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 eeyore886 View Post
    Sorry if this has already been said, but as much as I believe perpetrators should be brought to justice, I just don't see how you can convict someone with no evidence other than their word. I don't care how many people said it. It was from 40 some years ago? There is a reason there are statutes of limitations on many crimes. This is "he said-she said" and that should never be the standard to convict someone and ruin their life. Didn't we just see that same thing tried on Judge Kavanaugh? Calumny is a sin. And it should be a crime itself to accuse someone of something which cannot be proven.
    Yes, let's throw all the survivors of sexual abuse in prison because their perpetrator wasn't stupid enough to leave clear physical evidence. Let's throw the survivors of these sick pedophiles in prison because they should have the emotional strength as children to speak out against adults in what should be trusted positions of authority, or family friends, or family members. While we're at it, let's just not remove anyone from their esteemed positions unless they're actually convicted of a crime. Let the pedophile teachers, priests, coaches, etc just keep their jobs, because their lives and reputations and ability to make money is far more important than protecting anyone from them just based on several people repeating the same experiences with them.

    I don't have enough palms for my face right now.

    Comment


      I believe the hearing is next week. Probably why we're seeing a resurgence of activity from the ISWG crowd.
      EHJ | FB | #140 | watch | #insta

      Comment


        Originally posted by eeyore886 View Post
        Sorry if this has already been said, but as much as I believe perpetrators should be brought to justice, I just don't see how you can convict someone with no evidence other than their word. I don't care how many people said it. It was from 40 some years ago? There is a reason there are statutes of limitations on many crimes. This is "he said-she said" and that should never be the standard to convict someone and ruin their life. Didn't we just see that same thing tried on Judge Kavanaugh? Calumny is a sin. And it should be a crime itself to accuse someone of something which cannot be proven.
        How do you know it was

        1.Only someone's word?
        2. From 40 years ago?

        And you do know that if someone files a false SS report, they are subject to sanctions as well, right?
        *****
        You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

        Comment


          I always think it's interesting that the people that defend GM and any others assume that, because they haven't heard what evidence there might be, there must not actually be any evidence.

          Comment


            Originally posted by RainWeasley View Post
            I always think it's interesting that the people that defend GM and any others assume that, because they haven't heard what evidence there might be, there must not actually be any evidence.
            Because when people like Katie Prudent say it isnt true because she didn't personally witness George having sex with children and a Robert Dover says it isn't true because hot hubby says George didn't proposition hot hubby in his 20s, then people add one and one together and come to a conclusion. On an unrelated topic. And then think they're on the trolley.

            And then share their wisdom with the rest of us dummies.
            Let me apologize in advance.

            Comment


              More information, even though it really doesn’t actually have any new informatio. https://www.chronofhorse.com/article...ld-in-new-york

              Comment


                Originally posted by ClerkofCourts View Post
                More information, even though it really doesn’t actually have any new informatio. https://www.chronofhorse.com/article...ld-in-new-york
                Interesting. Still listed permanently banned and ten days from the arbitration. Morris declines to make a comment. My interpretation is A) decision has not been reached yet or B) it has been decided against Morris.

                Comment


                  The last sentence from the Chronicle article is interesting, since it specifies that he may not teach USEF members. In the past, suspensions have usually involved not being allowed on the grounds of a USEF horse show. Does anyone know if the phrasing is different because it is a safe sport issue?

                  From the Chronicle article:

                  “Under the lifetime ban, which is reciprocated by the Fédération Equestre Internationale, Morris is not able to coach international teams for the United States, or any other countries. He is also banned from coaching or instructing USEF members.”

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by MHM View Post
                    The last sentence from the Chronicle article is interesting, since it specifies that he may not teach USEF members. In the past, suspensions have usually involved not being allowed on the grounds of a USEF horse show. Does anyone know if the phrasing is different because it is a safe sport issue?

                    From the Chronicle article:

                    “Under the lifetime ban, which is reciprocated by the Fédération Equestre Internationale, Morris is not able to coach international teams for the United States, or any other countries. He is also banned from coaching or instructing USEF members.”
                    That’s a Safesport policy
                    Talking to some people is like folding a fitted sheet.

                    Comment


                      What AffirmedHope said... the "aiding and abetting" clause specifically.

                      But it shouldn't be an issue with all those droves of people who said they were leaving USEF over Safesport.
                      Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by AffirmedHope View Post

                        That’s a Safesport policy
                        He's been coaching Brian Cournane all summer.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by AffirmedHope View Post

                          That’s a Safesport policy
                          Thanks.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by neigh View Post

                            He's been coaching Brian Cournane all summer.
                            His suspension didn’t start until August.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by AffirmedHope View Post

                              That’s a Safesport policy
                              How on earth is that enforceable? Are they going to ban any USEF member that gets a lesson from him? That seems insane to me.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by wannabedvm View Post

                                How on earth is that enforceable? Are they going to ban any USEF member that gets a lesson from him? That seems insane to me.
                                I think it's insane to associate with a Pedarast, which is probably what this is going to have to rely on. of course many will still prostrate themselves before the feet of George
                                Let me apologize in advance.

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by wannabedvm View Post

                                  How on earth is that enforceable? Are they going to ban any USEF member that gets a lesson from him? That seems insane to me.
                                  The effectiveness of rules (and laws for that matter) is dependent upon people of integrity and honesty who will abide by them.
                                  Some people possess these qualities and others do not.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                                    I think it's insane to associate with a Pedarast, which is probably what this is going to have to rely on. of course many will still prostrate themselves before the feet of George
                                    Yes, it is. But it’s also stupid to punish USEF members who take lessons with him, for several reasons: 1) In some circumstances that could come down to punishing victims. 2) If the only connection between someone taking a lesson with George and USEF is that the person is a USEF member...I just think that’s overstepping. By that logic, USEF could ban a USEF member for doing anything USEF doesn’t like. Punishing (I’m assuming banning) someone for taking lessons with a person not associated with USEF seems like something they have no business doing. Let the angry masses deal with people who still support these people.

                                    Don’t get me wrong; I understand why they want to have rule—it just doesn’t seem like the best way to effectuate their goals.

                                    Comment


                                      The clause about coaching USEF members seems largely unenforceable to me. It is unfortunate, because then what do those sanctions mean? But I think speculation about repercussions for USEF members who choose to train with a SS banned trainer/coach are speculative and premature. When someone gets banned for privately lessoning or clinicing (sp?) then we can wring our hands (or not!)... but we have seen time and again supposedly banned individuals (for other reasons) operate despite the bans.

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by wannabedvm View Post

                                        Yes, it is. But it’s also stupid to punish USEF members who take lessons with him, for several reasons: 1) In some circumstances that could come down to punishing victims. 2) If the only connection between someone taking a lesson with George and USEF is that the person is a USEF member...I just think that’s overstepping. By that logic, USEF could ban a USEF member for doing anything USEF doesn’t like. Punishing (I’m assuming banning) someone for taking lessons with a person not associated with USEF seems like something they have no business doing. Let the angry masses deal with people who still support these people.

                                        Don’t get me wrong; I understand why they want to have rule—it just doesn’t seem like the best way to effectuate their goals.
                                        1. If you have been preyed upon sexually by Morris and then continue to pay him for lessons, that's not "punishment," that's masochism or stupidity or Stockholm Syndrome. I think it's fine for the USEF to "suggest" via this policy that you not stick your hand back in the proverbial meat grinder that cut you yesterday. But I am sure you are right: Folks who want to ignore the ban will, After all Paul Valliere has a farm in Grand Prix Village in Wellington. There is precedent for USEF bans not stopping trainers from continuing in their industry.

                                        2. The USEF cannot ban someone for merely "doing something the USEF doesn't like." Or rather, it can, because it's a private club. But just what will get you banned is usually obvious to anyone who wishes to stay in its good graces. And I'd be OK with the USEF (perhaps inheriting the limit from SafeSport) taking away opportunities for sexual predation and an avenue to financial success that includes that.

                                        We are not at the top of some slippery slope of the USEF becoming capricious and arbitrary such that it effectively holds the keys to someone's livelihood in it's grasp and, in a rather McCarthy-esque style, will start really messing with peoples lives for unfair and hard-to-fathom reasons. Rather, II think your arguments are straw men. Moreover, I'll wager that you knew that before you trotted them out since, really, in the fullness of time we really haven't seen the USEF be particularly exclusive and droves of people being excommunicated for small or idiosyncratic reasons.
                                        The armchair saddler
                                        Politically Pro-Cat

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by wannabedvm View Post

                                          Yes, it is. But it’s also stupid to punish USEF members who take lessons with him, for several reasons: 1) In some circumstances that could come down to punishing victims. 2) If the only connection between someone taking a lesson with George and USEF is that the person is a USEF member...I just think that’s overstepping. By that logic, USEF could ban a USEF member for doing anything USEF doesn’t like. Punishing (I’m assuming banning) someone for taking lessons with a person not associated with USEF seems like something they have no business doing. Let the angry masses deal with people who still support these people.

                                          Don’t get me wrong; I understand why they want to have rule—it just doesn’t seem like the best way to effectuate their goals.
                                          Remember it is a SafeSport rule, not a USEF rule.

                                          It doesn’t matter if you are participating in equestrian sports, youth baseball, swimming, or sailing. If you are banned by SafeSport, you are not allowed to earn a living off your NGB. In an attempt to enforce that, the aiding & abetting clause exists.

                                          We’ve seen how willfully naive people can be in these situations when an esteemed member of the community has allegations of sexual misconduct brought against them.
                                          Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X