Stallion Spotlight

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

Real Estate Spotlight

Birman1
  • 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 roseymare View Post
    A quick Google search shows that prior to 2006 state sex offender lists were not standardized. So it is possible that a state had something about patients and it seems that it is not always criminal convictions. So I wouldn't discount the story as completely wacky. Twenty or so years ago states were just getting all of the details ironed out. And surely someone in the neighborhood followed up on his story. People were nosey and speculative even before the internet made us all sleuths!



    Indecent exposure of three times will get you on the IL list. Yep know someone whom that happened to. He had three indecent exposure citations for pubic urination. He was an alcoholic who needed help. I can't remember the time frame and think maybe he fought it.

    I doubt one incidence of streaking is enough though.

    I am SO relieved that a single incident of streaking is (probably) not enough to get me on the sex offenders registry.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


      I am SO relieved that a single incident of streaking is (probably) not enough to get me on the sex offenders registry.
      Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But it absolutely can in California.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

        I do not know for a fact that FiSk123 is female. It is my inference that FiSk123 is female, mostly based on her writing style. Why, in your mind, does it matter?

        The pronoun “they” is now used for people who consider themselves non-binary. If you don’t know for a fact that FiSk123 identifies as non-binary, perhaps you should refer to her as he/she/they.
        She is female.
        *****
        You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post
          Wow three pages analyzing ynl063w’s story from 25 years ago. From the original post we can infer a crime had been committed and the person in question was convicted based on the fact that letters, typically from the State Police (at least where I live), that a convicted sex offender moved into the neighborhood.

          Did the guy white wash the story? Probably. Does it change the fact that the example was to demonstrate being put on the sex offender list for sex crimes not involving minors? No it does not.

          It’s really easy now a days to see what crimes can get someone on the sex offender list. In my state any violent sexual crime lands one there. Rape for example. What constitutes rape? Sex with someone who is unable or does not consent. Ability to consent is also linked to the situation ie one’s job. The psychiatrist and patient is a good example. In my line of work being drunk puts a person into the unable to consent category and I have seen people go down for that. As someone else mentioned a nurse working in a prison.
          My point was that the concept that two adults having an otherwise completely consensual sexual relationship in a situation in which one has a position of power or trust over the other, i,e. doctor/patient, Professor/student, is not a state or Federal crime. Such relationships are rightly frowned upon and violate professional codes of conduct and can therefore get you fired or get your license to practice medicine revoked, but absent the additional machinations in the case FiSk described, are not crimes.

          Since the relationship with the patient he described would not have gotten him on the sex offender list, we have no idea what crime he did commit.

          I’ve always thought of the sex offender list as involving conduct with minors, but it makes a lot of sense that any serious sex offense, like rape, would be included, even indecent exposure.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by specifiedcupcake View Post
            HLMom here is some more reading:

            https://thinkprogress.org/2-olympic-...-4b1b54b8c1ef/

            https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/25/s...safesport.html

            So, no there's not a lot of published data on the interim suspensions - but I believe that's because that policy is in flux after the Gage suicide (which most people should agree is a good thing?) But it doesn't change the fact that it appears only "permanent" disciplinary action such as a lifetime ban, is what goes to arbitration. I can't speak for the time-limit suspensions that come about post investigation, but it seems they are prioritizing serious/repeat sexual/violent offenders and delegating a lot of the "softer" stuff to the NGBs for at least the time being.
            Thanks for posting these links. The ThinkProgress article describes exactly what I thought happened in the Lopez case.

            I'm sure after reading the Think Progress article, you are as concerned as I am: SafeSport let two horrific sexual offenders slip out of its grasp because it did not put on sufficient evidence at the arbitration. This is one of the reasons I am raising the question of whether SafeSport should have some kind of subpoena power, and how successful SafeSport really is at ensuring the truth comes to light in these cases.

            To be clear: it is the people who say, "Don't ask any questions about SafeSport!!!!!!" who are contributing nothing to this discussion. People like Fisk understand that SafeSport's credibility rests on transparency and sharing information, and many of us are grateful for his/her efforts in this regard.

            Comment


            • I thought safe sport extended to amateurs in addition to minors? Generally I could see a person that was seen as "abusing" their position of authority (or violating in a similar way their professional code of ethics) that put them on the sex offender list would rightly be banned from sports to protect both minors and amateurs.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Roser123 View Post

                Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But it absolutely can in California.
                I was in college during the streaking fad, and I heard a story of a class in art history in which two female students, one a bit more full figured than the other, streaked across the room.

                Supposedly the professor calmly looked up from his notes and remarked on what he saw:
                “Baroque. Rococo”
                I was not there, but believe this occurred with every fiber of my being.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                  My point was that the concept that two adults having an otherwise completely consensual sexual relationship in a situation in which one has a position of power or trust over the other, i,e. doctor/patient, Professor/student, is not a state or Federal crime. Such relationships are rightly frowned upon and violate professional code of conduct and can therefore get you fired or get your license to practice medicine revoked, but absent the additional machinations in the case FiSk described, are not crimes.

                  Since the relationship with the patient he described would not have gotten him on the sex offender list, we have no idea what crime he did commit.

                  I’ve always thought of the sex offender list as involving conduct with minors, but it makes s lot of sense that any serious sex offense, like rape, would be included, even indecent exposure.
                  We don’t know the patients mental state and that depending on what it is can absolutely be a crime when it comes to doctor/patient as pointed out by another poster.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                    Thanks for posting these links. The ThinkProgress article describes exactly what I thought happened in the Lopez case.

                    I'm sure after reading the Think Progress article, you are as concerned as I am: SafeSport let two horrific sexual offenders slip out of its grasp because it did not put on sufficient evidence at the arbitration. This is one of the reasons I am raising the question of whether SafeSport should have some kind of subpoena power, and how successful SafeSport really is at ensuring the truth comes to light in these cases.

                    To be clear: it is the people who say, "Don't ask any questions about SafeSport!!!!!!" who are contributing nothing to this discussion. People like Fisk understand that SafeSport's credibility rests on transparency and sharing information, and many of us are grateful for his/her efforts in this regard.
                    But how does that correlate with protecting the reporting victims? Are you going to 'sacrifice" them just for the appeal?
                    ​​​​

                    Comment


                    • Horsegirl's Mom No one has said don’t ask questions. What has been said is do a little research on the basic questions that have been asked and answered over the course of numerous threads and still continue to get asked in this one by THE SAME POSTERS.

                      Also, with the subpoena argument, what you are missing is, in the civil suit the claimants are alleging that Safe Sport would ONLY allow live testimony which goes against their own agreed upon rules of arbitration as outlined on their website. That’s why Safe Sport is getting sued along with the USOC et al. The investigation was also kicked off before Safe Sport became a thing.

                      Comment


                      • Adding to my prior post: there was an additional wrinkle to the Lopez case. The victims were suing SafeSport and the USOC, saying those organizations looked the other way at the Lopez misconduct for years because they were more interested in winning and preserving the image of the Olympics. So it's not clear the victims wanted SafeSport's sanctions to succeed, because they wanted to portray the organization as a complete failure. Meanwhile the SafeSport attorney was (according to the article) playing games trying to get two chances to examine the victims under oath (once in the arbitration and once in the civil case), in the hope that would help SafeSport in the civil case. (Attorneys love to get two shots at a witness because that's when inconsistencies tend to crop up).

                        Yikes. That's a lot to unwind. Almost makes you feel bad for SafeSport-- apparently in the Lopez situation, they were hated by both the victims and the perpetrators.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by omare View Post
                          I thought safe sport extended to amateurs in addition to minors? Generally I could see a person that was seen as "abusing" their position of authority (or violating in a similar way their professional code of ethics) that put them on the sex offender list would rightly be banned from sports to protect both minors and amateurs.
                          It does. The majority of people on the ban list though have been banned for criminal disposition with minors. There is three or so people where it just says criminal disposition. Related, if MB is found guilty for attempted murder he will most likely end up on the ban list.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                            Thanks for posting these links. The ThinkProgress article describes exactly what I thought happened in the Lopez case.

                            I'm sure after reading the Think Progress article, you are as concerned as I am: SafeSport let two horrific sexual offenders slip out of its grasp because it did not put on sufficient evidence at the arbitration. This is one of the reasons I am raising the question of whether SafeSport should have some kind of subpoena power, and how successful SafeSport really is at ensuring the truth comes to light in these cases.

                            To be clear: it is the people who say, "Don't ask any questions about SafeSport!!!!!!" who are contributing nothing to this discussion. People like Fisk understand that SafeSport's credibility rests on transparency and sharing information, and many of us are grateful for his/her efforts in this regard.
                            Maybe I missed that bit between your rants poking holes in incomplete statistics posted by other users.

                            I think the safesport process is working how it was intended to and theres just a bit of pearl-clutching indignation that notoriety is no longer a protection for someone to be a jerk to students/employees in an industry that enjoyed flying below the radar into the swamps for a long time. I dont think questioning exactly how many bans are in active vs complete arbitration is helpful or productive to the topic being discussed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by specifiedcupcake View Post

                              Maybe I missed that bit between your rants poking holes in incomplete statistics posted by other users.

                              I think the safesport process is working how it was intended to and theres just a bit of pearl-clutching indignation that notoriety is no longer a protection for someone to be a jerk to students/employees in an industry that enjoyed flying below the radar into the swamps for a long time. I dont think questioning exactly how many bans are in active vs complete arbitration is helpful or productive to the topic being discussed.
                              If you want useful information on the rate at which bans are successfully overturned on appeal, you obviously need to have a sample for which the appeals process has been completed. Otherwise you have truncation bias, which could be severe in this case given the short time SafeSport has been operating. That’s Statistics 101.

                              “Pearl-clutching indignation”? I hope that posters on this board would at least show a little respect by tossing around more original insults.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                If you want useful information on the rate at which bans are successfully overturned on appeal, you obviously need to have a sample for which the appeals process has been completed. Otherwise you have truncation bias, which could be severe in this case given the short time SafeSport has been operating. That’s Statistics 101.

                                “Pearl-clutching indignation”? I hope that posters on this board would at least show a little respect by tossing around more original insults.
                                By pearl clutching indignation that poster was referring to people spreading false information about BNTs being banned by Safe Sport BECAUSE they are a BNT.

                                It is now blatantly obvious you know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community and you for whatever reason ignore what the majority writes about on these threads.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post
                                  Adding to my prior post: there was an additional wrinkle to the Lopez case. The victims were suing SafeSport and the USOC, saying those organizations looked the other way at the Lopez misconduct for years because they were more interested in winning and preserving the image of the Olympics. So it's not clear the victims wanted SafeSport's sanctions to succeed, because they wanted to portray the organization as a complete failure. Meanwhile the SafeSport attorney was (according to the article) playing games trying to get two chances to examine the victims under oath (once in the arbitration and once in the civil case), in the hope that would help SafeSport in the civil case. (Attorneys love to get two shots at a witness because that's when inconsistencies tend to crop up).

                                  Yikes. That's a lot to unwind. Almost makes you feel bad for SafeSport-- apparently in the Lopez situation, they were hated by both the victims and the perpetrators.
                                  This is why a couple of pages ago I said the Lopez case is a poor barometer for SS appeals.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                    By pearl clutching indignation that poster was referring to people spreading false information about BNTs being banned by Safe Sport BECAUSE they are a BNT.

                                    It is now blatantly obvious you know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community and you for whatever reason ignore what the majority writes about on these threads.
                                    Holy cow, that's not very nice.

                                    To review where we are: Supporters of GM and other banned trainers have made public statements that (1) A large proportion of SafeSport's sanctions are overturned on appeal; and (2) the SafeSport process needs improvement.

                                    That prompted some of us to do research and request clarification from SafeSport on various questions, including seeking statistics to evaluate the claims about the "overturn" rate. When someone asserts something, it is generally more persuasive instead of just saying, "That's not true!" to have the real facts to counter it.

                                    It also has led to a discussion here about whether, indeed, the SafeSport process could be improved. This has two potential aspects: (1) ensuring fairness to the accused; and (2) ensuring SafeSport is successful in proving its case against predators. This is where the discussion about subpoena power came in. People have made arguments on both sides--there are pros and cons on all these issues.

                                    It's a discussion. It was my understanding that's what an internet forum is for. If it's a topic that bores you, or you think you already know everything you need to know about SafeSport, then don't participate!

                                    Lastly, I don't have any doubt that the folks who work with SafeSport are genuinely committed to eliminating sexual abuse in sport. I know there are journalists who have claimed otherwise--some say SafeSport is just a "cya" for the Olympic committee. I don't buy it--I think SafeSport are good people working in good faith to achieve a worthy mission. That doesn't mean it isn't valid to discuss whether the process can be improved in any way.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                      Holy cow, that's not very nice.

                                      To review where we are: Supporters of GM and other banned trainers have made public statements that (1) A large proportion of SafeSport's sanctions are overturned on appeal; and (2) the SafeSport process needs improvement.

                                      That prompted some of us to do research and request clarification from SafeSport on various questions, including seeking statistics to evaluate the claims about the "overturn" rate. When someone asserts something, it is generally more persuasive instead of just saying, "That's not true!" to have the real facts to counter it.

                                      It also has led to a discussion here about whether, indeed, the SafeSport process could be improved. This has two potential aspects: (1) ensuring fairness to the accused; and (2) ensuring SafeSport is successful in proving its case against predators. This is where the discussion about subpoena power came in. People have made arguments on both sides--there are pros and cons on all these issues.

                                      It's a discussion. It was my understanding that's what an internet forum is for. If it's a topic that bores you, or you think you already know everything you need to know about SafeSport, then don't participate!

                                      Lastly, I don't have any doubt that the folks who work with SafeSport are genuinely committed to eliminating sexual abuse in sport. I know there are journalists who have claimed otherwise--some say SafeSport is just a "cya" for the Olympic committee. I don't buy it--I think SafeSport are good people working in good faith to achieve a worthy mission. That doesn't mean it isn't valid to discuss whether the process can be improved in any way.
                                      My statement was one of fact. Not to be nice or not nice. It is what it is. Sorry that many of us have gotten educated through numerous threads and reading up on Safe Sport through many different avenues. Doesn’t change my statement.

                                      In order to have a discussion people need to do more than make blanket statements about what they think should happen. They need to back that up with why and not ignore counter arguments that don’t fit their agenda.

                                      Its also helpful if people wanting the discussion have a basic grasp of the parameters of Safe Sport and the culture to which it is applied and not rely on facts gleaned from Facebook.

                                      Again the poster stating people are pearl clutching is in direct reference to people denying things despite evidence to the contrary just because of who the accused is. I’ll say again, I have been friends with and respected someone who is now sitting in federal prison for doing much worse than anyone on the ban list. I have had no problem cutting off ties nor would I dream of making excuses for them.

                                      I am honestly shocked and appalled attorneys on this thread can’t do basic research. If one has time to post on this thread on has time to google. That statement is not directed at you personally. I understand where you are coming from as a lawyer and as a horse mom. But really, when you put stock in what Bonnie Navin says, you will lose credit on this board. When you say witnesses should be subpoenaed think about the posters like keep it simple and oneequestrianette. People here have been deep in the UL hunters for a while. We know what goes on. I myself have stories for days. I don’t tell them because my friends told me in confidence and therefore they are not my stories to tell. That is what YOU need to understand.

                                      FFS have some damn compassion for the people who’ve been through hell. Don’t look at everything as a trial attorney. Look at things as a human being.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Denali6298 View Post

                                        By pearl clutching indignation that poster was referring to people spreading false information about BNTs being banned by Safe Sport BECAUSE they are a BNT.

                                        It is now blatantly obvious you know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community and you for whatever reason ignore what the majority writes about on these threads.

                                        Indeed, I know nothing about the upper levels of the H/J community. Everything I know about George Morris I learned on this thread.

                                        Who is being accused of “spreading false information about BNTs being banned by SafeSport BECAUSE they are a BNT”?

                                        I thought Cupcake was bashing Horsegirl’s Mom for saying that a non truncated sample was necessary to get meaningful statistics on the rate at which bans are overturned on appeal. Horsegirl’s Mom was absolutely right about that.

                                        I didn’t even object to Cupcake slinging around a mild insult, just pointed out that “clutching pearls” is sort of tired at this point.

                                        Comment


                                        • I want to add to I don’t think your awful nor do I have any malice against you. I just think you need to step out of your trial attorney shoes and you need to stop ignoring evidence that proves your theories wrong. I think your logic is in the right place, I just don’t think you are educated enough on sex crimes and what people go through. That’s not meant to be a criticism by the way. I know an awful lot because it’s something I do extra for work.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X