Andrew McConnon horse abuse

[Dr_Doolittle]

If so, ugh.

This almost guarantees that people who “won’t admit wrongdoing” will get away with this horrific and abusive behavior - and this is unconscionable.

Compromising his business/income?? Boofreakinghoo. He doesn’t deserve to have a thriving business.

I guess there is nothing to be done if this is indeed the case.

Since public stoning, chasing people out of town with torches and pitchforks, putting people in stocks in the public square, shunning (etc.) is no longer allowed - how is this man ever going to be held accountable?

[kt]

@Tackpud

@kt

However, after weeks later and nothing and now hearing the FEI is claiming they haven’t even received the report, just want to recap what was said on this podcast–

Wait - am I reading this right?? FEI has claimed they never received the report that USEF supposedly sent??? WTF? Why doesn’t USEF send it again??

I was referencing Allie Conrad’s statement in the FB comments of her post that stated the FEI is saying they didn’t receive her submitted complaint. @Jealoushe uploaded Allie’s screenshot comment, which I’m attaching here just for reference.

[Tackpud]

@kt

was referencing Allie Conrad’s statement in the FB comments of her post that stated the FEI is saying they didn’t receive her submitted complaint. @Jealoushe uploaded Allie’s screenshot comment, which I’m attaching here just for reference.

Thank you! I totally missed that thought you were referring to the first complaint.

I hope she has resent her complaint.

[FitzE]

The point you make is correct. However, I’m not asking why they are taking more time handing out sanctions to AM in the absence of a statement and cooperation (like Charlotte).

I am asking why:

1. They did not (and heretofore have not) use the tool they already have in their toolbox to address abuse that happens outside a competition: the CoC; and

2. Why the put through an Extraordinary Rule change and purposely delayed the effective date of that change until Dec 1 when, by their own organisational documents, that rule would have taken effect immediately.

Both of those things are avoidance. The delayed effective date in particular suggests someone knew something was coming out and wanted to make sure the new rule was not effective when it did.

There is no argument that I can come up with that delaying the effective date helps animals, whistleblowers, or the sport as a whole. So what did the delay do for the USEF? What benefit was/is gained by delaying the effective date for months and months?

Those are the questions I’d want answered if I were a member and as upset about this abuse as most decent members seem to be: why didn’t you apply the CoC (in this and other cases) and why did you delay the effective date of the new rule?

[Jealoushe]

She commented on her post that she did.

[Dr_Doolittle]

I find their new catchphrase to be deeply ironic in the face of all of this.

[anonevent]

I don’t know.

You could reach out to them and ask, or reach out to Eventing Nation or something to request that they reach out for comment.

[FitzE]

I could, but I’m not a member (or even a resident of the US) so I doubt they’d care to answer me. I suppose I can still try but it would be much stronger coming from a member.

[Aussie_2020]

Let’s tar and feather him. I’m not joking. That guy is despicable. And yes, the people that continue to send their horses to him…

[Warmblood1]

I also wondered why the delay so I wrote USEF.

My question was, “why the delay with the GR838 revision?”

Response:

“Hi XXXXX-

You email inquiry regarding the revision to GR838 was forwarded to me for a reply. There are several factors that contribute to the implementation date for any new rule. One reason for the December 1 implementation date is that it aligns with the beginning of the competition year, which is customary for USEF rule change effective dates. Another reason for the December 1 date is that we needed to ensure that we had the staff necessary for the implementation and enforcement of the new rule. At the time that the rule was passed, we simply did not have the bandwidth for an increased volume of complaints and investigations. We have added additional staff to the legal department and are in process of recruiting more. A third reason is that we’re also reviewing our policies and procedures to identify any areas that need to be strengthened. As a result of our review, there are some additional rule changes coming forward that will support our efforts around investigating and enforcing rules around horse welfare.

We understand the importance of this new rule and we are committed to ensuring its successful enforcement. Our priority remains to uphold the integrity of the processes and implement the rule in a manner that ensures fairness and outcomes that are not overturned when challenged.

Thank you for your commitment to the well-bring of the horse and for contact us about this.”

[FitzE]

Thank you very much for this. It is a much better answered than I expected. However, I would still have preferred it went into effect immediately. That would have given them the ability to respond (caveat: I believe they always had the ability through the CoC, but just assuming arguendo that they didn’t) even if that response was somewhat delayed while they staffed up.

But I give them credit for having articulated their position at the very least. And thank you for asking the question. Next I’d love to see their articulation of why they don’t apply their CoC ‘at all times’.

[skydy]

@Warmblood1

I also wondered why the delay so I wrote USEF.

My question was, “why the delay with the GR838 revision?”

Response:

“Hi XXXXX-

You email inquiry regarding the revision to GR838 was forwarded to me for a reply. There are several factors that contribute to the implementation date for any new rule. One reason for the December 1 implementation date is that it aligns with the beginning of the competition year, which is customary for USEF rule change effective dates. Another reason for the December 1 date is that we needed to ensure that we had the staff necessary for the implementation and enforcement of the new rule. At the time that the rule was passed, we simply did not have the bandwidth for an increased volume of complaints and investigations. We have added additional staff to the legal department and are in process of recruiting more. A third reason is that we’re also reviewing our policies and procedures to identify any areas that need to be strengthened. As a result of our review, there are some additional rule changes coming forward that will support our efforts around investigating and enforcing rules around horse welfare.

We understand the importance of this new rule and we are committed to ensuring its successful enforcement. Our priority remains to uphold the integrity of the processes and implement the rule in a manner that ensures fairness and outcomes that are not overturned when challenged.

Thank you for your commitment to the well-bring of the horse and for contact us about this.”

I’m happy with that response from USEF. I’ve been happy before for a USEF official’s response to my questions or actions that I’ve proposed or requested, but never when I’ve written a generic “Dear USEF” letter.

Glad that the membership speaking out and that an inquiry gets a response that helps our understanding of the whys and wherefores. It really is more effective than just complaining online.

[Jealoushe]

@FEI_Communications….your turn.

[Badger]

Allie did mention on FB yesterday that she had talked to the FEI in Switzerland (somehow/someway amidst her non-stop efforts moving logistical mountains and spearheading hurricane relief efforts).

[bingbingbing]

This is the reply to my email to the FEI president. (The returned email address was from Anna Thorestenon)

Thank you for your message.

The FEI takes all allegations of horse abuse seriously.

Given that this is an ongoing investigation, we cannot comment any further at this point in time.

The process for disciplinary cases is set out in the FEI General Regulations Articles 163 onwards.

Should you have any substantiated evidence to provide us with for this person, please let us know and we will schedule a call with you.

I remain at your disposal, should you have any further questions.

With kind regards,
t
d
m +41 21 310 47 47
+41 21 321 20 92
+41 78 750 15 70 HM King Hussein I Building
Chemin de la Joliette 8
1006 Lausanne - Switzerland

[FrittSkritt]

Replying to keep this thread alive, and also to ask - when the GR838 revision goes into effect, will it apply retroactively? Apologies if anyone has already answered this.

[FitzE]

If it’s the extraordinary rule change to extend their reach to abuse outside USEF competition (which, again, they already had via their CoC), they delayed the effective date for months and months. It won’t take effect until Dec. 1.

[phoenixrises]

and no it is not retroactive.

[FitzE]

Good point, sorry, I missed that part of the question.

In general, I do get how an ex post facto rule is not a good idea. However, I also do think they could have done the rule change with immediate effect (as per their own rules) and simply have slowly worked through cases while they staffed up. Delaying the effective date for several months is suss in my opinion. Negligent and foot dragging at best, super suss at worst.

[ACMEeventing]

Still no open case on the FEI website. Shameful