Stallion Spotlight

Vitalis_img_4461skawx LL_Fotos

Real Estate Spotlight

104 Sparks Lane BR
  • Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You�re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the Forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it�details of personal disputes may be better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts, though are not legally obligated to do so, regardless of content.

Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting. Moderators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts unless they have been alerted and have determined that a post, thread or user has violated the Forums� policies. Moderators do not regularly independently monitor the Forums for such violations.

Profanity, outright vulgarity, blatant personal insults or otherwise inappropriate statements will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

Users may provide their positive or negative experiences with or opinions of companies, products, individuals, etc.; however, accounts involving allegations of criminal behavior against named individuals or companies MUST be first-hand accounts and may NOT be made anonymously.

If a situation has been reported upon by a reputable news source or addressed by law enforcement or the legal system it is open for discussion, but if an individual wants to make their own claims of criminal behavior against a named party in the course of that discussion, they too must identify themselves by first and last name and the account must be first-person.

Criminal allegations that do not satisfy these requirements, when brought to our attention, may be removed pending satisfaction of these criteria, and we reserve the right to err on the side of caution when making these determinations.

Credible threats of suicide will be reported to the police along with identifying user information at our disposal, in addition to referring the user to suicide helpline resources such as 1-800-SUICIDE or 1-800-273-TALK.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it�s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users� profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses � Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it�s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who�s selling it, it doesn�t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions � Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services � Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products � While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements � Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be �bumped� excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues � Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators� discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the �alert� button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your �Ignore� list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you�d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user�s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 5/9/18)
See more
See less

George Morris on the SS list

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

  • Originally posted by poltroon View Post
    For those who have said that SafeSport should be transparent and publish dates and ages... note that the dates alone made it pretty easy to guess who one of the claimants was in this case. Indeed, I did a little searching and at first thought that Soresi was too young to be that claimant based on an article listing his age that was written in his 40s, then found his true age and went, "Oh." Took only a few minutes of clumsy investigation on my part and this started before I was born, on the opposite side of the country from me.

    If they gave us another set of dates we'd know likely who else spoke to them.

    Their policies say that the accused has the names of all claimants. That seems intimidating enough.
    Exactly.

    Add to this that per Kristin Hardin’s post, GHM and some long time loyalists of his reached out and THREATENED her former in laws. I don’t truly understand why... but my assumption is to prevent her from cooperating with the ongoing investigation in any way.

    Michael Hart’s family members were quoted in the NYT article. JS has been clear in published accounts that his brother encouraged him to come forward as well. I really hope other people out there who are either related to victims, or once had a connection or close relationship with a victim reach out to Safe Sport and add testimony now. Be a voice for people who are intimidated into silence out of fear of personal and professional consequences... or who are silent because the whole experience set them up on a tragic life journey that ended in an early death. That seems to have been the case for Michael Hart. Reading his family’s feelings regarding justice... it made my heart hurt.

    Comment


    • I suspect that it has always been GM's MO to cultivate his image of being verbally abusive as a way of publicly intimidating anyone and everyone from ever going up against him.

      Having witnessed first-hand his nastiness in a public setting (clinic) I can only imagine how unsavory his words and actions would be in private.

      Comment


      • Oh, yes. Why else would you roll in the dirt when a clinician told you to? If he weren't intimidating, you'd tell him to go take a running jump instead of meekly doing what he said.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Farhills123 View Post
          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.
          Thank you so much for your posts, Farhills123.

          GM's reaction to the investigation is quite interesting to me. Based on the knowledge that I have on the case, I don't really see any way that he could argue innocence. I have no doubt that he and his legal advisers will try and attack the credibility of the claimants, but the sheer volume of claimants/witnesses and the identity of certain claimants would make that tactic a very poor choice.

          Also, considering that he "allegedly" threatened several people in an effort to convince them not to speak to SafeSport/reporters, he could be found in violation of several SafeSport policies. I could also see his legal team going the "technicality" route and trying to argue that SafeSport did not follow its own rules - but this tactic would definitely hurt his public declaration of innocence. Another issues is the PR statement - which was carefully worded to single out a specific claimant. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of "Abuse of Process" but its wording was incredibly misleading.

          For those who are interested in learning more about the actions that typically result in "Permanent Ineligibility", here is a spreadsheet that I created in early July: SafeSport - Permanent Ineligibility

          poltroon I agree 100%. The PR statement is a perfect example of how even basic information, like a four-year time span tied with a violation of "sexual misconduct - involving a minor", can reveal the identities of claimants.

          Comment


          • I don't ride any longer, and never was anyone who was actually great at it, but I did enjoy it. So I never joined AHSA, or USEF. Until yesterday, when I signed up for a fan membership.

            People who say SS should go away, and USEF, and their FEI counterparts should butt out, wouldn't that mean that international competitions wouldn't happen in the U.S. any longer? And no more international presence for the U.S. riders? Or am I misunderstanding the entire situation (entirely possible).
            You can't fix stupid-Ron White

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Farhills123 View Post
              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.
              I hope the victims have support from family friends and loved ones in the coming days. I hope if it is at all possible or appropriate, some of them can figure out a way to connect with one another, and support one another.

              The story of the men who were victims of Conrad Mainwaring and supported one another privately as that case unfolded comes to mind. ESPN just did some powerful reporting on that. The story of the gymnasts who were part of the Larry Nasser case also comes to mind. The young woman who tried to report him in 2000 and had her story published by the Indy Star... she was a catalyst for others. Without her speaking up and speaking out... and later in supporting others who were trying to work through it... she was instrumental in terms of bringing him down.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JanM View Post
                I don't ride any longer, and never was anyone who was actually great at it, but I did enjoy it. So I never joined AHSA, or USEF. Until yesterday, when I signed up for a fan membership.

                People who say SS should go away, and USEF, and their FEI counterparts should butt out, wouldn't that mean that international competitions wouldn't happen in the U.S. any longer? And no more international presence for the U.S. riders? Or am I misunderstanding the entire situation (entirely possible).
                I think that NGBs that govern national
                competitions (in the sense of not just intra-state) are subject to SafeSport as well. So ditching FEI or Olympic ties won’t get you away from SafeSport anyway.

                Comment


                • After considering his statement, I think he knows where this is heading and he's basically saying he's going to make this as public and ugly as possible and take as many others with him as he can. And face it, there are going to be a lot of people dragged into it. He may possibly squeak out of it - OJ Simpson did - but there will be a lot of dirty laundry left flapping around in his wake, as well as a lot of people who will still believe in his innocence.

                  Comment


                  • Copy and paste:
                    I'm the author of the New York Times' investigation into George Morris. I have been reading social media, and wondering: Where did this false belief that Safe Sport treats people as "guilty before proven innocent" come from?

                    George Morris was the subject of a rigorous, two year investigation by ex-FBI and Special Victims investigators who make up Safe Sports team. It is no small thing to ban the most prominent face of a sport for life, it was done only because the facts were proved without a shadow of a doubt.

                    Just because you do not know what happened, does not mean it did not happen. Please feel free to be in touch with any questions, Sarah.Nir@nytimes.com
                    McDowell Racing Stables

                    Home Away From Home

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                      I hope the victims have support from family friends and loved ones in the coming days. I hope if it is at all possible or appropriate, some of them can figure out a way to connect with one another, and support one another.

                      The story of the men who were victims of Conrad Mainwaring and supported one another privately as that case unfolded comes to mind. ESPN just did some powerful reporting on that. The story of the gymnasts who were part of the Larry Nasser case also comes to mind. The young woman who tried to report him in 2000 and had her story published by the Indy Star... she was a catalyst for others. Without her speaking up and speaking out... and later in supporting others who were trying to work through it... she was instrumental in terms of bringing him down.
                      I'm wondering if some of George Morris's teenaged victims are now men who are not homosexual, and were not willing to have that relationship with him become public. Victims frequently feel shame, and maybe it's a double whammy for them. We have become way more accepting of homosexuality as the decades passed, but a heterosexual man may just not be willing to come forward if he had been a victim of George Morris as a teen. I know that was an issue with boys who were abused by priests and why it took so long for some of them to come forward.
                      "When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in a confederacy against him."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                        @FairHills123



                        I absolutely agree that he will fight it. But what's that about the last 2 years part? I'm way out of the USEF loop and don't know what's been going on.
                        Well...not really in the loop any more and grew up on the opposite coast where we had our own problems. Never around him much other then watch him teach in public settings, like private mini clinic type lessons for accomplished Juniors at shows in the last 20 years. But over the last couple of years, he’s distanced himself noticeably from a lot of his professional activities. Just thought it was age and health related but heard a few rumors something else was going on.

                        If it’s anything like the JW situation, people have been contacted by journalists and certainly the SS investigation that has apparently been going on for at least 18 months. That would fit with the 2 year time frame here. Once JW went down, it really was only a matter of time anyway as victims are starting to speak up. Suspect there’s more shoes to drop, possibly within that vocal group of supporters.



                        When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

                        The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.

                        Comment



                        • Laurierace Thank you! Findelight That makes sense. I noticed that also, but like you thought it was just age-related. But looking back, it makes sense. And yes, I believe this is the tip of the iceburg.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Laurierace View Post
                            Copy and paste:
                            I'm the author of the New York Times' investigation into George Morris. I have been reading social media, and wondering: Where did this false belief that Safe Sport treats people as "guilty before proven innocent" come from?

                            George Morris was the subject of a rigorous, two year investigation by ex-FBI and Special Victims investigators who make up Safe Sports team. It is no small thing to ban the most prominent face of a sport for life, it was done only because the facts were proved without a shadow of a doubt.

                            Just because you do not know what happened, does not mean it did not happen. Please feel free to be in touch with any questions, Sarah.Nir@nytimes.com
                            Apparently Sarah Nir was briefly part of the ISWG Facebook Group, and she posted her article there. The admin removed it and booted her from the group. Vanessa Brown has now posted about it, and has said,

                            “if anyone feels compelled to bring her actions to the attention of The New York Times, the e-mail addresses to send your views to are...”

                            Maybe I am missing something... but what in the world... do these people think the editors at that paper are going to discipline their reporter for linking to her own investigative report because a bunch of folks determined to support GM are upset with her?

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Palm Beach View Post

                              I'm wondering if some of George Morris's teenaged victims are now men who are not homosexual, and were not willing to have that relationship with him become public. Victims frequently feel shame, and maybe it's a double whammy for them. We have become way more accepting of homosexuality as the decades passed, but a heterosexual man may just not be willing to come forward if he had been a victim of George Morris as a teen. I know that was an issue with boys who were abused by priests and why it took so long for some of them to come forward.
                              I was thinking the same thing. There is still a lot of homophobia, and I think there is a lot less of a support system for boys who may have been abused in that way. My observation is that women have been more public and vocal about constructing support systems for victims of rape and other sexual abuse.

                              Comment


                              • Duncan McIntosh keeps indicating he knows the entirety of the investigation against Rob Gage. Is that possible? And that it was all a fabricated charge. How does that square with the women who came forward after The Oaks?
                                *****
                                You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by FiSk123 View Post

                                  Thank you so much for your posts, Farhills123.

                                  GM's reaction to the investigation is quite interesting to me. Based on the knowledge that I have on the case, I don't really see any way that he could argue innocence. I have no doubt that he and his legal advisers will try and attack the credibility of the claimants, but the sheer volume of claimants/witnesses and the identity of certain claimants would make that tactic a very poor choice.

                                  I see his reaction is the same as everyone else that has been permanently banned. They have not denied it occurred. Not one person has stood up and said they didn't do it. They spew misinformation about due process, the stature of limitations, they attack the reporting party, or they say, as George did, that he never hurt anyone or the sport. They have no clue who they hurt. They take no responsibility for the lives that they damaged. I have seen a few comments mentioning how people were different "back then". Many people that were alcoholics or doing drugs have cleaned up their act and become good citizens who have contributed to the sport, therefore should not be held responsible because they "aren't that person anymore". I applaud anyone who has conquered an addiction, but that doesn't give one a free pass. If you killed someone when drunk or high, that person is still dead regardless if you are clean and sober now.. If you molested a child, that person may be an adult, but that doesn't mean you didn't inflict harm. It may not be visible, but there was damage done.
                                  George says he didn't hurt anyone and people interpret that as innocence - because that is what they want it to be. If you read his statement (released by his PR people), he doesn't say he didn't do it and he is only focusing on the 1 case. (as did the other banned individuals). Why - because they don't want people to know the truth.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Pennywell Bay View Post

                                    Just and FYI- a ISWG member posted the link (2ce) and it was taken down (2ce) saying "This is a support page only. Don't name the accuser. It's for GM only" (not a direct quote but you get the gist and it is close).

                                    People DON'T WANT TO BE INFORMED.
                                    Don’t want to be informed is right. I was on the ISWG page and saw this exchange (paraphrased):
                                    poster A: How do you know the most recent report was 50 years ago?
                                    poster B: In the limited information they provided, it said 1968-1972.
                                    Poster A: Those dates came from GMs PR firm, not SafeSport.
                                    Poster B: He doesn’t have a PR firm. I’m guessing you don’t know who GM is.
                                    Poster A: PR firm or not, those dates are from GMs camp, not SafeSport.
                                    Poster B: They are from SafeSport, try to keep up.
                                    Poster C; Actually, the dates are from a PR firm, here’s the link. Provides link to GM statement, which has the heading “Statement from George H Morris” at the top.
                                    Poster B: Poster C - If you don’t stand with George, you should leave the page.
                                    Poster C: Oh gee, sorry, I do stand with George, just trying to state a fact.

                                    At at one point, both Poster A and Poster C were grayed out (blocked). Don’t bug us with no obnoxious facts, you nasty people.

                                    They refer to the NYTs journalist as a “journalist”, and removed a post of hers, blocked her from the page, and provided the members of the group with the phone number of the NYTs editorial department. So outraged ISWG people could complain to the NYT that ... what?

                                    Comment


                                    • And look at the victim shaming that is still going on to girls in the wake of the Rob Gage thing.

                                      ETA: I'm not normally too sympathetic when people start saying "but look at teh menz" but in this case, I'm sure it is much worse for men who identify as straight or gay men who prefer to keep their identification out of the public eye, because if/when it becomes known that they were victims of a homosexual predator, they will be subject to questioning of their sexual natures in much worse ways than female victims are.
                                      Last edited by dannyboy; Aug. 9, 2019, 02:01 PM.

                                      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."
                                        None of the anti-discrimination legislation in this country provides protection for adults who choose to engage in felony sexual misconduct with minors.

                                        The "USEF is a private organization" line keeps getting repeated because people keep yelling about constitution rights, due process, innocent until proven guilty, etc. But those amendments only apply to incidences where you are being charged with a crime... like by the law, on a federal/state/regional level.

                                        USEF/SafeSport has not charged Mr. Morris with a crime-- that's not their job. But they have said there is a preponderance of evidence that he violated the rules of the organization to the point where they feel a ban is in the best interest of their members.

                                        I believe people become confused because the rules he violated are also considered crimes by the law, so many people feel like he has been charged with a crime. He hasn't been charged-- if that were true, he would have been arrested and indicted. He's a free man to do anything he wants except participate in the private organization that booted him.

                                        The burden of evidence and standard of proof needed for the law to pursue action for criminal activity is much greater than the preponderance of evidence needed for civil matters, like club membership. In the SafeSport policies, they are clear that they report their findings to law enforcement when appropriate, but as mentioned earlier, many times the law cannot act due to statutes of limitations or types of evidence.

                                        I'm sure you understand all this, but I just felt it was worth repeating because so many people still don't get it.
                                        Don't fall for a girl who fell for a horse just to be number two in her world... ~EFO

                                        Comment


                                        • Laurierace Where did you get that statement from the reporter? Just curious who she sent it to! I'm eagerly following her public statements on her investigation and also have been trying to verify the Safe Sport investigation timeline, so I would love to be able to point to that as backup on the claim that it was super in-depth!

                                          *Edit: I found it! She's posted it on Twitter if anyone else is neurotic enough to gather a repository of sources to cite in conversation.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X