• 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

USEF Response to NYT article...is it time for The Humble Initiative

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

  • I would not assume that lots less people in the hack means that so many people are scratching. There are a fair number of people who do not hack since their horse might be great over fences but not even close to the hack winner.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by trubandloki View Post
      I would not assume that lots less people in the hack means that so many people are scratching. There are a fair number of people who do not hack since their horse might be great over fences but not even close to the hack winner.
      No kidding. I used to show a horse that did great over fences, but we never went in for the under saddle unless there were 6 or less entered...and then I hoped someone got bucked off! Moved like a sewing machine. But we won a lot of championships on just over fences points!

      Comment


      • True enough about the hack. I never bother unless there are less than 7 horses because with my old horse you had to get it done over fences or pray for that half point or some kind of wholesale buckathon. And I suppose if you hadn't actually seen my horse trot... or canter... you might wonder why I wasn't there...

        But make no mistake, I've seen horses who would get a legitimate piece of the hack that could have made the points for ch/rch ... disappear when the testers showed up near the in gate. But typically this occurs early in the show week and early in the morning when they first show up. Think "hack for the first years". Usually by the time the weekend classes roll around everyone on the grounds knows there have been testers on the grounds who could be back and make their plans according to their own personal moral code.
        Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

        Comment


        • I guess the difference is I have never assumed the testers would not be there.

          Comment

          • Original Poster

            Originally posted by HandyHunter View Post
            Just a quick question, what do the amateurs and juniors who are suddenly forced to scratch when their trainers see the testers come in think of having to pay the scratch fee? Do they know why they're suddenly not showing?
            Today, many circuit shows stick a flat 50 or so "add scratch fee" on your bill so you can add and scratch at will. you can't add once the class starts but can scratch whenever you want until the class is pinned.

            Trainer can also say "oh, my, Pookie is looking a little sore, maybe he is tying up again, lets take him back'. average Ammy or kid is going to think that was done in the horse's best interests, not to hide something.

            Oh, and the testers usually are not there that often. Most of the time you show, you won't see them at your show. Matter of number of shows and number of testers available, usually at any given show only one day as well, not the whole show.
            When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

            The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by findeight View Post
              Actually, we don't know what killed Humble, the actual COD. There is nothing in place at USEF that requires any investigation or disclosure. Nothing to protect a protester from civil suit either. It was her own Pony and therefore her choice what to disclose or not under most state laws. the Pa state police were involved but no charges have been filed.

              I am trying to keep the thread on a constructive track with suggestions to avoid a repeat and get something fairly uncomplicated and inexpensive in place for the dead or collapsed horse or Pony on the showgrounds during a USEF regulated event. Name calling doesn't help.
              I did not know the entire legal side, if I name called I can't find it in my posts My apologies!

              So one of the problems is that there is no way to investigate a death at a show? What if there was a form as part of the entry that had a small fee with it, stating that if your horse collapses or is found deceased, USEF has the right to and will investigate that death to ensure the safety of all horses involved with USEF competitions? Then the fee (say, $25) would go to a specific account used with those investigations. That would solve the funding part, and although it would not stop anyone from doping, it could at least make them think twice about doping enough to kill a horse. A $25 fee per entry should certainly add up to cover at least some of the investigation.

              Consequences of those investigations would have to be added of course... but maybe that's a start?

              Comment


              • Soory, I pay USEF enough damn fees already without having to further subsidize investigation of cheaters.
                Don't add another $25 to a fund that will do nothing because there are no teeth in the rules and no guts in the organization.
                "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kmmoran View Post
                  I did not know the entire legal side, if I name called I can't find it in my posts My apologies!

                  So one of the problems is that there is no way to investigate a death at a show? What if there was a form as part of the entry that had a small fee with it, stating that if your horse collapses or is found deceased, USEF has the right to and will investigate that death to ensure the safety of all horses involved with USEF competitions? Then the fee (say, $25) would go to a specific account used with those investigations. That would solve the funding part, and although it would not stop anyone from doping, it could at least make them think twice about doping enough to kill a horse. A $25 fee per entry should certainly add up to cover at least some of the investigation.

                  Consequences of those investigations would have to be added of course... but maybe that's a start?
                  No more fees please !!

                  We already pay a drug fee, USEF fee, Zone fee, membership fee, horse recording fee etc etc.
                  Fan of Sea Accounts

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Ghazzu View Post
                    Soory, I pay USEF enough damn fees already without having to further subsidize investigation of cheaters.
                    Don't add another $25 to a fund that will do nothing because there are no teeth in the rules and no guts in the organization.
                    This, unfortunately.
                    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mvp View Post
                      Are you sure you'd like to give the USEF carte blanche to excommunicate people for something undefinable as "improper" or "unsportsmanlike" conduct?
                      MVP (sorry for long delay), you misunderstand. This already IS the rule. I am not proposing it. USEF already has this power. So what additional rules do they really need? What actions that cause prejudice to the Federation or the sport could they not sanction?

                      While you articulate possible explanations for why Ms. M should not be sanctioned (which are excellent points BTW), I was focused on the USEF's response that, in effect, they wanted to get her but lacked the rules to do it. I don't think Mr. Long expressed any doubts about the culpability of Ms. M. He hung his hat on the 'our hands are tied' because we lack the rules to do anything. I find that explanation irresponsible, given the scope of GR702(d).

                      Without the cooperation of Ms. M, proof of illegal substances may be hard/impossible to prove; likewise other, more serious violations. But certainly the USEF could have issued a censure or even a suspension for acts that were "deemed improper" (fleeing the scene of her dead pony and failing to cooperte with the USEF) and caused prejudice on the sport (as shown by NYT article). The various penalites are defined (already) in GR703.

                      If the USEF pleads ignorance of their own rules and lacks the moral character to enforce the rules already in place, what good will more rules do?

                      Comment


                      • Bestlegup,

                        You are correct that Long (IMO) stopped at "our hands are tied." That was a great rhetorical strategy for two reasons.

                        1. He logically does not have to express an opinion about Mandarino's guilt or innocence. That would only follow *if* the USEF had clear and enforceable rules.

                        2. He can draw attention (as he did) to the USEF's general "concern" and on-going efforts to improve things. The last bit of the spin from Long, then, is "look at the progress that is being made!" Perhaps, then, we will be left with the impression that the USEF is Working On It and not the abject failure that produced the problem in the first place.

                        What Long perhaps hopes the NYT and readers don't know is that this shizzle has been going on for 40 years.
                        The armchair saddler
                        Politically Pro-Cat

                        Comment


                        • shizzle love it

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by mvp View Post
                            Bestlegup,

                            You are correct that Long (IMO) stopped at "our hands are tied." That was a great rhetorical strategy for two reasons.

                            1. He logically does not have to express an opinion about Mandarino's guilt or innocence. That would only follow *if* the USEF had clear and enforceable rules.

                            2. He can draw attention (as he did) to the USEF's general "concern" and on-going efforts to improve things. The last bit of the spin from Long, then, is "look at the progress that is being made!" Perhaps, then, we will be left with the impression that the USEF is Working On It and not the abject failure that produced the problem in the first place.

                            What Long perhaps hopes the NYT and readers don't know is that this shizzle has been going on for 40 years.
                            As the voice of the USEF, Long should NOT express an opinion. His statements must be based on fact. And the fact is this: nothing was found with regards to the Humble debacle that went against any USEF rules as they are currently written. If he feels that this event has shed light on gaps in the system, then he can work towards finding ways to close those gaps (and it seems that he has indicated that is the case), but some of the posters here seem every bit as crazy as the woman who is the subject of this thread.

                            Changes are obviously necessary, but they must be well thought out and that takes time. Cool your jets folks, and think about this rationally. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X