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 Mosey_2003 View Post
    Yes, I did an entire video training with my friend in order to be allowed to drive the children on a local field trip from the Catholic pre-school. This is all covered and acted out and tested at the end. You don't offer random rides, you don't call or text, you don't spend time alone with a student, etc. This is not some new, made up set of rules.
    My husband and I give rides to my sons teammates and his girlfriend, never solo, almost always with the other one of us present. To do otherwise... isn't wise.
    Yo/Yousolong April 23rd, 1985- April 15th, 2014

    http://notesfromadogwalker.com/2012/...m-a-sanctuary/

    Comment


      Originally posted by ASB Stars View Post
      Anyone see this?

      http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/more...Sr1?li=BBnbfcL

      It's a whole new world. This would certainly have been unacceptable at any time, in reality, but people did it. Wasn't there something called "pantsing"? Not sure what that entailed...in any event, here we are.
      Yeah- pantsing. So- a group of guys I was friends with (omg- what when I was in my teens) used to do it to each other as a joke and they all laughed and I think kept a running score. No mal-intent, no one was targeted ect.

      Until 1 didn't think it was funny anymore and it stopped. Because people do stupid things they think are funny. It's cool if everyone is in on the joke- until someone isn't. (I'm not saying pulling down someone's pants is funny persay.).

      The line now has to be, even if it was supposed to be "ha ha", YOU CAN'T DO THIS. And in an organized sport? An Olympic athlete? (head hits desk).
      Come to the dark side, we have cookies

      Comment


        Originally posted by specifiedcupcake View Post

        So uhhh... pretty sure Safe Sport was created because of the abysmal and absolute FAILURE of the judicial process and system to protect minors. Read as much as you can stand of what happened BEFORE Larry Nassar became a household name for child abuse.
        The judicial process or the organizations themselves? There are certainly flaws in the judicial system as well, but a lot of the reports of abuse never even made it to law enforcement...they were squashed by fear/shame, parents, institutions before the judicial system even had a chance to fail.
        Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
        Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

        Comment


          Originally posted by PonyPenny View Post

          You can’t believe that. Why don’t you ask a young person what SafeSport conveys? You will get an entire different response that your fantasied version.
          What message have we been conveying to them all this time, where everyone knew these abusers were working freely among them and no one reported the abuse and there really wasn’t anyone to report the abuse to? That’s where the fear comes from. When the adults stop freaking out over having to observe basic professional boundaries, the kids will feel better.

          Comment


            Originally posted by RugBug View Post

            The judicial process or the organizations themselves? There are certainly flaws in the judicial system as well, but a lot of the reports of abuse never even made it to law enforcement...they were squashed by fear/shame, parents, institutions before the judicial system even had a chance to fail.
            Well folks are asking why these allegations aren't being taken to police. And in GHM's case it's a well-expired SOL, but for example Nassar's victims DID take it to the police- both Michigan State Univ. police and Meridian Township police. But because of local celebrity (sound familiar?) nothing was done.

            https://deadspin.com/sergeant-in-cha...n-s-1822604459
            Last edited by specifiedcupcake; Aug. 9, 2019, 10:54 AM. Reason: added source for Nassar police dismissal

            Comment


              Originally posted by SonnysMom View Post

              My bet is they think that these rules and restrictions are pretty normal. This is how most clubs work such as: Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, sports teams, after school activities. This is how interactions with their school teachers work.
              They don't friend their school teachers, they don't text their school teachers, the school teacher doesn't lock the door when they are providing after school help.
              The Little League coach does not friend them, they are not texting individual players.

              They don't just hop in the car to go to the corner convenience store with their school teachers or coaches from other sports without their parents permission. This is the world they have been involved with for a long time and it is their norm for areas outside the equestrian world. Equestrian is just starting to catch up with the rest of the world.
              I know there's other discussion going on here, but I just want to comment on this because it really hasn't been all that long since I was a minor (well, okay, it's been a little while, but compared to a lot of people commenting on the GM/RG/general SafeSport situation across social media, I'm a very new adult) and I have to say that I'm in agreement with what SonnysMom has said here, and also that I think anyone who claims that SafeSport and the MAAP policies are going to prevent the formation of positive, supportive relationships between minors and adults and should thus not exist is so unbelievably wrong.

              I have a very, very close relationship with one of the history teachers from my high school. He's my friend, he's practically my second father, and I truly mean it when I say that I really don't know what would've happened to me if he hadn't come into my life when he did. He was the voice of reason outside of my family through my teenage years and, to this day, nearly a decade after I first got to know him, he's still someone I go to for advice and support when I need it.

              I didn't have his phone number until the year after I graduated (after I turned 18). We weren't Facebook friends until after I was no longer a student (this was before I turned 18 because I'm pretty young for my class, but only by ~a month. He and another history teacher have a long-standing tradition of accepting friend requests from students as soon as they're handed their diplomas at graduation, as it's no longer a violation of school policy once we're alumni).

              We had many, many one-on-one conversations when I was in high school (always prompted by me), and it was actually my discussions with him that helped me get to a place where I felt safe and accepted enough to go get the help I needed at the time (isn't it funny how adults can, you know, not take advantage of incredibly vulnerable kids/teenagers and instead provide them with a support system?). We also always had those conversations on a bench down the hall from the history office, where we were perfectly in the line of sight from the office and students would regularly pass through, but where it was also private enough that I could talk about what was bothering me without being afraid of my classmates overhearing things that I really wasn't ready to admit to the world at large at the time. If I wanted to set up a time to talk to him, I walked into the history office and asked, no emailing or texting required.

              As an adult, I'm a semi-regular fixture at his house (we do a lot of jam sessions with a rather interesting group of people that he's collected as friends over the years) and I've gotten to know his family (his wife was actually on my thesis committee in college). He's my friend, he's my family, and I was able to form this relationship with him even as we were operating under rules that are really no different than anything that SafeSport is asking of us. Those boundaries were things that I never even questioned. It was just the way things were, and it let me develop an absolutely crucial relationship in a safe way. Might there be an adjustment period for the equestrian community to get used to operating like this? Sure, but I think the growing pains are worth it and I think that in five or ten years, kids won't even question that this is just how things work and that'll be that.

              Comment


                Originally posted by bip View Post

                What message have we been conveying to them all this time, where everyone knew these abusers were working freely among them and no one reported the abuse and there really wasn’t anyone to report the abuse to? That’s where the fear comes from. When the adults stop freaking out over having to observe basic professional boundaries, the kids will feel better.
                One fine ISWG member posted:

                "Some may dislike what I am about to say. And I could care less. Almost 50 years have passed and now someone wants to say something.....you lived with it for 50 years..........keep living..........with a closed mouth..........you know how".


                And he has a teen daughter (early teen) who shows.
                Come to the dark side, we have cookies

                Comment


                  This was a comment on the NYTimes article:

                  "Horses are wonderful animals. And many of the people in the world of equestrian competition are wonderful as well. The sport at it's best can teach young people so much about animals and how they should be treated. The benefits of discipline and hard work can be life altering in a very positive way. But there is also a very dark side of the activity. Horses are often abused in training and asked to perform in ways that make my skin crawl. And some - just some - of the people who live in this world leave behind normal human relationships as they are drawn into a whirlwind of super intense competition. They can lose themselves and often lose their sense appropriate behavior. In this environment, the likes of a George Morris become powerful beyond most peoples comprehension. May he rot in a hereafter where he has only one activity: mucking his own stall."

                  Comment


                    This is for folks who are interested in the legal questions surrounding USEF/SS. It is not a defense of GM, nor is it a critique of SS's mission.

                    People keep saying "USEF is a private club. It can do whatever it wants." I am skeptical that courts would treat it as a private club. See the article below. Now, the fact that courts might treat USEF as NOT being a private club is only the first question. The next question is, what legal obligations (in addition to non-discrimination) would flow from this determination?

                    https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124588111858449559

                    Some golf courses, country clubs and social groups long have discriminated against certain types of people, usually women and minorities. Private organizations sometimes presume that they can exclude whomever they want, no questions asked.

                    And in one sense, they are right. Ironically, the more selective a club is, the more it is considered to be truly private and thus protected against antidiscrimination laws. In other words, a small, all-male group of stamp collectors who meet in a private home aren't unlawfully discriminating by not accepting women.

                    But clubs that presume they are private frequently turn out not to be in the eyes of the law in some states.

                    "Over the last 20 years, societal pressures have led to a steady narrowing of what qualifies as a private organization, free from antidiscrimination laws," says Robert Duston, a Washington attorney who specializes in defending discrimination cases.

                    Take the Mill River Club Inc., a country club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that considers itself private. Marc Wenger, the club's attorney, says Mill River is selective in choosing members, picking them partially on the basis of religion with the stated goal of achieving a balance of Jews and Christians.

                    Club member Joseph Pezza filed a complaint against the club in 2002, claiming the religious-diversity policy embarrassed him because "it puts unnecessary labels on people," according to court testimony.

                    Earlier this year, a New York court ruled that the club wasn't actually "private," and that its religious quota system violated state law.

                    The court based its decision on evidence that included the fact that nonmembers took tennis lessons and attended social events at the club. The court also noted that the club has more than 100 members -- a factor that is relevant under New York state law in deciding whether a group is a "place of public accommodation."

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Pennywell Bay View Post

                      One fine ISWG member posted:

                      "Some may dislike what I am about to say. And I could care less. Almost 50 years have passed and now someone wants to say something.....you lived with it for 50 years..........keep living..........with a closed mouth..........you know how".


                      And he has a teen daughter (early teen) who shows.
                      "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                      ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by CPL713 View Post

                        Gotcha. My post you responded to wasn't referring to the majority of USEF members; I was referring to joining USEF to spite those in the FB group who were threatening to leave over Safesport. It was really just a joke.
                        No worries - with what 45 pages on this post (at the time of ours) hard to keep up...have a good weekend..

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by HLMom View Post
                          This is for folks who are interested in the legal questions surrounding USEF/SS. It is not a defense of GM, nor is it a critique of SS's mission.

                          People keep saying "USEF is a private club. It can do whatever it wants." I am skeptical that courts would treat it as a private club. See the article below. Now, the fact that courts might treat USEF as NOT being a private club is only the first question. The next question is, what legal obligations (in addition to non-discrimination) would flow from this determination?

                          https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124588111858449559

                          Some golf courses, country clubs and social groups long have discriminated against certain types of people, usually women and minorities. Private organizations sometimes presume that they can exclude whomever they want, no questions asked.

                          And in one sense, they are right. Ironically, the more selective a club is, the more it is considered to be truly private and thus protected against antidiscrimination laws. In other words, a small, all-male group of stamp collectors who meet in a private home aren't unlawfully discriminating by not accepting women.

                          But clubs that presume they are private frequently turn out not to be in the eyes of the law in some states.

                          "Over the last 20 years, societal pressures have led to a steady narrowing of what qualifies as a private organization, free from antidiscrimination laws," says Robert Duston, a Washington attorney who specializes in defending discrimination cases.

                          Take the Mill River Club Inc., a country club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that considers itself private. Marc Wenger, the club's attorney, says Mill River is selective in choosing members, picking them partially on the basis of religion with the stated goal of achieving a balance of Jews and Christians.

                          Club member Joseph Pezza filed a complaint against the club in 2002, claiming the religious-diversity policy embarrassed him because "it puts unnecessary labels on people," according to court testimony.

                          Earlier this year, a New York court ruled that the club wasn't actually "private," and that its religious quota system violated state law.

                          The court based its decision on evidence that included the fact that nonmembers took tennis lessons and attended social events at the club. The court also noted that the club has more than 100 members -- a factor that is relevant under New York state law in deciding whether a group is a "place of public accommodation."
                          I don't believe child molesters are a protected class.
                          "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

                          ...just settin' on the Group W bench.

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by HLMom View Post
                            This is for folks who are interested in the legal questions surrounding USEF/SS. It is not a defense of GM, nor is it a critique of SS's mission.

                            People keep saying "USEF is a private club. It can do whatever it wants." I am skeptical that courts would treat it as a private club. See the article below. Now, the fact that courts might treat USEF as NOT being a private club is only the first question. The next question is, what legal obligations (in addition to non-discrimination) would flow from this determination?

                            https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB124588111858449559

                            Some golf courses, country clubs and social groups long have discriminated against certain types of people, usually women and minorities. Private organizations sometimes presume that they can exclude whomever they want, no questions asked.

                            And in one sense, they are right. Ironically, the more selective a club is, the more it is considered to be truly private and thus protected against antidiscrimination laws. In other words, a small, all-male group of stamp collectors who meet in a private home aren't unlawfully discriminating by not accepting women.

                            But clubs that presume they are private frequently turn out not to be in the eyes of the law in some states.

                            "Over the last 20 years, societal pressures have led to a steady narrowing of what qualifies as a private organization, free from antidiscrimination laws," says Robert Duston, a Washington attorney who specializes in defending discrimination cases.

                            Take the Mill River Club Inc., a country club in Oyster Bay, N.Y., that considers itself private. Marc Wenger, the club's attorney, says Mill River is selective in choosing members, picking them partially on the basis of religion with the stated goal of achieving a balance of Jews and Christians.

                            Club member Joseph Pezza filed a complaint against the club in 2002, claiming the religious-diversity policy embarrassed him because "it puts unnecessary labels on people," according to court testimony.

                            Earlier this year, a New York court ruled that the club wasn't actually "private," and that its religious quota system violated state law.

                            The court based its decision on evidence that included the fact that nonmembers took tennis lessons and attended social events at the club. The court also noted that the club has more than 100 members -- a factor that is relevant under New York state law in deciding whether a group is a "place of public accommodation."
                            So here is the difference.


                            Jumpers = Olympic sport
                            Jumpers = USEF or FEI which have some sort of shared banned thing? (please chime in)
                            USEF= must comply with SS 2017 law enacted by Congress


                            So it isn't as much it is a club. It is a organization that funnels teams/members to the Olympics. The law of 2017 says USEF must comply with SS.

                            Come to the dark side, we have cookies

                            Comment


                              While I think there are some potentially interesting legal questions, I'm becoming increasingly skeptical that GM actually will fight this, as he has vowed to do. We've had a couple posters, seemingly with inside information, who imply that SS has a great deal more evidence, and more recent evidence, than the NYT article reveals. If this is true, airing all the laundry in public would only further destroy GM's reputation and end all remaining support for him.

                              I wonder if his strategy is just to make the strong statement "I am innocent! I will fight this!!" and then slowly fade away... given that he's 80-something and doesn't need to work anymore anyway.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by snaffle1987 View Post

                                I believe they can. They listed Jimmy Williams even though he was deceased
                                I don't see him on the SS banned list. You're saying he was banned by SS?

                                Comment


                                  Originally posted by aristokat View Post

                                  I don't see him on the SS banned list. You're saying he was banned by SS?
                                  SS can not investigate deceased individuals. IIRC Jimmy Williams was banned by the USEF.

                                  Comment


                                    trakehners That was my experience with my favorite teachers in high school as well. I'm 29, so I was in mid-high school when Facebook opened up to non-college students. I never had my teachers' phone numbers, or my after school activity leaders' (soccer coaches, dance instructors, theater production folks, etc.) with one glaring exception of course—my riding instructors. After I graduated (2008) I added many of my favorite teachers on Facebook and it's been really lovely to have them as part of my friend group. But it's fully normal to me to have authority figures keep me (and any minor really) at an arms' length outside of class/training/activities until I turned 18/left their oversight.

                                    And side note, Farhills123, thank you for your measured perspective. My mind also went straight to some of the names you mentioned, especially after I re-read the parts of George's book detailing the years he stated were the ones in question (1968-1972). There's a big name there and something about the way he described his story gave me the heeby-jeebies.

                                    I understand when survivors can't/don't want to come forward, and I certainly don't expect them to do so in the current climate (or at all, if that's their choice). But I will say to anyone who is considering telling their story, there is so much power in saying it aloud. It's terrifying but freeing, and it can have profound impact on others. I didn't realize what happened to me was rape until I met another survivor years later. Her attacker was not the same as mine, but the story was along the same lines. Her openness made me realize that this incident in my past was not ok, it was criminal, and it launched the long process of healing that continues to this day for me.

                                    Love to all of you who have told your stories in this thread.

                                    Comment


                                      HLMom,

                                      Yes, the OJ Simpson tactic of dedicating himself to finding the real killers.
                                      The plural of anecdote is not data.

                                      Comment


                                        He will absolutely fight it. He HAS been fighting it for the last 2 years. He will make it about a constitutional violation of some kind. His legacy is very important to him and he is a fighter. It isn’t in his nature to just go gently into the good night.

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by Angela Freda View Post

                                          Agreed.
                                          But part of that is understanding and acknowledging that many who witnessed thing, just the atmosphere or more than that, were oftentimes just young kids at the time. Kids in these situations can often, beyond their immaturity, quickly normalize what to mature outsiders is troubling at best.

                                          Certainly those who were young due to their actual age, or immature due to other factors (sheltered, coming from a broken home, etc) need to cut themselves some slack. That g-you didn't make a stink isn't your fault if you'd entered this environment at 13, 15,... or a bit younger or older.

                                          Even if kids in his sphere were not abused in the literal sense, they were likely groomed into accepting, normalizing what was going on around them. Including the perfect example of how GM spoke to and about students. There's a whole thread here about it for gosh sakes, that many adults laughed off and poo-poo'd.... If adults didn't speak up, it's not hard to understand why kids at the time, or as they grew up also didn't say anything, and perhaps thought nothing of it. "That's how he is" was a repeated comment... theme, accepted explanation.

                                          Its how this kind of abuse happens and is perpetuated. Because kids are powerless, naive, and picked for their specific vulnerabilities. None of that, and none of this is on those who experienced this as kids.
                                          I was speaking of the role adults played. My trainers lauded him in the same moment of brushing aside abuse talk. "That's just George". I remember overhearing young riders discussing how their Moms would share their Valium, if they need it for the clinic. Ah the 80s. This was the only ripple ever heard from juniors. This was where I stepped away and went to a different discipline.



                                          _\\]
                                          -- * > hoopoe
                                          Procrastinate NOW
                                          Introverted Since 1957

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X