Stallion Spotlight

Fasino-12-16-07-175

Real Estate Spotlight

barn1
  • 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 Room for a Pony View Post

    She has a personal facebook page. It was in response to a comment about her article.
    Wow. The anti-Safe Sport people are really bashing her there on her own page.

    At at least they’re on record being on the wrong side of history. I feel very sad for and ashamed of the horse world right now.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by ClerkofCourts View Post
      I must have gave up on it before I got to that story. What a travesty.
      I was rereading it the other night to check on the years referenced in the Phelps statement; my eyes about bugged out of my head when I read that little tidbit. I didn’t remember it from the first time I read it.

      Comment


      • I just took his book out of the library. Here is the dedication:

        "This book is dedicated to all of the worthy horsemen, students, and friends who are not mentioned herein. There simply weren't enough pages to tell all of your stories, but all of them reside faithfully in my memory."

        I'll bet they do.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Room for a Pony View Post
          I just took his book out of the library. Here is the dedication:

          "This book is dedicated to all of the worthy horsemen, students, and friends who are not mentioned herein. There simply weren't enough pages to tell all of your stories, but all of them reside faithfully in my memory."

          I'll bet they do.
          "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

          Comment


          • Another thought on why some victims from the SafeSport investigation may not speak up, is that during this process they were advised by their own legal counsel that they had grounds to move forward with criminal charges and/or civil suits, and told not to talk about it so as not to potentially jeopardize those proceedings.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Room for a Pony View Post
              I just took his book out of the library. Here is the dedication:

              "This book is dedicated to all of the worthy horsemen, students, and friends who are not mentioned herein. There simply weren't enough pages to tell all of your stories, but all of them reside faithfully in my memory."

              I'll bet they do.
              He f-ing signed my book in between complaining about someone drinking wine near him, not complaining, actually telling the organizer to tell the girl not to drink near him and generally looking ornery and old. He had a signing nearby so I got a book for my trainer for Christmas and figured I’d get one for myself. My first and only impression: what an arsehole.

              Comment


              • It’s shocking how polarized everything is right now and how so many people form unshakable beliefs off headlines and misinformation.

                I completely understand why Safe Sport needs to be quiet about allegations publicly. I see how victims are being talked about on social media (hell, they’re still bashing Anne K and blaming her for everything) and even if safe sport came out with only vague details, people would seek out the victim and attack. But, the problem is that allows the perpetrator to craft the storyline. And it seems the first thing people read is what they believe forever. Thus the 17 3/4 storyline with RG and the one jilted lover 40 years ago with GM. I do a lot of crisis communications and in today’s world, speed is the most important thing. Even just one hour of silence while you’re crafting a response is enough to make people believe the crisis. What happened to critical thinking?

                And when finally proved wrong they dont don’t come back to apologize. They just move on to the next shiny thing of the day.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by dannyboy View Post
                  @ flofleming I haven't heard that Conrad has released a public statement, but you can bet the investigators spoke to him.
                  ETA: If so, he may have been advised not to speak out.
                  Is it possible that not everyone was a "victim". perhaps some were willing partners and did not feel abused?

                  As far as his teaching/coaching style goes it wasn't a secret. One should not enter a clinic or ride with him unless they are prepared to handle it.

                  I am not condoning molesting minors and find all of this very sad including some of the glee displayed here,

                  I attended an instructor's clinic 40 years ago that was most educational and without any verbal abuse. Audited another clinic 10 years ago and found him to be fair and helpful to everyone. Even complimentary to those who tried hard and followed his instruction.

                  I was never aware of any of the ugliness mentioned by many posters.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by 541hunter View Post
                    GHM also proudly tells a pretty horrific story in the book about setting up (I think?) Melanie Smith Taylor to flip a horse in an exercise because he thought she was too cocky.

                    Amazing to me how many of my horse circle are talking about what a fantastic horseman he is.
                    Did the horse actually flip?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Toblersmom View Post


                      If the MLB can give Pete Rose the boot, for activities that (near as i can tell) are not *illegal* but only against the MLB’s rules for standard of conduct, SafeSport is within their legal rights to ban GM.
                      The difference is that Pete Rose's activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM's activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal? If neither, then can a person fairly be punished for them 40 years later?

                      Here's another example to think about. Say the drinking age used to be 18. Now it is 21. Back when it was 18, you gave some of your junior riders glasses of champagne after a big competition. What if USEF wants to punish you now, saying, "Hey, it's against our rules to give underage minors alcohol." Would you say, "But that's not fair! At the time I did it, they were legal!" Or would you say, "Oh okay, guess that's my bad luck that the law changed later...it seems fair to punish me now."

                      Caveat: I still don't know the details of SS's allegations against GM. Obviously if he was having sex with 13 and 14 year olds, I'm pretty sure that was illegal AND against policy 40 years ago, just as it is now.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Toblersmom View Post
                        Another thought on why some victims from the SafeSport investigation may not speak up, is that during this process they were advised by their own legal counsel that they had grounds to move forward with criminal charges and/or civil suits, and told not to talk about it so as not to potentially jeopardize those proceedings.
                        That's what happened in the arbitration (appeal) hearing for one of the Lopez brothers (Taekwondo) who was sanctioned by SS. I think there were 3 victims and none of them would participate in the arbitration because their attorney thought it was not in the best interests of their upcoming civil suit. That was the primary reason the guy won his appeal and got the sanction overturned.
                        "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                        that's even remotely true."

                        Homer Simpson

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                          The difference is that Pete Rose's activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM's activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal? If neither, then can a person fairly be punished for them 40 years later?

                          Here's another example to think about. Say the drinking age used to be 18. Now it is 21. Back when it was 18, you gave some of your junior riders glasses of champagne after a big competition. What if USEF wants to punish you now, saying, "Hey, it's against our rules to give underage minors alcohol." Would you say, "But that's not fair! At the time I did it, they were legal!" Or would you say, "Oh okay, guess that's my bad luck that the law changed later...it seems fair to punish me now."

                          Caveat: I still don't know the details of SS's allegations against GM. Obviously if he was having sex with 13 and 14 year olds, I'm pretty sure that was illegal AND against policy 40 years ago, just as it is now.
                          o think it’s less about punishing him and more about taking away his access to children.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                            The difference is that Pete Rose's activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM's activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal? If neither, then can a person fairly be punished for them 40 years later?

                            Here's another example to think about. Say the drinking age used to be 18. Now it is 21. Back when it was 18, you gave some of your junior riders glasses of champagne after a big competition. What if USEF wants to punish you now, saying, "Hey, it's against our rules to give underage minors alcohol." Would you say, "But that's not fair! At the time I did it, they were legal!" Or would you say, "Oh okay, guess that's my bad luck that the law changed later...it seems fair to punish me now."

                            Caveat: I still don't know the details of SS's allegations against GM. Obviously if he was having sex with 13 and 14 year olds, I'm pretty sure that was illegal AND against policy 40 years ago, just as it is now.
                            I believe that having homosexual sex at that time was 100% illegal regardless of the participants' ages. Not to mention having homosexual relations with a minor! That would also be 100% illegal. As someone mentioned a while back, the AOC probably only refers to the female sex; sex involving boys would probably just be called "boys will be boys," heh, heh, heh."

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cat Tap View Post

                              Is it possible that not everyone was a "victim". perhaps some were willing partners and did not feel abused?
                              If the young man was underage, it doesn't matter. He is still a victim and, by law, unable to give consent and be a "wiling" partner.

                              I will acknowledge that it's very likely that at least some victims were groomed and manipulated into believing that they were choosing to participate in the relationship and were thus "willing" partners. And some may chose to continue to believe that out of self-preservation.

                              But, given the power differential and the young age at which some of the victims fell under GM's "management," I'm not convinced that any of them could indeed be considered "willing partners" in the way that most of us would define consensual sex.
                              "Facts are meaningless. You can use facts to prove anything
                              that's even remotely true."

                              Homer Simpson

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by YankeeDuchess View Post

                                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?
                                The fact that prominent people in this industry seriously think they can influence the NYT's editor fills me with renewed appreciation that people in this industry have such a misplaced sense of self importance and absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the world beyond their little private barns and their little fancy horse shows and the highways that run between the two.

                                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.

                                  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.
                                  Are you able to clarify the difference between "criminal disposition - involving a minor" and "sexual misconduct involving a minor"?

                                  I was discussing this with my daughter because I unknowingly sent her to someone on the SS banned list for "criminal disposition involving a minor" last spring. She moved to VA from Canada and I was sending her horse to her later. I had NO idea... She's a grown woman but I don't want to "support" anyone on that list.

                                  It seemed to me that misconduct was historical, criminal disposition was more recent, resulting in a conviction. Is that accurate?

                                  She went to the barn I sent her to... And met with the banned party... But she has excellent judgment and went elsewhere!

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by flofleming View Post
                                    I asked this on the new Facebook group, but I’ll try here as well. Has Conrad spoken up? If not, his silence is deafening. He was the right age, right look, right time period. How was his stay with George? As an Olympic medalist, he needs to have the strength of little Simone Biles and say something, one way or the other.
                                    Are you seriously outing someone who has not spoken up? IT IS NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

                                    Comment


                                    • If in fact, he is proven guilty. Would the victims ( or family) be able to sue him for pain & suffering? I think about the 2 victims from the NYT article & how their lives have been rocky, well, one is even deceased. Heartbreaking.

                                      Comment


                                      • Here is the SS text on Criminal Disposition:

                                        "Any disposition of a criminal proceeding, other than an
                                        adjudication of not guilty, including an adjudication of guilt
                                        or admission to a criminal violation; a plea to a lesser
                                        included offense; a plea of no contest; or the disposition of
                                        the proceeding through a diversionary program, deferred
                                        adjudication, disposition of supervision, conditional
                                        dismissal, or similar arrangement."

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by HLMom View Post

                                          The difference is that Pete Rose's activities were against the rules at the time he engaged in them. The question is, were GM's activities against any rule of USEF at the time he engaged in them? If not, were they illegal?
                                          Once again, I'm just struck by how hard people will work for these justifications. I've experienced it myself.

                                          For example: "Show me where it says in the rules I can't call another member incessantly on the phone and show up on their doorstep after I've been asked to stop." No, I didn't feel the need to explicitly state that in the rules for my online forum.

                                          This is why the rules get more bureaucratic and exacting every year. "How the heck was I supposed to know defrauding an insurance company for paying someone to murder my horse and make it look like an accident would be against the rules?" Or, if you like, "How was I to know you would catch me for administering Reserpine to my show horses?"

                                          In this case, the main public allegation seems to involve a 30 year old male having sex with a 13 year old male who was his student and under his care, and for four years. I mean, damn AHSA/USEF for not explicitly writing in the 1968 rule book that you couldn't do that. How could he have known?

                                          Can I just say, not sure what your intent is, but posts like that ... don't make him look more sympathetic or less guilty.
                                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X