you to a penalty.

                            I understand it feels heavy-handed to talk about requiring witnesses to testify. Equestrians already feel SafeSport is too much in their business, so maybe this is a bridge too far. But you understand the concern, right? Without a way to require witnesses to testify, you end up with a lot of people who'd "rather not get involved," and that diminishes one's confidence that all the facts are being brought to light.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                              I do not think it would hurt business at all nor do I think it ever would.
                              Well okay then! I've got to appreciate someone who has the courage of their convictions!

                              If George Morris is reading this thread, he will surely be tremendously relieved!

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                This is a very interesting question.

                                As I've stated, we arbitrate cases in front of JAMS regularly, and JAMS has the power to subpoena witnesses. So my thinking was that SafeSport should adopt the regular JAMS rule regarding subpoenas. (Technically, it is the tribunal that has the subpoena power, and the parties are allowed to issue subpoenas in the tribunal's name).

                                USEF has its members agree to all SafeSport rules as a condition of membership, right? The subpoena rule could be added to the existing set of procedural rules. As for how it would be enforced, disobeying the subpoena would be a violation of SafeSport rules that could subject you to a penalty.

                                I understand it feels heavy-handed to talk about requiring witnesses to testify. Equestrians already feel SafeSport is too much in their business, so maybe this is a bridge too far. But you understand the concern, right? Without a way to require witnesses to testify, you end up with a lot of people who'd "rather not get involved," and that diminishes one's confidence that all the facts are being brought to light.
                                I feel like it would be very damaging to force the victims to testify again in front of the arbitrator. Also, I think it’s been demonstrated that there are more than enough people willing to jump to the defense of the accused. The Lopez case went to hell because the victims refused to sign the affidavits and/or testify again. Not any witnesses.

                                Now I am curious how many bans are overturned on appeal because the victims do not want to testify or provided signed affidavits.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                  Well okay then! I've got to appreciate someone who has the courage of their convictions!

                                  If George Morris is reading this thread, he will surely be tremendously relieved!
                                  And I stated my reasons why. I don’t get why you chopped my post to that one sentence. Nor do I understand why you are making the argument that it would hurt business, despite evidence to the contrary.

                                  I guessed at your last question as I have no clue what the thought process is for people who molest children.
                                  Last edited by Denali6298; Aug. 27, 2019, 06:36 PM.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                    I feel like it would be very damaging to force the victims to testify again in front of the arbitrator.
                                    When you say "testify again," what are you referring to? When did the victim testify the first time?

                                    Being interviewed by a SS investigator is not testifying, because the person is not under oath, and there is no opportunity for the arbitrator or opposing party to cross-examine.

                                    Based on my review of the rules, the arbitration is the one and only time anyone will testify.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                      When you say "testify again," what are you referring to? When did the victim testify the first time?

                                      Being interviewed by a SS investigator is not testifying, because the person is not under oath, and there is no opportunity for the arbitrator or opposing party to cross-examine.

                                      Based on my review of the rules, the arbitration is the one and only time anyone will testify.
                                      Wrong word my apologies. Point stands though. If the accused appeals and the victims refuse for what ever reason to participate it is their right. They may not be able to deal with the process or as in the Lopez case be suing for damages.

                                      ETA: Do they actually use JAMS for the appeal or just a similar process? After reading the JAMS website subpoenas come into play during the original arbitration. Not on the appeal. So are they are using the arbitration rules or the appeal rules? If it’s the appeals rules they don’t compel anyone to participate they carry on.
                                      Last edited by Denali6298; Aug. 27, 2019, 06:35 PM.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by NoSuchPerson View Post

                                        Under what authority do you suggest that SafeSport has the power to subpoena witnesses? SafeSport is (let's all say it together) an extra-judicial administrative body. SafeSport's lack of authority to compel people to do anything they don't want to do is baked into the structure.

                                        As anyone who has ever watched Law & Order knows, the court system has the authority to compel someone to appear. If the person fails to appear, a warrant can be issued and the police can fetch them. The person can be declared in contempt of court and tossed in jail.

                                        So let's say we do what you suggest. Poof! SafeSport, you may now issue a subpoena ordering a witness to appear without involving the courts. How do you propose that SafeSport will enforce that subpoena? What if the person refuses to show up? What do you want SafeSport to do about it? Call up the police and say, "Hey, would you all please go down to 124 Oak Street, slap Victim A in handcuffs, and drag her ass back here to testify in this arbitration hearing? We sent her a strongly worded order to appear but she didn't show up." Yeah, I'm sure the police will get right on that.

                                        Enforcing a subpoena requires the authority of the justice system. It is impossible to give SafeSport the power to subpoena a witness and enforce that subpoena without having SafeSport also operate within the criminal/civil justice system.
                                        If SafeSport were given the authority to subpoena witnesses, then yes, it would need the involvement of local police or Federal marshals to enforce it.

                                        Given that GM is banned, if he were to show up on the show grounds of a USEF show and refuse to leave, I assumed that the show management was expected to call the police to have him removed rather than physically get rid of him themselves.

                                        How to do see USEF enforcing a ban as they are legally required to do?
                                        Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Aug. 27, 2019, 09:04 PM.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                          As I've stated, we arbitrate cases in front of JAMS regularly, and JAMS has the power to subpoena witnesses. So my thinking was that SafeSport should adopt the regular JAMS rule regarding subpoenas.

                                          So, what's the penalty for ignoring a JAMS subpoena?

                                          USEF has its members agree to all SafeSport rules as a condition of membership, right? The subpoena rule could be added to the existing set of procedural rules. As for how it would be enforced, disobeying the subpoena would be a violation of SafeSport rules that could subject you to a penalty.

                                          There is a huge gulf between asking people to abide by a code of conduct and compelling people to testify at a SafeSport arbitration hearing. All USEF adult members and USEF participants have already been designated as mandatory reporters, which, in a sense, compels them to provide testimony to SafeSport. I would not support any proposals that go beyond that.

                                          And then we, again, get to the question of exactly what power SafeSport/USEF have to enforce the subpoena. The worst they can do is ban you from being a USEF member. Big deal. I just can't see that being a big enough stick to compel a person who has serious reasons not to testify.


                                          I understand it feels heavy-handed to talk about requiring witnesses to testify. Equestrians already feel SafeSport is too much in their business, so maybe this is a bridge too far. But you understand the concern, right? Without a way to require witnesses to testify, you end up with a lot of people who'd "rather not get involved," and that diminishes one's confidence that all the facts are being brought to light.
                                          No, honestly I don't understand the concern. You have stated previously that your concern is for the accused and the existence of some Mystery Person(s) whose testimony can clear the accused but won't appear at the arbitration hearing. I think it's a straw man argument. The odds of that situation existing are vanishingly small. And it certainly doesn't warrant the kind of heavy-handed "solution" you're proposing.
                                          "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                                          that's even remotely true."

                                          Homer Simpson

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X