Sport Horse Spotlight

Sale Spotlight

  • 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
No announcement yet.

George Morris on the SS list

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Pennywell Bay View Post

    Not a political commentary as far as left vs right.

    However:

    Going to someone who thinks "Grab them by theirs p^$$Y'" is locker room talk is the height of.................. someone fill in the blank for me. I am losing IQ points reading some of the posts.
    And who defended that fine horseman, Roy Moore.

    I've always found many BNT's to be kind of, well, dumb? insulated? but they are outdoing themselves.

    Comment


    • Also judging by the updated list, someone who was previously on the list, is now off the list, and I know for a fact he was abusive to students, and had an innapropriate controlling relationship with at least one, not to mention abused horses regularly. So clearly if there wasn't enough evidence there to keep him on it, the evidence to ban someone for life must be pretty overwhelming.
      Boss Mare Eventing Blog

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Pennywell Bay View Post

        Not a political commentary as far as left vs right.

        However:

        Going to someone who thinks "Grab them by theirs p^$$Y'" is locker room talk is the height of.................. someone fill in the blank for me. I am losing IQ points reading some of the posts.
        I looked at synonyms for stupidity and found bone headedness and puerility. Either of those work?
        One touch of nature makes the whole world kin.
        William Shakespeare

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Room for a Pony View Post
          Diane Carney is asking people on Facebook to contact the White House. What would the executive branch do? Comes off as quite desperate to me. She has had GHM in for clinics for years.
          I'm sure that the response would be that they are "very good people..."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tiramit View Post

            His book, Unrelenting.
            Oh ahh...his autobiography...well if this ends up in court it sounds like there will be some interesting readings, although I haven't read it myself. The Kindle edition is $13.99, can't bring myself to spend money on it. And oh dear, my library doesn't have it, even to download.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Mardi View Post

              That's true, however the point many are making (Canadian Eric Lamaze included) is the lengthy time span. Although the timing of complaints have been debated and discussed here, it remains a concern for lots of people.

              Take SS out of the picture for a moment, and focus just on USEF as a sports corporation with bylaws, and membership rules. Would USEF ban a member for doping, cheating, horse abuse, etc that happened 50 years ago, yet was only recently alleged ? Probably not, because USEF has protest rules that have a time frame for a complaint. However, if there's a criminal conviction, USEF can take action on their own.

              When so many members - some very accomplished and respected - of a large organization push back against their organization's mandated partnership with a government entity that has the power to override the organization's own rules, and a commonly accepted standard of judicial due process, their concerns are worth listening to.

              The only person who has said the ban is based on something that happened 50 years ago is GM himself, via a PR agency hired to do damage control and protect his reputation.

              Given the criteria the SS findings must meet in order to impose a lifetime ban, it’s reasonable to conclude their investigation has credible eveidence that his misconduct was NOT limited to 50 years ago. Those publicly “standing with George” should carefully consider that before making statements IMO.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

                Oh ahh...his autobiography...well if this ends up in court it sounds like there will be some interesting readings, although I haven't read it myself. The Kindle edition is $13.99, can't bring myself to spend money on it. And oh dear, my library doesn't have it, even to download.
                Check the adult section.
                "Whether you think you can or think you can't, you are right." -Henry Ford

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                  This is hilarious.

                  Trump is anti chil abuse, not to get into a political debate AT ALL - Im not American people lol but anyways, he is one of the reasons for the fall of Hollywood and Epstein. Regardless of what people think of him, he 100% would not support a man who is thought to abuse children.
                  He also bragged publicly about entering dressing rooms at his pageants, so he could see naked women, with minor girls present. So, there's that.

                  (sorry not sorry)
                  "smile a lot can let us ride happy,it is good thing"

                  My CANTER blog.

                  Comment


                  • LaurieB - good for your Dad!

                    From what I'm reading, GM's behavior has been glossed over for some time. He has/has a lot of power. So, I seriously doubt that SS and the USEF is acting upon unfounded info.

                    I see several big names that are supporting GM. I'm making a note of those trainers/pros to make sure I avoid them.

                    Can anyone provide a list of who is on the FB site supporting George? At the very least, they are acting less than professionally in their leap to his defence and condemnation of a program meant to protect people/children.

                    I feel very sorry for the survivors of abuse. They are reading the "defenses" of GM and thinking that they are not supported.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by caffeinated View Post

                      He also bragged publicly about entering dressing rooms at his pageants, so he could see naked women, with minor girls present. So, there's that.

                      (sorry not sorry)
                      it might not be him behind this movement of this government, but hes the face of the government so it is what it is lol
                      Boss Mare Eventing Blog

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Jealoushe View Post

                        This is hilarious.

                        Trump is anti chil abuse, not to get into a political debate AT ALL - Im not American people lol but anyways, he is one of the reasons for the fall of Hollywood and Epstein. Regardless of what people think of him, he 100% would not support a man who is thought to abuse children. The me too and victim strength movement are makings of this government.
                        It'd be political suicide for any elected official to get involved with something of this nature. Remember, their overarching concern is keeping their cushy jobs and seats of power.

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=BigMama1;n10448121]

                          The only person who has said the ban is based on something that happened 50 years ago is GM himself, via a PR agency hired to do damage control and protect his reputation.

                          /QUOTE]

                          GM was part of the investigation and knows the allegations against him, so if he/Phelps Sports say it was 50 years ago, we have no way to know if that is true or not, until proven otherwise. Is there another source that gives another time frame ?

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Mardi View Post

                            Take SS out of the picture for a moment, and focus just on USEF as a sports corporation with bylaws, and membership rules. Would USEF ban a member for doping, cheating, horse abuse, etc that happened 50 years ago, yet was only recently alleged ? Probably not, because USEF has protest rules that have a time frame for a complaint. However, if there's a criminal conviction, USEF can take action on their own.

                            I can accept that USEF has time frame surrounding complaints, but I don't think it's a good thing that if doping, cheating, or horse abuse which happened in the past came to light (with evidence found on investigation), a member wouldn't be banned.
                            Personally, I don't like how that reflects on the sport.

                            I think especially for a sport that is prone to being misunderstood and sometimes perceived by the public as abusive (even without abusive riding/training methods), we ought to hold people to account for cheating/abuse/doping, even if it did happen in the past.

                            And I also think that the issue of sexual abuse of minors (not to mention hazing, bullying, and physical misconduct) is far more important and awful than cheating and/or doping, and while horse abuse is obviously wrong and should be subject to punishment, I have to say that people abuse is just as bad, if not worse.

                            Aside from that, I think it's impossible to take SS out of consideration, because it seems that USEF has not been able to provide the systems that are necessary to protect victims and get abusers (and yes, even former abusers) out of the sport.

                            I wonder if, on some level, your question comes down to: "shouldn't this exclusively happen through criminal proceedings/in the same way criminal proceedings are investigated/pursued?" and for me, the answer is no.
                            (apologies if I'm being overly broad, but I think a number of other posts have also alluded to the same issue; That SS is not a legal proceeding).

                            I think it is OK to have a lower burden of proof/higher standard of behavior than what could be upheld in a court of law when it comes to sexual abuse of minors, and a punishment that is certainly punitive, but is in not at all on the same magnitude as the punishments that are the result of a criminal inquiry: jail time, probation, registration as a sex offender, etc.
                            Being banned from a national governing body just doesn't come close to any of those things, and for that reason, I don't think they do need to have the same burden of proof/stringency as the legal system.
                            Which is not to say I think these investigations are not thorough and don't represent real findings of problematic patterns of behavior. I just think it's a false equivalency to compare this process to that of the legal system.

                            Comment


                            • I didn't post about Diane to start a political discussion, simply to say that within 48 hours of this being announced some people are really trying anything to make this go away--closed Facebook groups, petitions, leaving the USEF, etc.




                              Comment


                              • Hey everyone.... PLEASE. Tempting though it might be (given the low hanging fruit)... don’t talk about the “P” word, and get this thread shut down.

                                Thank you!

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

                                  Oh ahh...his autobiography...well if this ends up in court it sounds like there will be some interesting readings, although I haven't read it myself. The Kindle edition is $13.99, can't bring myself to spend money on it. And oh dear, my library doesn't have it, even to download.
                                  Interlibrary loan’s gonna be your best friend here, PB, if you’re, ah, so inclined...

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Mardi View Post

                                    That's true, however the point many are making (Canadian Eric Lamaze included) is the lengthy time span. Although the timing of complaints have been debated and discussed here, it remains a concern for lots of people.

                                    Take SS out of the picture for a moment, and focus just on USEF as a sports corporation with bylaws, and membership rules. Would USEF ban a member for doping, cheating, horse abuse, etc that happened 50 years ago, yet was only recently alleged ? Probably not, because USEF has protest rules that have a time frame for a complaint. However, if there's a criminal conviction, USEF can take action on their own.

                                    When so many members - some very accomplished and respected - of a large organization push back against their organization's mandated partnership with a government entity that has the power to override the organization's own rules, and a commonly accepted standard of judicial due process, their concerns are worth listening to.
                                    So I find this a very interesting argument for a couple of reasons. First, as much as I absolutely love horses, I do value human life more than theirs. So comparing doping a horse, cheating in a competition, or even killing a horse for insurance fraud to abuse of a human (and especially a child) is to me a false equivalency. You're entitled to think differently, of course, but I believe US law agrees with me on that front.

                                    Second, as I believe poltroon posted a while back, Safe Sport sanctions are less of a punishment tool and more of a tool to ensure the safety of sport participants (and especially minor participants) in the future. The investigations process is not only looking for violations of the code, but of the likelihood that the respondent to the claim will reoffend, and how much harm that potential future offense might cause. Inappropriate pat on the butt of a minor student ten years ago? As an isolated incident, might not be cause for concern; so Safe Sport has the option to either not pursue an investigation if the situation seems relatively innocuous or do a little digging to see if there might be more to the circumstances (multiple students saying the person touched them in a borderline way, for example, or odd communications to the student in question from the original claim). If they find more questionable actions, maybe they issue a written warning with some education on what's appropriate, or put the person on probation so that if more allegations arise they can point to a pattern.

                                    I hope we can agree that more serious violations, like sexual assault or sustained sexual harassment of a minor, indicate a much higher level of risk to participants. The initial accusation might be decades old and hard to prove, or the offender might have grown and matured and poses less of a threat now—that's where the leeway granted to Safe Sport in terms of sanctions is really important IMO. They can look at the evidence and say "ok, at 21 this person inappropriately pursued a relationship with a 17 year old student in a way that rose to the level of sustained harassment. That was really wrong, and illegal, and we can't abide it. But they admit that they did wrong, and in the years after they spent time reflecting and have taken XYZ actions to make it right." So that person might get probation, or a suspension because they pose less of a risk.

                                    But the (purely hypothetical) person who's accused of 50 years ago coercing a 15 year old into performing sexual acts by implicitly holding opportunities over their head, has multiple allegations since then, and has continued to exhibit grooming behavior with minors in the recent past absolutely poses a higher risk of future violations that could seriously damage the potential victim. I'm cool with Safe Sport banning them if the allegations are substantiated by a preponderance of evidence (as is spelled out in the policy). That's a risk I'm willing to take to keep kids safe in our sport.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by caffeinated View Post

                                      He also bragged publicly about entering dressing rooms at his pageants, so he could see naked women, with minor girls present. So, there's that.

                                      (sorry not sorry)
                                      Proof? Your TDS is showing.

                                      Comment


                                      • [QUOTE dannyboy - It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Pass the popcorn. I think we're in for a wild ride.
                                        [/QUOTE]

                                        You are so correct about that. I'm feeling this is tip of the iceberg and things are going to get really interesting!
                                        Libby

                                        There is a fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness". - Dave Barry

                                        Comment


                                        • I've been appalled at the support i have seen given to RG and now GM after the SS allegations and lifetime bans went into effect and have been carefully watching those who support them, despite the growing evidence to support such bans.

                                          I get that its hard to believe that someone you idolized was not the person you thought they were, but it is very disturbing to see people so angry and ready to tar and feather the victims and accuse Safe Sport of being on witch hunts.
                                          when i first read some of the comments on the RG page about ..oh he didn't even like kids, but he said my kid was different, and didn't mind my child... I was instantly sick to my stomach. I worked for 11 years in day care. And the red flag went up after hearing just that one comment. I haven't taken the Safe Sport Training, as I am not a USEF member, mainly because I'm not showing at that level. But I have had training in sexual abuse and reporting thru my years in daycare. Its really opened my eyes up to the lack of training for horse sport professionals and how much reform the sport needs, as its clearly a perfect scenario for abusers, sexual and emotional.

                                          I've never been huge fan of GM, the constant weight comments, the clearly abusive behavior at clinics, and especially the horse that died in the schooling ring years ago, due to impaling itself on a metal off-set pole, never made me want to ride with him (true I couldn't afford it, but I had no desire to try to make it reality by saving for it either) They are much better way to spend ones money ( I've done clinics with Bernie Traurig, Joe Fargis and others and never felt belittled or abused)

                                          I'm sure his business will not suffer despite what Im'm sure are bound to be very disturbing accusations.

                                          lastly, I can't help but think about the quote from Idris Elba regarding the #MeToo movement...“It’s only difficult if you’re a man with something to hide.”
                                          Seems like a lot of USEF members are worried about the Safe Sport process... and I always feel like they may something to hide or are worried about seeing another BNT fall from grace. Feels like a reckoning is coming for horse sports that is clearly long overdue.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X