Andrew McConnon horse abuse

[clipper]

@Blugal

I also need to protect my mental health. I’m guessing I’m going to get some replies to this post saying that if I don’t, I’m condoning abuse and I am doing the wrong thing - fine.

Dear Blugal your health should always, always come first.

In your case it sounds like this was more than 10 years ago, maybe even 30 years ago.
Your coaches behaviour was wrong and probably criminal by today’s standards. You should not be ashamed of what happened to you but I understand why you are. I am still ashamed of being raped at 13. I am learning how to NOT be ashamed but it is not an easy road.

Speaking your truth here is a wonderful step toward learning you did not cause the trauma, and are not to blame.

We, (g), have grown and learned about abuse and mental health exponentially. The internet has certainly helped.

30 years ago I had never heard of domestic abuse, gaslighting, coercion, systematically calling someone demeaning names being abuse etc.

Abuse like that was normalized in my childhood home. Someone or something needed to teach me that being abused was not NORMAL.

We are now being given the opportunity to stand up for animals but must not harm ourselves while doing so.

Approx. 25 years ago I saw a relative put her sons horse on a trailer after the horse show and beat the living shit out of it. The horse ran out on a barrel during a barrel race. The beating was at least 2 hours later. This happened during a local fall fair.

I told people whom I trusted but I did not “report” this behaviour to anyone official.
I was stunned, flabbergasted and overwhelmed at the time that anyone could do this.

I relive this trauma every year during a specific fall fair and am ashamed I did not speak up for the horse, and more importantly for her 2 children who witnessed this beating.

Now, at 62, I have the knowledge to manage this better.

Feel no guilt for not reporting. Maybe one day you will be able to. Thank you so much for sharing your story.

The world is changing in regards to what is “normal” vs “abuse”. Clearly seen in the US right now by 13 year old incest victims being made to leave their state for health care. Hopefully we will all continue to speak up for those who cannot.

[ake987]

In addition to a list of suspensions, the FEI Case Status Tables page provides case statuses, grouped by various categories and accompanied with a last updated date.

Andrew McConnon is not listed in any of the case status tables. I have no idea if this means there is not currently a formal open/active case in progress with the FEI Tribunal. While Cesar Parra is listed on the “Other Cases” table, CDJ, like AMC, is not found in any table. So, again, I am unsure if anything meaningful can be gleaned from these docs, especially as those I might expect to see AMC on have not been updated since the FEI’s apparent latest communication (reported by EN as 09/11/2024).

Although each case table mentions “mandatory Public Reporting” (specifically, only that it does not apply to cases involving Minors), I have been unable to locate any elaboration on the scope of “mandatory Public Reporting” within any FEI documentation I’ve accessed and searched.

All that being said, there are specified timelines in the Internal Regulations FEI Tribunal document and these being clearly laid out vs. the observed timeline, IMO, suggests a formal case with the FEI Tribunal may not have been initiated.

For example:

30. The Claim

• 30.1 To commence proceedings, the Claimant shall send a written notice to the
  Respondent, as set forth above, setting out the infringement(s) alleged to have been
  committed, including the specific rule, regulation, or principle alleged to have been
  infringed and a statement of the facts upon which such allegations are based, unless
  the procedure is otherwise provided for in the applicable rules. This Notice shall be
  referred to as the “Notification Letter”.

• 30.2 The Notification Letter should also notify the Respondent of their entitlement to
  respond in one of the following ways:
  a) to admit the alleged infringement(s) and, if the Claimant is the FEI, accept certain administrative measures specified in the Notification Letter, in which case the Respondent shall have no right of Appeal against such measures; or
  b) to admit the alleged infringement(s) and have the sanctions determined by the Hearing Panel; or
  c) to deny the alleged infringement(s) and have liability and (if applicable) sanctions determined by the Hearing Panel.

• 30.3 The Respondent shall have a period of ten (10) days following receipt of the Notification Letter to send their initial response admitting or denying the alleged infringement. This initial response shall be referred to as the “Reply”. The Respondent is not obliged to submit a Reply but failure to do so may allow the Hearing Panel to draw an adverse inference against the Respondent.

• 30.4 Within twenty (20) days of receiving the Reply or, if the Respondent does not submit a Reply within the deadline specified in Article 30.3 above, within thirty (30) days of
  sending the Notification Letter (whichever is earlier), the Claimant shall submit their
  claim (the “Claim”) to the FEI Tribunal, with a copy to the Respondent. The Claim
  shall contain:
  a) a copy of the Notification Letter;
  b) a copy of the Reply (if any);
  c) the Claimant’s full claim brief, setting out its case on the issues it believes
  the Hearing Panel will have to resolve;
  d) written statements setting out the evidence of each witness (fact or expert)
  that the Claimant wishes to put into the record before the Hearing Panel in
  support of its case, with a statement from the witness attesting to the truth of
  the contents of the statement (or, in the case of an expert witness,
  attesting that the statement accurately sets out their opinions on the matters
  in issue);
  e) copies of all documentary evidence that the Claimant wishes to put into the
  record before the Hearing Panel in support of its case;
  f) copies of any legal authorities relied on by the Claimant in its brief; and
  g) whether or not the Claimant requests an oral hearing (in person, by
  videoconference, or by telephone) before a Hearing Panel.

• The Claimant may apply to the FEI Tribunal Chair for permission to submit anything
  other than what is specified above.

• The Claim shall be sent by email to the FEI Tribunal (fei.tribunal@fei.org), with a copy
  to the Respondent.

[AMWookey]

I’m pretty sure if you go to “table of suspensions” the very first one, CDJ is on it

[ake987]

Right - whoops, I specifically meant she is not in any of the case status tables. Maybe due to the case not being open?

[wanderlust]

Ugh, Andy is another who deserves tar, feathers and public shaming. Unfortunately I think people like him and the subject of this thread are incapable of feeling anything other than hubris, ego and indignation.

The sad thing is, I think many riders at the very top of equestrian sport do unsavory things to get there and stay there. Maybe it happens less in eventing, but in showjumping the use of spring poles and electrified poles to make the horses careful is pretty much an open secret. Upper level dressage, well, we’ve seen what that looks like and it isn’t pretty.

[FitzE]

The USEF absolutely has ‘jurisdiction’ here.

this Code of Conduct applies to the following individuals at all times: Board of Directors, Officers, volunteers (including all committee, council, and task force members), employees, members, participants, athletes (and athlete support personnel), owners, competition organizers and managers, licensed officials, coaches, chefs d’equipe, and others appointed or authorized to act on behalf of the USEF:

(bolding mine)

Any suggestion that they do not is disingenuous at best, an outright lie/cover up/dereliction of the duty of governance at worst (and what is most likely the case).

They had the power and the ‘jurisdiction’ to act on this immediately May 12. A hearing with AM present could have been held and an outcome reached by June at the latest. He would have been suspended or expelled by then, the USEA informed, the money could have been returned as it would not have been spent on the Burghley trip, and that grant redistributed to deserving developing riders.

The USEF 100% violated its own rules and regulations by not acting on the violation of the CoC in May. Members should not believe/take at face value/allow the lie that they had no jurisdiction and had to kick it to the FEI.

[endlessclimb]

@wanderlust

in showjumping the use of spring poles and electrified poles to make the horses careful is pretty much an open secret.

I am admittedly a no body but I have never heard of electrified poles and now anytime I see a horse soaring over a GP height fence I will wonder if that’s talent or pain.

More and more I wonder why these “upper levels” even exist. What is the point of pushing an animal to the end of their abilities? Who actually gains from this? It’s starting to appear to just be a giant dick measuring contest.

Every time that gets asked, it turns into “well why ride horses at all?” and while I can’t answer that with certainty, I can answer with certainty that electrifying a pole has literally never crossed my mind - maybe that’s the difference between the upper levels and us plebs.

[anon6923113]

Thanks for sharing this relevant information concerning the FEI process.

Per the reporting from Eventing Nation, the FEI was still investigating and interviewing people during the summer months after receiving the initial report (punted to them by USEF). EN was unable to confirm (they were careful with their wording) whether or not AM has yet received a formal notification or charge letter from the FEI, nor were they able to verify that a formal case had been opened yet.

At this time, it seems like it is an open question as to what the next steps with the FEI might be.

From the process information you linked, it seems like a formal and detailed “Notification Letter” is an essential first step in the process if the abuse complaint is ever going to result in any action or sanctions by a governing body.

[DMK]

@FitzE

You should let USEF know this ASAP! I’m sure they would appreciate picking up any off competition abuse cases prior to 12/1/24. I mean I get it, their cadre of lawyers has determined that their ability to enforce code of conduct issues outside of competitions does not meet the risk threshold. But clearly they are incorrect by your estimation.

So just draft up an opinion that explains why you are correct and all those other lawyers are not and send it to them. Free legal advice is always fun, so I’m sure they will appreciate it. It’s not like they weren’t already committed to getting to the same place via rule change, so you providing them with case law and precedent confirming the legal basis to your opinion will be a lot more beneficial to all involved vs litigating this on a bulletin board.

Srsly, the odds don’t favor you being correct, but if you are, you will only be helping horses, so in that sense, I truly wish you well. But beating that dead horse here isn’t doing much of anything.

[FitzE]

Wow, if you could have said any of that without the 8th grade snark, maybe we could have a conversation. But, I guess you value a sassy put down post rather than actual discussion.

Pray, tell, how do you get a plain reading of ‘applies to the following individuals at all times’ to mean it does not apply at all times? That’s a legal manoeuvre I’d love to be walked through and you appear to be just the legal genius to do it based on your blistering response.

PS: maybe they didn’t teach this at your law school, but you don’t need ‘case law and precedent’ to uphold your own rules as a private organisation. Or litigation, on a bulletin board or otherwise.

[wanderlust]

Given my experience with the USEF blantantly disregarding things like amateur violations that are 100% codified in the rules, I’d conjecture that the USEF determined the easiest/fastest/safest path for them to deal with this was a reciprocal ban after an FEI decision. There’s zero gray area there and no need for any interpretation of CoC that could lead to lawsuits, etc.

USEF has shown over and over and over that they are looking out for themselves first and foremost.

[Syrynx]

@FitzE

The USEF 100% violated its own rules and regulations by not acting on the violation of the CoC in May. Members should not believe/take at face value/allow the lie that they had no jurisdiction and had to kick it to the FEI.

This really has me shaking my head. Who IS this guy (AM) and what does he have over someone to be treated with such kid gloves? I also follow eventing but not close enough to know who he is until he went to Burghley.

Again, I truly am all for due diligence but the evidence seemed enough for at least some provisional suspension. I just cannot understand how the USEF kicked this up to FEI while seemingly doing nothing.

[skydy]

In better news, the U.S. Equestrian magazine was in the mail today, and along with the usual suspensions for medication violations, there was a six month suspension from USEF and a $5,000. fine for horse abuse by a rider at the Twin River Spring International horse trials .

[AmmyHour926]

Possibly a stupid question and I don’t have time to scroll back 800 posts to find an answer.

Do we have documented and clear evidence on the date AMC knew an investigation involving him was on going? I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if the policy is to NOT notify the accused until formal charges or suspensions are brought, to prevent retaliation against current employees if they are the ones bringing a complaint (I know this case was past employees).

Anyways I ask cause it could be entirely likely AMC found out at the rest of the time when the FB videos were released over the weekend. Which would be a sh!t was to find out for sure, but I’m not entirely sure he knew in May the investigation was starting.

[DMK]

Regardless of your opinion of my “snark”, I’M not the one you have to convince. This bulletin board is not the one you have to convince. If you have a valid legal opinion (and you have gone to some lengths to let us know that you do) why not send it to the one place where it might do some good?

ETA are you familiar with AHSA and the Paul Valliere history? Understandably, if you are not, the organization has a 4+ decade history of saying jurisdiction is limited to the show grounds and organization events. And for cases far more egregious than this one.

While you do not need case law for organization rules, I imagine if you are taken to court for overturning a long held position like that without changing your rules, ESPECIALLY if you have a pending rule change to address that long held position, that you, as an organization, would not withstand a legal challenge without some compelling case history to support you.

[anon6923113]

@AmmyHour926

Possibly a stupid question and I don’t have time to scroll back 800 posts to find an answer.

Do we have documented and clear evidence on the date AMC knew an investigation involving him was on going? I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if the policy is to NOT notify the accused until formal charges or suspensions are brought, to prevent retaliation against current employees if they are the ones bringing a complaint (I know this case was past employees).

Anyways I ask cause it could be entirely likely AMC found out at the rest of the time when the FB videos were released over the weekend. Which would be a sh!t was to find out for sure, but I’m not entirely sure he knew in May the investigation was starting.

Good question.

Per Eventing Nation’s report in the timeline portion - specifically the June - August 2024 section:

Though we have not been able to confirm that Andrew has yet received a formal notification or charge letter, during this period of time he did become aware that the FEI was looking into the matter. He has indicated to EN that he is fully cooperating with their investigation, which is still ongoing. EN has also not been able to verify that a formal case has been opened yet, though witnesses confirm that the FEI did communicate that they were working on preparing one, and that the process would take some time. The witnesses expressed concern to the FEI about the time the investigation was taking, as by the end of August Andrew was preparing to compete at Defender Burghley. The witnesses also requested additional clarity from the FEI in terms of the investigation process and what would be needed to open a formal case. The next reply with an update on the investigation was provided from the FEI on September 11, though we are not privy to what that step is.

[skydy]

Also in the USEF mag. was a mention of 42 grants given to licensed official applicants to help with the not inconsiderable expense required to become licensed, or for a license promotion.

I think they are on the right track with that. I hope they can increase the number of TDs.

[BrownDerby]

Just an aside. When Matt was a big fish in the small pool of northern CA he would always do Twin Rivers. It’s a fun place when it’s not 105 degrees.

[FitzE]

@equestrian_101

If the person who took the videos was “so concerned for the horses” why did she publicly admit the videos were taken last year? If she was that concerned about animal welfare, she would’ve sent the video to USEF immediately. However she kept them private until now. Sounds sh***y to me.

Hey, Andrew, is that you?

But let me get this straight: your main concern is the timing of making the report, not the horrendous abuse of the animals. Right. Got it.

Please read the articles in which it is explained that at least one of the reporters approached many people about reporting and was rebuffed. Also please see above where people using their real names explain that Andrew has been highly retaliatory against anyone who even speaks up to him, let alone to the authorities.

The real story here, as always, isn’t when it was released, but what it shows.

Note, also, that going after the person who reported it, including calling them ‘sh***y’ is against USEF rules so you might want to have a care there.

[FitzE]

I don’t have to ‘convince’ anyone. I’m having a discussion. You know, on a discussion board. Like everyone else here. Maybe wind your neck in? The aggressive snark is not only not appreciated, it detracts from the discussion.

Also, I find it really curious that you’re willing to be so aggressive towards another poster (who is merely joining the discussion with everyone else and taking the anti-abuse side) for the purpose of defending an organisation doing nothing to stop an abuser. That’s a very unusual stance to take. If I’m going to be a real jerk to someone, like you’ve decided to be to me, it should at least be in service of a position I’m passionate about. Being a USEF apologist seems like an unusual hill to die on.

I do know that US courts go for a ‘plain reading’ of the language of operative docs, and the language here plainly says ‘applies at all times’ to ‘members’. That’s not a ‘valid legal opinion’, it’s a plain reading of the org docs. The USEF legal team would have to articulate how ‘applies at all times’ doesn’t mean ‘applies at all times’ but, actually, means ‘applies only at USEF events’.

Failure to self-govern previously isn’t a terribly persuasive argument for not abiding by your own rules and regulations. I know I wouldn’t want to hang my hat on that argument as it wouldn’t support the weight of a straw boater.