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

    One of the least objectionable suggestions for reform by DC is that SS and/or USEF post a statement that “Being listed on the ‘interim suspension’ list while the investigation is underway does not imply a finding of guilt.”

    Well, duh, an interim suspension while the investigation proceeds by definition does not mean that a finding of guilt has occurred yet. But no harm in making it redundantly clear.

    While we’re trying to be extra clear, perhaps also post that interim suspensions are only imposed in the 2% of cases in which SS has reason to think there is danger of ongoing harm.

    Perhaps the most objectionable “suggestion” is the complete “exchange” of information. Huh? What is being exchanged? SS is supposed to unilaterally strip confidentiality from witnesses and reporters so the respondent and icky supporters can intimidate and shame them?

    I think the A for E in S is only clamoring for a full dump of all information because they know they won’t get it. They do not want the sordid details of their heroes’ crimes out in public. In the RG case, a lot of people seemed to actually believe the myth of “one girl, 17.5 years old when he was 20” and kept demanding details until 4 or 5 victims came forward publicly, which they should not have had to do. Once they got (some of) the details they had been demanding, some of the anti SS people actually shut up for a while.

    Comment


      Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
      LexInVA
      I will state with respect to my own personal experience... being molested as a child, and then having my own parents pressure me to essentially recant my accusation against another family member, go to counseling and then confirm to my parents and the counselor that I was “fine” and had no need to talk about anything ever again because it probably was just a minor misunderstanding... and completely bury the experience and carry on with life as a minor living in a household while still in close contact with the person who did actually molest me... it did SERIOUS damage to my self esteem.

      When a child gets the message that bad things, and deeply inappropriate sexual things that cross fundamental boundaries can happen in relationships with family or trusted adults, and they need to try and handle it and keep quiet in order for people (like their parents, siblings, coaches, and close friends) to continue accepting them and maintain a loving, caring and close connection...

      It’s a dangerous lesson that gets carried forward into adulthood.
      You are absolutely right. This is true of physical abuse as well. If your father beats you and your mother doesn't protect you, worse, scolds you and tells you afterward to apologize to him for making him angry at you, you learn that men who love you hurt you sometimes when you are bad. And you vow to try so hard to stop being bad but you keep being bad without realizing it because it keeps happening so you start to think you are just naturally a bad person and deserve the beatings. This sets you up to accept abuse from partner/spouse as a normal part of being loved. Worse, you seek it out because the familiar pattern is comforting.
      Power to the People

      Comment


        Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

        Perhaps the most objectionable “suggestion” is the complete “exchange” of information. Huh? What is being exchanged? SS is supposed to unilaterally strip confidentiality from witnesses and reporters so the respondent and icky supporters can intimidate and shame them?
        I'm a little surprised to see you apparently arguing that it should be possible to sanction an individual without telling them the evidence against them. Your past posts have been so thoughtful and evinced such an educated understanding of fairness and Rawlsian analysis... I feel sure my eyes now deceive me.

        Please, please reassure me that I have misunderstood your post. Please tell me you are not endorsing a situation where SafeSport bans someone for life and tells them, "2 people came forward and said you did something really terrible approximately 3 years ago! But we're not going to tell you who they are or what you are alleged to have done!"

        I guess I can at least take solace in knowing that no JAMS arbitrator would ever find this appropriate.

        Comment


          Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

          I'm a little surprised to see you apparently arguing that it should be possible to sanction an individual without telling them the evidence against them. Your past posts have been so thoughtful and evinced such an educated understanding of fairness and Rawlsian analysis... I feel sure my eyes now deceive me.

          Please, please reassure me that I have misunderstood your post. Please tell me you are not endorsing a situation where SafeSport bans someone for life and tells them, "2 people came forward and said you did something really terrible approximately 3 years ago! But we're not going to tell you who they are or what you are alleged to have done!"

          I guess I can at least take solace in knowing that no JAMS arbitrator would ever find this appropriate.
          I was assuming that the “complete exchange of information” demanded by DC referred to making all the details of the investigation public.

          Obviously the respondent needs all the information.

          Comment


            Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

            I was assuming that the “complete exchange of information” demanded by DC referred to making all the details of the investigation public.

            Obviously the respondent needs all the information.
            Ah, well that's a relief. I read "exchange of information" to mean that the parties (Safesport and respondent) exchange the information/evidence each of them will be relying on, akin to civil discovery.

            The public and reporters would not have anything to "exchange," so I don't think whoever you were quoting was referring to them. But of course it would be nice if they were more precise in their communications.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

              Ah, well that's a relief. I read "exchange of information" to mean that the parties (Safesport and respondent) exchange the information/evidence each of them will be relying on, akin to civil discovery.

              The public and reporters would not have anything to "exchange," so I don't think whoever you were quoting was referring to them. But of course it would be nice if they were more precise in their communications.
              I don't know-many people on social media were clamoring that they needed to know the accusers and their stories. So it isn't a stretch to wonder if that is what the letter of the Equity group is asking for.

              Comment


                Originally posted by roseymare View Post

                I don't know-many people on social media were clamoring that they needed to know the accusers and their stories. So it isn't a stretch to wonder if that is what the letter of the Equity group is asking for.
                I believe that is what they are asking for. Because they're ghouls.
                Let me apologize in advance.

                Comment


                  Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                  I believe that is what they are asking for. Because they're ghouls.
                  Do you have evidence for that? Or are you just choosing to assume the worst of this Diane Carney person?

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by ladyj79 View Post

                    I believe that is what they are asking for. Because they're ghouls.
                    Exactly. Information is already shared between the parties. They spin a tale that it’s not because they, the general public, don’t know. It’s disturbing.

                    Need to know is clearly not in people’s vocabulary.

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                      Do you have evidence for that? Or are you just choosing to assume the worst of this Diane Carney person?
                      the evidence I have is that information is already shared between the relevant parties.


                      I don't need to think the worst, these are openly and publicly awful people.



                      Let me apologize in advance.

                      Comment


                        https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300946441.html


                        Here's their press release. They obviously want people to believe that none of these things are happening.

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by roseymare View Post
                          https://www.prnewswire.com/news-rele...300946441.html


                          Here's their press release. They obviously want people to believe that none of these things are happening.
                          From the press release linked by Roseymare, DC complains about SS being “opaque”, “operating behind closed doors” and wanting “transparency” and “accountability”. I don’t see how these words fit with a simple request that the respondent learns of all the evidence against him, including name of reporter. I absolutely agree that the respondent needs to know all the evidence against him.

                          But the words I’ve quoted above suggest to me that they are asking for “transparency” for public oversight, and “accountability” to the public; and not keeping the details of the investigation confidential (“operating behind closed doors”).
                          Last edited by YankeeDuchess; Dec. 16, 2019, 12:59 AM.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by roseymare View Post


                            Here's their press release. They obviously want people to believe that none of these things are happening.
                            The press release and their statement is worth the read.

                            A muddled mess.

                            The most amusing part to me though is that the whole thing is described as the “brainchild” of DC.

                            Indeed.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                              I hear you. I’ve decided to share some specific public comments from a few individuals on these threads, because in many ways, sunlight is the best disinfectant.

                              And folks who choose to publicly support the anti Safe Sport clique of professionals... frankly clients and ammy riders, etc... hopefully some of the statements highlighted on these threads will cause you to take a good look around, and consider taking your money to a different pro. Someone who... you know... acts professionally. And doesn’t openly seek “equity” for coaches who molest minors.
                              Asking as a generally marginal user of social media (ie I don't know how to manipulate to advantage) but would a few judiciously placed and labelled hashtags in some of these posts cause them to come up if the hashtag is searched from outside of these forums? Only asking because that might help give the sunbeams a broader and more penetrating reach. And A LOT of sunshine is needed.
                              Jenerationx I also wish it was an actionable offense. The phrase "clear and present danger" comes to mind after reading the most recent of DMs work. That's the kind of stuff that gets reported on the news after the bomb blows up the building and investigators check the perpetrator's home computers et voila its all there. Except he has put it all out there already for people to see. I wonder though if there isn't some agency like child protective services or something like that where a report can be filed even if it isn't actionable information but could certainly provide corroboration and help provide a preponderance of evidence in the eventuality there is an actionable offense.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Horsegirl's Mom View Post

                                Ah, well that's a relief. I read "exchange of information" to mean that the parties (Safesport and respondent) exchange the information/evidence each of them will be relying on, akin to civil discovery.

                                The public and reporters would not have anything to "exchange," so I don't think whoever you were quoting was referring to them. But of course it would be nice if they were more precise in their communications.

                                Virginia horse mom -

                                The “full exchange of information” that I was referring to was bullet point #3 in DC’s Dec 13 letter. In a post of yours (#162) on the “people bashing SS” thread, you have a similar interpretation to mine; that the demand for revelation of information is a lot more than a discovery process.



                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post


                                  Virginia horse mom -

                                  The “full exchange of information” that I was referring to was bullet point #3 in DC’s Dec 13 letter. In a post of yours (#162) on the “people bashing SS” thread, you have a similar interpretation to mine; that the demand for revelation of information is a lot more than a discovery process.


                                  I think virginiahirsemom was relieved to hear that horsegirl had interpreted it differently and that is why horsegirl thought vahirsemom was wanting full blown details from the victims.

                                  Comment


                                    Originally posted by skydy View Post
                                    That is the thought process of a pedophile.
                                    You nailed it. It’s what has been bothering me all along but I didn’t quite want to believe it.

                                    Comment


                                      The Diane Carney camp has been clamoring for more information to be released about the complaints since day 1. They continue to say there's no transparency, yet they don't want even the names of people under investigation released if they're under temporary sanctions. I know, and most people know, that if someone is under investigation pending outcome, they're not automatically guilty, but apparently these people can't grasp that concept. They've also been informed numerous times that a respondent is aware of the allegations and is provided with the details of the claimants report. SO, what does this "transparency" mean? The process is completely transparent to the parties involved and effected by the report and investigation. It's NOT nor SHOULD it be transparent to those that are not claimants or respondents. Why do we need more information than there was a violation of SS code involving a minor? Do I need to know whether they molested or raped a girl, or a boy, and when and where, and for how long, or how many? Nope, I sure don't. All I need to know is that there was a corroborated report that they did something that shouldn't be tolerated in the sport and are banned. That's not good enough for AES, they want to know the particulars so they can make excuses, blame the victims, and defend their pedo friends.
                                      Last edited by Jenerationx; Dec. 15, 2019, 11:40 PM. Reason: typo

                                      Comment


                                        Originally posted by oneequestrienne View Post

                                        You nailed it. It’s what has been bothering me all along but I didn’t quite want to believe it.
                                        It's the child molester's party line." It's exploration" on the part of the 11yr old (or whatever minor child) they are molesting.

                                        It is a very sick view, yet they try their best to normalize it to people that (should) know better. With society in general that is usually a big mistake.

                                        Hopefully the H/J community is waking up and will stop tolerating these people.

                                        Comment


                                          Honestly... I think it’s all about them wanting to know who Safe Sport investigators tried to question... and whether people cooperated or not.

                                          There are stories now that have come out regarding individuals close to both the GM and RG cases experiencing pressure NOT to speak with Safe Sport investigators...

                                          I know people in general keep on focusing about privacy of details... and how weird some of the random folks are who all want to know what PRECISELY was involved in allegations...

                                          But the more ugly issue is the attempt to silence witnesses. Honestly... when it comes to cases from decades ago, witness testimony IS a big deal. Let’s be honest, there are plenty of ancillary parties who are well aware of what happened back then with these cases... and probably others... and have stayed quiet about what they actually saw for years because that’s pretty much required if you want to have a successful career as a pro in this sport.

                                          So this whole push for “transparent” full exchange of information about EVERYTHING involved in the Safe Sport investigation? It’s all about scaring folks who are potential witnesses into continuing with silence. Scaring current pros that if they cooperate with Safe Sport and say something like, “Yeah, I saw so and so hanging out with that 15 yr old years ago, and it was pretty obvious that something inappropriate was going on”... the fact that they provided witness testimony to Safe Sport WILL get back to the accused. And the accused will tell their loyal friends... many of whom are judges and powerful folks at the top of the sport...

                                          And people who spoke honestly with Safe Sport in their legitimate capacity as witnesses regarding what their honest recollections are WILL experience retaliation.

                                          Bottom line... the accused does indeed deserve to know who the accuser is, and what the accusations are. But the names of the 10 plus witnesses who possibly talked to Safe Sport investigators and gave varying levels of testimony that possibly run the gamut from stuff like, “I never saw overt acts, but it was clear something inappropriate was going on,” to “I didn’t see anything back then, but this other person was also a working student at that time... go ask them questions,” - THAT’S what these people want to know.

                                          They want to change the process in a way that makes folks LESS inclined to offer witness testimony because there will be even GREATER concerns about all sorts of retaliation against anyone who gives that sort of testimony.

                                          And frankly... the mere fact that this organization headed by a top tier licensed official in the sport is actually publicly pursuing this particular part of their “Safe Sport Reform” agenda? That in and of itself will intimidate and potentially discourage witnesses in investigations which might possibly be underway right now.

                                          That’s my opinion. It’s admittedly a negative one with respect to DC in particular’s motives. Hopefully someone can explain that I am wrong on a technical point of my understanding. But right now... it’s pretty obvious and ugly to me.
                                          Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Dec. 16, 2019, 12:27 AM. Reason: typos and clarity

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X