• 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 are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

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 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Proposed Rule Change for the Members Right to be Notified

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

  • #41
    Saddlebag, for heaven's sake, no one's civil rights are being infringed upon, and no powers are being usurped.

    The website and petition are there for people to read and either sign or not sign. There is absolutely no reason they should not do so. If you look at the website, you will realize this is not about one individual but rather all of the persons suspended for the horse-killings.

    I believe these cases fall into a category of their own in terms of their seriousness, and that is the impetus behind the petition, and the topic of this thread, which is a rule change proposal so that people can be INFORMED about upcoming reinstatement hearings--at least that's what the title of the thread is.

    I'm personally quite taken aback by your assumption that anyone who signs the petition, writes a letter, or does not write a post supporting PV's character and entitlement to reinstatement is a hate-crazed vigilante with an axe to grind.

    Why do you assume that people 1) have not given careful thought to their opinions; and 2) are completely unable to distinguish gossip from facts?

    I dislike vicious and unfounded gossip quite as much as anyone; however, to suggest that this is the *only* motive behind the signatures and the many well-thought-out opinions expressed is frankly, not credible, and borders on insulting.

    I would hope that the Hearing Committee and other USEF officials, who after all, have access to facts that we may never have, have sufficient discernment to read many varying opinions and weight them accordingly.

    I think it is equally unfair to discredit the opinions of many people by dismissing their considered thoughts and actions as gossip. That's an awfully easy way to dismiss it--but that is just your opinion, one person's read.

    I agree with the person--DMK? and others--who suggested that all of the information and discussion in this hearing (if PV does in fact apply for reinstatement) be made public. BTW, if people did have facts available to them, they might be just as reasonable and objective as the Hearing Committee. Why not assume that?

    Quite a number of national sports organizations have codes of conduct for membership that are very stringent regarding behavior which will result in expulsion.
    Tinwhistle Farm

    Comment


    • #42
      Ok, I am aware that felons may apply to have rights reinstated. So, does that apply to all felons as in I killed dear old granny for the money in a horrible and grusome manner, may I carry a gun again please? Or, I wrote a hot check when I was 20 for $450, or hey, that stuff really was for personal use, I just have a bad habit? I do not think that the right to apply for reinstatement to carry a firearm applies regardless of the crime. And we are talking about rights taken away by the government and restored the same way. Not a membership to an organization. Tonya Harding will never again be a member of or compete in a USFSA competition, and Pete Rose will not ever be a member of MLB and probably not eligible for the Hall of Fame. And no physical harm was done to anyone or anything(if you believe ms harding had no knowledge). It's a bit like one crook telling on another, they tend not too if their own hands are not clean.

      Comment

      • Original Poster

        #43
        I think saddlebag it is clear that the vast majority of the membership does not have the confidence in the Hearing Committee that you share.

        If we knew for a fact they would check and see if we are all just gossips or if the Hearing Committee will now require to be presented with the whole truth as is their responsibility.
        http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

        Comment


        • #44
          Erin, There are basically 3 kinds of suspension.

          A Most have a fixed term- 90 days starting on date X. No need to apply for reinstatement.

          B The ones that are based on bouncing checks or not paying fees usually have an indefinite term- until the financial obligation has been fixed. That is a form of reinstatement, but I don't know if they have an actual hearing, or if it is "automatic" once the check clears.

          C The ones associated with the insurance killings (and maybe a few others) have an indefinite term, with the opportunity to "apply for re-instatement after X years", where X varies.

          Since I can't find the ANYTHING about reinstatement, I don't know if the rules treat B and C differently. C is what Snowbird is interested in.



          I think Janet had this right. The notification could be limited to teh descripton of "C" above. USEF could use their website to publicize the request for reinstatement, so that it would not have to work around the print deadline for the magazine. This could allow 60 day advance notice on requests.

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            #45
            Yes! Hillary exactly. What is the criteria of proofs required in the C class suspension. My guess is there has never been any other such situation so there is no precident.

            Those involved believe they should skate free if they've followed the old formula which says if the rule dioesn't say you can't then you can.

            I don't believe there is any remorse for the horses but for themselves.I think we are in a position where we have to draw the line somehow. I don't have any particular person in mind but there is a principle and it extends to those who have caused severe damages as those two in Virginia.

            I think as an association we need to decide where the line is drawn over which anyone can not go and still stay in the sport officially. Skating did it with Tanya Harding even though she didn't do the deed directly. I think they were right. It's that first case that sets the model and the example.

            I think the same with drug violations and it could be three times and your out. I think the IT department needs to post a record with the search engine so anyone can find out how many violations anyone else has been found guilty.

            New people coming into the sport need to be protected from those we know are not trustworthy. Not by hearsay, not by rumor or gossip but by a Conviction in the Courts whee as a profession we honor the decisions of the Legal System.
            http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by Saddlebag:
              The USEF is not a co-op organization, ruled by popular opinion. We members don't get to "vote" on who we like or don't like, and decide if someone should be in our "club". Now...just suppose this rule passed to let members influence who can or cannot be let back in "our club". How on earth is a Hearing panel going to know if that flurry of letters or that petition is anything other than a hate campaign generated by a few "disgruntled" folks with an ax to grind?
              I think the members just want the chance to lodge their views on reinstatements. During state and federal law-making, the populace is allowed to comment. If a bill is coming before the house or the senate, I am allowed to send a letter in opposition or support of the legislation. And I'm allowed to rally a group in a letter-writing campaign. Then it's up to the members of congress to weigh those opinions.

              I think that process could apply here, if the Rule was created to allow public comment on reinstatements. The USEF would weigh the comments and make their final decision with those comments in mind.
              Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores

              Comment


              • #47
                USEF allows comments on officials that are applying for promotion - on members that are trying to become officials - there should be no problem with allowing the same for reinstatement
                Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

                The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”

                Comment

                • Original Poster

                  #48
                  That is a very good point SGray. There is a pecedence for our position.
                  http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                  Comment

                  • Original Poster

                    #49
                    Ahem! We want to be constructive and make suggestions how to fix the problem...do we not?
                    http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Back to the BBB kind of thing - before I placed my horse with a trainer I would like to know if the trainer had been convicted of: cruelty to or neglect of an animal, fraud, and ______ (fill in the blank).
                      Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

                      The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”

                      Comment

                      • Original Poster

                        #51
                        I think enough of us know that it would not be a big deal with a search engine to publish on the web the same information which is printed in Equestrian and already public record so that you could do a search by name and find their history.

                        I can see where the historical parts prior to the computer or prior to the Equestrian Magazine could be tedious and time consuming. But thre is no reason currently except a lack of interest by the administration.
                        http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                        Comment

                        • Original Poster

                          #52
                          I think it would be viable even if we just started with now. Eventually there would be a historical record for new people which is better than never. I certainly could support that as a proposed rule change.
                          http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                          Comment


                          • #53
                            Originally posted by N&B&T:
                            Saddlebag, for heaven's sake, no one's civil rights are being infringed upon, and no powers are being usurped.

                            ...

                            I agree with the person--DMK? and others--who suggested that all of the information and discussion in this hearing (if PV does in fact apply for reinstatement) be made public. BTW, if people did have facts available to them, they might be just as reasonable and objective as the Hearing Committee. Why not assume that?
                            We have a winner!


                            Originally posted by Saddlebag -- We members don't get to "vote" on who we like or don't like, and decide if someone should be in our "club". Now...just suppose this rule passed to let members influence who can or cannot be let back in "our club". How on earth is a Hearing panel going to know if that flurry of letters or that petition is anything other than a hate campaign generated by a few "disgruntled" folks with an ax to grind? The Hearing process relys on facts and proof in making their decisions. Vigilante justice is fueled by emotion and gossip. I just choose to support the estalished legal hearing process...even if it means that a few "bad guys" slip through the cracks.

                            Nobody is suggesting this come up for national vote or anything. As a process, that would be bound for failure. But I do think if members feel strongly about the reinstatment or denial of reinstatement of any person on an indefinite suspension, then they have the right to be heard. But this is a two way street. If you have a strong case to make FOR the reinstatement of someone, then you have equal rights as someone who thinks otherwise. I'm not opposed to the hearing committee making a decision based on the facts, In fact I am for it wholeheartedly. But Saddlebag needs to explain to me how this process is made less fair/worse by opening some portion of the process to public discussion?
                            Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                            Comment

                            • Original Poster

                              #54
                              That DMK is the real question. Why is it better to confine decision making to a small exclusive group? We face the same question in the USHJA. Why is the membership not consulted or ntified. It is obvious from this BB that there are a lot of valid opinions and eloquent debaters here who might open the doors and windows if they were heard.

                              I think there would be less suspicion with more openness.
                              http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                              Comment


                              • #55
                                Quickly bumping this up...

                                The one problem I see about requesting that apps for reinstatement be published in Equestrian is, as others have said, the lead time. The mag takes 90 days to go to press, then if you add on top of that a further 30, or 60, or 90 (or whatever) days for the membership to submit comments, that delays any reinstatement application for anywhere from 4-6 months from the date of application. Even I'm not sure that's fair! And it might in fact violate the order of the Hearing Committee, not sure about that.

                                HOWEVER, it's pretty dang easy and cost-free to put the same information on the USEF web site.

                                What would y'all think about that?

                                Another point to be considered is that, in enforcing the order of the Hearing Committee of its predecessor the AHSA, USEF is going to have to investigate each separate application for reinstatement anyway. The terms of the order require that.

                                So any and all the reinstatement applications from the insurance fraud crowd are going to cost USEF (and us) money & time, regardless of whether there's a rule change or not. This is, of course, assuming USEF enforces that order and doesn't just rubber-stamp the reinstatement applications as they come in. As things stand now, we're probably not going to be advised of that.

                                So back to Snowy's original question - should that change & if so, what is the mechanism we should submit?
                                "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief

                                Comment

                                • Original Poster

                                  #56
                                  The dilemma is that the USEF has mutitudinous times expressed the opinion they are not the successor of the AHSA/USAE but a new corporation starting with no past record at all on December 1, 2003. In fact when they started and were not incorporated yet they had a management contract with the AHSA/USAE.

                                  So what they have written into their rules is theirs alone. That means they do not have to recognize those suspensions at all or they may choose to accept them as a matter of regular business. They are not even compelled to have a Hearing Committee decision.

                                  The question we have to propose as a Rule Change as a definition of who is eligible to be a member and who is not eligible. These people could have a USHJA Membership even if disapproved by USEF and pay a non-member fee for USEF.

                                  Our proposal has to include any "National Affiliate Membership". If you go back to the Chronicle before USHJA was accepted as our National Affiliate, John Long decribes his vision of two options for how the USEF should govern and apparently the first version has been what is accepted.

                                  In that format each National Affiliate manages it's own affairs independently and the so-called "umbrella" is simply at bookeeping system to cut the office costs of each discipline.

                                  As to posting the notice in Equestrian, it is written that all "official" notices must be published in Equestrian as the official publication and means of communication with members. The web site is only a second alternate means under the laws I believe of New York as it is in New Jersey.

                                  Technically the USEF if they were to index all violations to be researched would only go back to December 1, 2003 and has no obligation to go back over the decades. I think a proposed Rule needs also to include from that date an indexed file of all violators.

                                  I'm not a legal person and if I'm wrong would be happy to concede my lack of knowledge.
                                  http://www.usAHSA.org and http://www.noreinstatement.org

                                  Comment


                                  • #57
                                    I'm sure that official notice of hearings would have to appear in print. Why couldn't they just back up the notice publication deadline, in order to give the members time to comment?
                                    Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores

                                    Comment


                                    • #58
                                      On second thought, the date of publication could drive the date of the hearing. Something like this:

                                      "Reinstatement hearings will be held 90 days after publication in the Equestrian. USEF members may submit comments to the hearing committee. These comments will become a part of the public record."
                                      Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores

                                      Comment


                                      • #59
                                        Just bear in mind that, if you submit a rule change proposal this spring, it will be voted on in Jan 2007. If approved, it would go into effect Dec 2007, for the 2008 competition year.
                                        Janet

                                        chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).

                                        Comment


                                        • #60
                                          Originally posted by Janet:
                                          Just bear in mind that, if you submit a rule change proposal this spring, it will be voted on in Jan 2007. If approved, it would go into effect Dec 2007, for the 2008 competition year.
                                          Right. Anything relating to PV would have to happen under the current system.
                                          Old age means realizing you will never own all the dogs you wanted to.--Joe Gores

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X