Sport Horse Spotlight

Flamenco head 2 (web)_300DH

Real Estate Spotlight

467 Charles_1

Sale Spotlight

COTH_without Subscribe
  • 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

People Attempting to Undermine Safe Sport

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

  • So, who's been discriminated against, pedophiles?

    What the fruitbat with the 3rd question? Does the coach fall under a NGB? If so, then yeah, they're under SS territory regardless of whether the kid they molest has even played a sport.. If the USEF kid is molested by a coach of any sport and the coach is not under a NGB, then no. Really reconsidering my stance on the mentally challenged angle if they keep going with these questions.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by skydy View Post

      I understand your point and agree, to an extent.

      Carney is licensed by USEF and in that respect is an official credentialed by the organization. USEF has rules that govern the behavior of their officials.

      Whether any of those rules are applicable in this case, and if they feel the need to speak with her regarding her representation of USEF, is obviously up to them. https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/3wwM...l-media-policy I agree that they will most likely be the last line of defense. https://www.usef.org/forms-pubs/0T1b...code-of-ethics.
      Those are dang-interesting little tools the USEF has at its disposal. But I suspect that it would prefer to not get into the rather murky area of deciding whether or not a Licensed Official who publicly disagrees with a policy (not of the USEF's making, but from SafeSport and the Federal Government) is committing an ethical violation as the USEF's code defines it.

      That's true because the issues are layers and it is also true because the USEF is also a conservative, tending-toward-laxness organization until it either *can* do something (e.g. ban a drug for which there is finally a test) or *must* do something (because Congress says so).
      The armchair saddler
      Politically Pro-Cat

      Comment


      • Originally posted by OverandOnward View Post

        And this is what they will not answer. Would be keenly interested if anyone can get them to *publicly* express their own views on the role of the minor in such a relationship, on a Q&A video or in writing. The seem to be just canny enough to know that doing this would push them into an endless social media rabbit hole from which they won't emerge.

        What they imply is that the minor is at least 50% of the issue, and maybe even far more accountable than that.

        It's like they have been asleep for the last 50 years of psychological study, understanding and progress.





        Exactly, IMO.

        And they seem to think that the public will follow them back to an unenlightened past. I don't know if DC & her followers truly believe that the public can be encouraged to adopt her views. I suspect they are just trying to gather in the small number of people who agree with them that have enough influence in the USEF to sway the future of SafeSport. If those people even exist, as some of her followers probably don't have the influence that they may have had at an earlier point in time.

        But nothing anyone says on social media or anywhere else is likely to change AfE's trajectory.

        Anything that can be done to cause them to spend more money will help them exhaust their financial backing and peter out that much faster. I suspect that running out of money is the only thing that will quiet them.
        And Another Thing! (I'm continuing my rant, which you improved upon a bit):

        I think most of the public, most of the time (and especially since an event happened in late 2016 that allowed the least compassionate and least careful thinkers among Americans an imprimatur for spewing their hate (and sometimes hypocrisy)), is intellectually lazy. This is also about not giving up power.

        The point is that no one wants to "walk a mile" in the shoes of a victim. The kind part of them doesn't want to image that children are sexually exploited. They'll do what they can to shield themselves from that dark and disturbing rabbit hole of detail. They hope it doesn't happen to them or theirs. Historically, if it did happen to them or theirs, they saw the writing on the wall and refrained from insisting that others see and acknowledge their experience and perspective.

        No one, similarly, wants to discover that their own behavior, while previously perhaps a bit questionable, is now labeled officially immoral or even illegal. So they do what they can to erase that conclusion. Those who were part of that large crowd of people sitting "a few rows back" from the crime ("I heard rumors but never saw anything," "George will be George," "Where were their parents"?/(read: Why does any onus to protect a child from something bad fall anywhere close to my feet?) also do not want to have their behavior audited.

        So here's the thing: It has taken more than half a century to establish the notion that perspective matters and than not all people experience the our world the same way, AND, that one should be obligated to consider the experience and perspective of a person or group that has historically had less power. So, for example, I am sorry to tell you, white men in Western Culture, that your perspective does not suffice as a stand-in for everyone and certainly not those whom you oppress. And so we have had to fight for so many things-- literature, history-writing, laws, science that is unbiased from structuring research questions to reaching authoritative conclusions-- that take into account groups like women, people of color, LBTGQ folks, the physically handicapped.

        And so here we are on the frontiers of the happily entitled and oblivious moral majority having to really confront and appreciate the reality of the sexual exploitation of children. Note that, as a class, this is a pretty powerless group; I don't think that is a coincidence. And the moral majority, even otherwise very nice and ethical people, suck at changing how they see the others not like them and grown under the new moral burden they didn't know they had: to protect children at risk. Or, even stranger, they have to re-learn how to treat those they would have been treated carelessly in the past with new respect. (Consider, for example, the new rules of gaining continued consent during whatever make-out session is maybe/kinda/sorta leading to sex.) In any case, these nice, floating-above the dirtiness and horror of the sexual exploitation of children are now losing that impugnity and, perhaps, their sense of innocence. While doing so will make the world a better place in the long run, there's nothing in it for them in particular to gain in the short run; there is some comfort and self-esteem to lose.

        Carney represents, I think, this Average Joe member of the denying moral majority. And because there are so many "able deniers" like her now (but fewer than there were during the Weinstein case; and fewer in that moment than there were for the Bill Cosby thing hitting a critical mass of women who told the same story; and fewer still in that Cosby moment than there were when the sex-based abuses by Catholic priest and a cover-up by the Church came to light some 20 years back), Carney can still find lots and lots of lazy, comfort-seeking members of the moral majority to join her in continuing to exclude the perspective and rights of victims.
        Last edited by mvp; Feb. 14, 2020, 08:43 AM.
        The armchair saddler
        Politically Pro-Cat

        Comment


        • Originally posted by LexInVA View Post
          MK is walking away. Because of his new wife (and his daughter's hatred of her) and return to CEO, he probably feels that he has more important things to deal with than cleaning up a mess than has been under the tables for decades and wants to distance himself from the tilted ship he was asked to steer for a bit, to enjoy his new life.
          Indeed. I think Kessler got bored with the project of running the USEF. He perhaps had been tapped to take the job in the first place. But given the several PITA aspects of that organization and then the added pressure and scrutiny of having to sell a new requirement (SafeSport training and SafeSport's acceptance) to an industry that has resisted regulation (such that stuff gets allowed to stand that most members of the American public would question), I think Kessler discovered a new, Not Fun chapter awaiting him and the USEF and bailed.
          The armchair saddler
          Politically Pro-Cat

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            Originally posted by skydy View Post
            It is very problematic that Diane Carney, a judge and official licensed by USEF , champions these beliefs.

            USEF has a problem on their hands and it is a difficult one. Much more difficult to solve than the basic issue of keeping abusers out of the organization, a plan which had to be done for them by the implementation of Safe Sport.

            It will be interesting to see how they decide to manage having one of their officials publicly trying to undermine a program USEF has said that they fully endorse, or if they will address the issue with her at all.
            You did an excellent job of zeroing in on EXACTLY one of the issues with all this that I am, admittedly, narrowly focused on with respect to DC in particular. The links to the Code of Ethics and Social Media Policies for USEF Licensed Officials were also enlightening.

            After reading through both, I think there are some obvious problems with DC being President of AfE, and writing these letters to SafeSport, describing herself ONLY as a “USEF member” and President of AfE, then signing these letters... and publicly sharing them on social media on the Athletes for Equity FB page.

            Under the “What You Should Do” section: Disclose your Affiliation: If you talk about USEF related matters that are within your role as a USEF Licensed Official, you must disclose your affiliation with USEF. Review the Conflicts of Interest and Restrictions sections within Chapter 10 of the Rulebook. Recall the Licensed Official Code of Ethics and the prohibition on interacting with competitors. This prohibition applies to social media and the timing of communications can be interpreted incorrectly and create a dishonest perception of you or other licensed officials.

            Under the “What You Should Not Do” section: Legal Information: Do not discuss anything to do with a legal issue, legal case, or attorneys without first checking with the USEF General Counsel.

            After reading that... I’m curious about whether or not Sonja Keating reviewed the letters DC has written to SafeSport and Congress so far, and signed as President of AfE, and published on the Facebook page of AfE.

            I’m sure a clever lawyer could wiggle around a bit with the whole way DC only describes herself as “a member of USEF” ... but there seems to be a requirement with respect to disclosure. There also seems to be a pretty obvious conflict of interest issue. Or at least an appearance of a potential conflict of interest. Does USEF have visibility to the actual membership of AfE, and specifically to who has made financial contributions to the organization, and when the contributions have been made? Are any of the people who have made contributions and signed up to be members of AfE active competitors... and are any of them going to be showing in classes she will be judging at upcoming competitions?

            If USEF isn’t privately discussing these issues with DC... why not? Maybe I am reading the guidelines and policies, and interpreting them way too broadly. That’s probably fair to say. But the whole situation most certainly IS messy, and USEF leadership behaving like a bunch of ostriches while DC... a licensed official... continues her activity on social media in terms writing and publishing these letters as President of AfE? And AfE continues to essentially solicit support and funds from active members of USEF? I find it disappointing USEF isn’t being more clear and strong about this.

            And again... for the record... I’m not advocating that DC be blacklisted. Nor that her freedom of speech rights be infringed upon. I am however, pointing out that she is supposed to abide by certain policies and codes of ethics as a licensed USEF official. I don’t think it’s possible for her to be BOTH President of AfE AND a licensed official. But it’s really up to USEF as to whether or not they want to enforce their own policies.

            And so far... it seems like they don’t. Which disappoints me.
            Last edited by Virginia Horse Mom; Feb. 14, 2020, 02:10 PM. Reason: Typos and clarity

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

              You did an excellent job of zeroing in on EXACTLY one of the issues with all this that I am, admittedly, narrowly focused on with respect to DC in particular. The links to the Code of Ethics and Social Media Policies for USEF Licensed Officials were also enlightening.

              After reading through both, I think there are some obvious problems with DC being President of AfE, and writing these letters to SafeSport, describing herself ONLY as a “USEF member” and President of AfE, then signing these letters... and publicly sharing them on social media on the Athletes for Equity FB page.

              Under the “What You Should Do” section: Disclose your Affiliation: If you talk about USEF related matters that are within your role as a USEF Licensed Official, you must disclose your affiliation with USEF. Review the Conflicts of Interest and Restrictions sections within Chapter 10 of the Rulebook. Recall the Licensed Official Code of Ethics and the prohibition on interacting with competitors. This prohibition applies to social media and the timing of communications can be interpreted incorrectly and create a dishonest perception of you or other licensed officials.

              Under the “What You Should Not Do” section: Legal Information: Do not discuss anything to do with a legal issue, legal case, or attorneys without first checking with the USEF General Counsel.

              After reading that... I’m curious about whether or not Sonja Keating reviewed the letters DC has written to SafeSport and Congress so far, and signed as President of AfE, and published on the Facebook page of AfE.

              I’m sure a clever lawyer could wiggle around a bit with the whole way DC only describes herself as “a member of USEF” ... but there seems to be a requirement with respect to disclosure. There also seems to be a pretty obvious conflict of interest issue. Or at least an appearance of a potential conflict of interest. Does USEF have visibility to the actual membership of AfE, and specifically to who has made financial contributions to the organization, and when the contributions have been made? Are any of the people who have made contributions and signed up to be members of AfE active competitors... and are any of them going to be showing in classes she will be judging at upcoming competitions?

              If USEF isn’t privately discussing these issues with DC... why not? Maybe I am reading the guidelines and policies, and interpreting them way too broadly. That’s probably fair to say. But the whole situation most certainly IS messy, and USEF leadership behaving like a bunch of ostriches while DC... a licensed official... continues her activity on social media in terms writing and publishing these letters as President of AfE? And AfE continues to essentially solicit support and funds from active members of USEF? I find it disappointing USEF isn’t being more clear and strong about this.

              And again... for the record... I’m not advocating that DC be blacklisted. Nor that her freedom of speech rights be infringed upon. I am however, pointing out that she is supposed to abide by certain policies and codes of ethics as a licensed USEF official. I don’t think it’s possible for her to be BOTH President of AfE AND a licensed official. But it’s really up to USEF as to whether or not they want to enforce their own policies.

              And so far... it seems like they don’t. Which disappoints me.
              Sadly, I think you are reading those USEF things too broadly.

              To me, the money shot sentence is the one I bolded. I read that to mean that the ethical constraint the USEF could use with a Licensed Official is limited to their role as that official. In their capacity as a USEF member or a random person, they have freedom to publicly disagree with USEF or SafeSport policies.

              So if Carney promises to never place any competitor she judges if she knows they are an ardent SafeSport advocate, that's conflicts with her assigned role (to judge competitors based on their performance on that day and not on their way, way outside the ring politics), she has committed an ethics violation.

              I don't think the "do not discuss legal matters" clause extends as far as publishing a criticism of the USEF (or SafeSport or Congress). I read that clause to mean not discussing stuff in an official capacity that could screw up litigation or cause it. But to read the current "general unhappiness with SafeSport among USEF membership" as a "legal issue" that cannot be discussed seems like a gag order. Surely you wouldn't want to give the USEF power to muzzle people who raised criticisms of its policies, right?
              The armchair saddler
              Politically Pro-Cat

              Comment

              • Original Poster

                Originally posted by mvp View Post

                Sadly, I think you are reading those USEF things too broadly.

                To me, the money shot sentence is the one I bolded. I read that to mean that the ethical constraint the USEF could use with a Licensed Official is limited to their role as that official. In their capacity as a USEF member or a random person, they have freedom to publicly disagree with USEF or SafeSport policies.

                So if Carney promises to never place any competitor she judges if she knows they are an ardent SafeSport advocate, that's conflicts with her assigned role (to judge competitors based on their performance on that day and not on their way, way outside the ring politics), she has committed an ethics violation.

                I don't think the "do not discuss legal matters" clause extends as far as publishing a criticism of the USEF (or SafeSport or Congress). I read that clause to mean not discussing stuff in an official capacity that could screw up litigation or cause it. But to read the current "general unhappiness with SafeSport among USEF membership" as a "legal issue" that cannot be discussed seems like a gag order. Surely you wouldn't want to give the USEF power to muzzle people who raised criticisms of its policies, right?
                I did read that sentence you bolded two or three times, and figured it would be the point upon which any enforcement or sanction of DC would run into an issue. And I can understand that.

                As for the legal issue interpretation... I can understand that as well being an overly broad interpretation. I will say though, I disagree that USEF strictly enforcing that provision is the same as “muzzling” people in general who are criticizing their policies. These guidelines specifically apply to licensed officials. I think it’s fine for USEF to have policies for licensed officials to refrain from commenting on social media about ongoing legal issues without first running it by General Counsel. If an official feels VERY strongly about something, and is at odds with USEF, they can resign as a licensed official, but continue to be a USEF member... and then voice their opinion all over social media with respect to the legal issue l think. At least that’s how I read it.

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  As far as the conflict of interest issues go in terms of her role as a licensed official... I’m more thinking about the possibility of her pinning people who she knows have donated to AfE. Using her position as a judge to inappropriately rewarding competitors she knows have financially supported her unrelated non-profit organization.

                  She’s President of AfE. She could easily cross reference the membership list for her organization with entrants in a specific class. Some pretty high profile names already donated (it was visible when they were using GFM). Now... the names of who donated and how much? I think it’s all gone private, as AfE has gotten more organized and gotten their website built. But that privacy with respect to actual people being members or donors to AfE? That’s a bit of an issue. If you are talking about situations involving close subjective calls as to who gets pinned in a specific order in a class DC is judging... if no one knows who has or hasn’t donated to AfE... how can anyone say for sure she ISN’T favoring certain competitors?

                  That’s a problem, in my opinion.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post

                    I did read that sentence you bolded two or three times, and figured it would be the point upon which any enforcement or sanction of DC would run into an issue. And I can understand that.

                    As for the legal issue interpretation... I can understand that as well being an overly broad interpretation. I will say though, I disagree that USEF strictly enforcing that provision is the same as “muzzling” people in general who are criticizing their policies. These guidelines specifically apply to licensed officials. I think it’s fine for USEF to have policies for licensed officials to refrain from commenting on social media about ongoing legal issues without first running it by General Counsel. If an official feels VERY strongly about something, and is at odds with USEF, they can resign as a licensed official, but continue to be a USEF member... and then voice their opinion all over social media with respect to the legal issue l think. At least that’s how I read it.
                    Yes, but insofar as the USEF grants judging licenses it now becomes a professional organization for an industry. Imagine the AMA telling a doctor that he cannot speak critically of a policy (and one mandated to the AMA by Congress at that) that the AMA endorses (even if weakly). I think that would allow someone to claim that their licensing organization is infringing upon their freedom of speech, and insofar as the person now is forced to choose between enjoying her Constitutional right and making a living, she gains standing for phat lawsuit.

                    The key point is that the USEF can inflict a level of coercion on an official it licenses to do business within the horse show industry in a way that it does not *not* function as a private club for hobbyists whom it doesn't not have to guarantee any adherence to constitutional anything. Sorry for the ugly sentence. I hope you can see the contrast in the "classes" of membership the USEF has.

                    I'm not a lawyer or nuthin' so this opinion is worth what you paid for it. But I do think it's worth considering how much power or not the USEF actually has before anyone thinks that that organization "ought to do something" about a bad-tasting nay-sayer like Carney.
                    The armchair saddler
                    Politically Pro-Cat

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                      As far as the conflict of interest issues go in terms of her role as a licensed official... I’m more thinking about the possibility of her pinning people who she knows have donated to AfE. Using her position as a judge to inappropriately rewarding competitors she knows have financially supported her unrelated non-profit organization.

                      She’s President of AfE. She could easily cross reference the membership list for her organization with entrants in a specific class. Some pretty high profile names already donated (it was visible when they were using GFM). Now... the names of who donated and how much? I think it’s all gone private, as AfE has gotten more organized and gotten their website built. But that privacy with respect to actual people being members or donors to AfE? That’s a bit of an issue. If you are talking about situations involving close subjective calls as to who gets pinned in a specific order in a class DC is judging... if no one knows who has or hasn’t donated to AfE... how can anyone say for sure she ISN’T favoring certain competitors?

                      That’s a problem, in my opinion.
                      Yes, but that's not a new or unique problem. Any USEF judge can infer who is male and female from a membership list and pin according to gender bias. A USEF judge can check ownership of the horse and pin that way. Same for other pros with whom they, say, buy and sell horses. And insofar as plenty of trainers get their judging cards and wear both professional hats (albeit not at the same horse show), this problem is really old, common and well-understood. So you can't claim that Carney raises a new species of challenge because so many judges have interests and access to information about who might further those or thwart them.
                      The armchair saddler
                      Politically Pro-Cat

                      Comment


                      • I think the grey area isn’t so much that DC as a USEF judge is against Safe Sport as an individual but rather she has helped spear head and is part of a group to thwart it. It’s clear she is testing the waters to see if the powers that be can be influenced by big names in the industry or not.

                        Comment

                        • Original Poster

                          Interesting perspectives from both of you - I had to think about it a bit... but I see where you all are coming from.

                          It’s all a bit infuriating to watch. I think I’m going to have to resign myself to LadyJ’s views with respect to a lot of this...

                          Sooner or later, these fossils with backwards attitudes on the sexual abuse of minors will just retire, or pass away.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                            Interesting perspectives from both of you - I had to think about it a bit... but I see where you all are coming from.

                            It’s all a bit infuriating to watch. I think I’m going to have to resign myself to LadyJ’s views with respect to a lot of this...

                            Sooner or later, these fossils with backwards attitudes on the sexual abuse of minors will just retire, or pass away.
                            Yes that is an unfortunate truth. All we can do is speak out and vote with our wallets. Unfortunately some people value athletic accomplishments and friendships despite what the person does. It’s hard for people to have a moral compass especially when they think their job will suffer. It’s easier to go with the perceived flow. Unfortunately these people won’t realize that despite pissing off their “friends” they will gain a lot.

                            Comment


                            • I agree that USEF won't/can't do anything about this. I wish they would/could but as we all know, they haven't fared well when sued over their drug policy. This is a free speech type issue so they could really be in for a lengthy legal battle.

                              The fact that she is a USEF official and writes those bizarre letters to the Safe Sport organization really doesn't reflect well on USEF though.

                              Comment


                              • My guess is that the 'freedom of speech' aspect may be murky in the written rules, but in actual practice there will be constraints on officials who are loud in their position firmly against any publicly visible USEF policy. Unless there is a consensus within the USEF that yes, that policy/rule/regulation needs to significantly change or be rescinded, which I doubt is the case for SafeSport (and isn't legally possible anyway).

                                In any business or organization, someone who publicly and repeatedly asserts that they are not on the same page as TPTB is likely to tender a sudden resignation in order to pursue other interests. And very probably certain persons will find themselves more constrained than others, and certain issues viewed more closely than others by TPTB.

                                Just another wild guess, but likely DC is being pulled into quiet conversations within the USEF discussing the wisdom of her path and her continuing role as a USEF official. Likely time will be given to see if she will cool off, within a few months at most. If not ...... time will tell.

                                No one else is publishing letters under the auspices of the AfE? Just DC?

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  The majority of the letters put forth so far from AfE are signed by DC. There was one that came from “the Executive Committee” or something like that. And she co-authored the last one with the VP - Kelly Cormaci.

                                  The notion that there might be some private discussions, and time to see how it all plays out makes complete sense. At present, however, DC does not come across as though she will be willing to quietly resign as a licensed official, and refocus on her non profit organization. Time will tell.

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by Virginia Horse Mom View Post
                                    The majority of the letters put forth so far from AfE are signed by DC. There was one that came from “the Executive Committee” or something like that. And she co-authored the last one with the VP - Kelly Cormaci.

                                    The notion that there might be some private discussions, and time to see how it all plays out makes complete sense. At present, however, DC does not come across as though she will be willing to quietly resign as a licensed official, and refocus on her non profit organization. Time will tell.
                                    Yes.

                                    There are two things that are more powerful and drive more decisions than all of the passion in the world: Money and Time.

                                    People are all fired up to go to the wall and keep up relentless pressure until they start running out of those two things. It really all comes down to Money, because most people have to do something to support themselves (and their dependents and horses), and when work starts falling behind because all Time is going to the cause, the rubber really meets the road. They have to cut back substantially on the Time given to the cause, or else find enough Money to support them and their dedication. Big-cause charities can speak to that..

                                    Independent wealth and/or a supportive spouse helps, as do others with deep pockets and a keen interest in carrying on the fight to the end. But the deep pockets and the spouse have a way of losing interest, so fundraising becomes a whole other time-consuming endeavor.

                                    (SafeSport itself is running into this issue right now on a governmental footing. As I understand it, they are going back to Congress to beg for substantially increased funding. An illustration of how serious this sad problem is across sports.)

                                    Most ordinary humans have limited resources to continue the struggle at a high level for long.

                                    Comment


                                    • The latest email from AES:
                                      Athletes for Equity in Sport, Inc.

                                      Today's news

                                      As you may already know, Athletes for Equity in Sport is working daily toward achieving substantive change in SafeSport procedures. This means legally defining the U.S. Center for SafeSport’s rights and duties.



                                      What We’ve Been Doing

                                      The members of Athletes for Equity in Sport (AES), along with our legal counsel, are actively engaged in this endeavor. For the past 30 weeks, we have sent letters to Congress — 535 weekly letters in all, every week for 7-1/2 months.

                                      The replies received in response to AES’ letter-writing campaign have been very encouraging. Leaders in TOP positions in Washington, D.C., are very concerned about the lack of constitutional rights afforded by the current SafeSport process.

                                      AES will continue this mail campaign until SafeSport procedures become fair and impartial, affording equity to both parties involved in SafeSport claims.



                                      We’re Getting Results

                                      As a result of our mail campaign, starting in February, face-to-face meetings are scheduled with Senators and Congressional Representatives in Washington, D.C. AES is also working with a lobbyist regarding currently pending national legislation S.2330, the Empowering Olympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2019.

                                      This bill, which was introduced in the Senate last year, attempts to give athletes more control over the policies and procedures employed by the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) and SafeSport. Hence it is of maximum interest to AES.

                                      At this time, there is not a companion bill in the House of Representatives. That’s good news, which AES will use to help accomplish our strategy for implementing necessary changes to SafeSport.



                                      What Else We’re Doing

                                      In addition, we are meeting monthly with major worldwide news organizations, whose journalists are becoming as uncomfortable as we are with the unconstitutional ways of SafeSport. So far in February, AES representatives have been interviewed by two more sports magazines, for articles to be published this Spring.

                                      Meanwhile, with the help of counsel and the members of AES, we have mapped out various legal strategies. These will be launched at appropriate intervals via a three-pronged approach:

                                      1. Legislation

                                      2. Litigation

                                      3. Education

                                      An announcement will be made this Spring regarding AES education, including more facts about how SafeSport really functions plus details on social services, also known as “wraparound” services.



                                      Save the Date: AES’ Third Public Information Session

                                      To date, AES has held two public information sessions, each featuring athletes involved in the SafeSport process along with their representatives. These participants shared their firsthand experience of navigating SafeSport’s inconsistent and poorly constructed protocols, which in practice are very different from what SafeSport has publicly stated in recorded presentations or put in writing.

                                      On March 2, 2020, AES will hold our third public information presentation. Our featured presenters are athletes, coaches, and attorneys involved in SafeSport cases. They will speak from their firsthand experience and knowledge of the prosecution’s bias toward any report, be it legitimate not. The number of false reports and manipulation of the SafeSport process grows monthly.

                                      Please note March 2 on your calendar! We’ll send you more details soon.



                                      AES is Growing Fast

                                      AES membership has grown by 200 members since January. Furthermore, the number of sports adding their support grows weekly, including cycling, boxing, wrestling, equestrian sports, skating, and gymnastics. Participants in all of these sports — and more — are joining AES as members, providing testimonials, and attending our information sessions.

                                      In addition, owners and coaches are realizing their vulnerability and supporting AES’ efforts to improve SafeSport procedures for the protection of ALL participants in Olympic sports.

                                      Going forward, AES is closely watching more national governing body (NGB) cases, including USOPC X HEARING for Appeal and others. When more information about these becomes available, we will share it with you.



                                      What You Can Do

                                      Please continue your efforts as well. To become a member of Athletes for Equity, go to AthletesForEquity.org and click JOIN US. For updated letter and article postings, click on NEWS & TESTIMONIALS. In addition, please feel free to contact us with any comments or questions: AthletesForEquity@gmail.com.

                                      You can also help by Liking us on Facebook (Athletes for Equity in Sport) and donating via AES’ GoFundMe page.

                                      Athletes for Equity in Sport is dedicated to an equitable SafeSport process: one that is fair and impartial for both the reporter and the accused. Only by achieving this equity do we protect all of our athletes.

                                      Thank you to all of our members and donors. Your support is making it possible for AES to bring about much-needed changes in SafeSport procedures and policies. Together, we can make a difference!



                                      Sincerely,

                                      The Executive Group Athletes for Equity in Sport
                                      I've spent most of my life riding horses. The rest I've just wasted.

                                      Comment


                                      • Thanks SolarFlare

                                        So, SS needs AfE to legally define their rights and duties? I think not.

                                        I'd like to have a list of the false reports and manipulation of the SS process for statistical purposes.

                                        Comment


                                        • wow! 200 more members! and in only months and months? that's a real tidal wave of success



                                          And I'm sure totally like some of them aren't hunter riders and definitely not the support squad for banned persons
                                          Let me apologize in advance.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X