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.
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.
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.
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.
A lot of people have been through tough childhoods, been mentally, physically, or sexually abused etc, and don’t go on to abuse any animals, children, or people. That’s a cop out. So no, I don’t have any pity for abusers. They need to be kept away from animals.
I appreciate the empathy here and I think the fear of being vilified or cancelled for a once-in-a-blue-moon “bad moment” caught on video is very common. I think a lot of that fear is because we ALL have instances we regret. It’s a reflection of our own shame.
But when these types of videos and accusations come out, it’s almost never something that happened once. It’s rare that they aren’t connected to a bigger pattern of abuse. It’s rare for accusations to be false. It’s also VERY rare for them to be about anyone who isn’t a fairly high profile professional, and those pros need to realize they are public figures. They will be videoed. If they are behaving poorly, it will eventually come out.
It’s possible Andrew has a mental health issue, because it’s possible ANYONE does. It does not resolve you of personal responsibility in 99% of cases - the “truly can’t be held responsible” tier of mental illness leads to inpatient treatment, not Burghley. If you’re too unwell to ride without punching your horse in the face (!), you should be on the phone to a therapist and not riding until the issue is resolved, even if that requires a career change.
I know Andrew and his family, although I haven’t seen any of them in years. This is his profession and he has violated his ethical duty to the horses in his care, his clients, his students, his sponsors. No one says stockbrokers accused of insider trading “made a mistake” or might be mentally unwell…
I always think that riders saying be kind when another rider has behaved badly are thinking about their own behaviours
Is there language in there on what the consequences are for violating the code? I don’t have them in front of me but my guess is without a clearly defined clause saying violating the code of conduct is grounds for expulsion, the USEF isn’t willing to face a lawsuit arguing that a ban was an overreaction or whatever argument AM would come back with. I would love for the CoC to be enough but I have no doubt the USEF legal team has considered that approach and apparently found it insufficient. Unfortunately there really isn’t any mechanism to make USEF enforce its rules if they choose not to; the rule change is a good step in the right direction if they arent willing to act on the CoC alone.
Please… You have been beating people over the head and neck with your opinion for over the course of 830 posts and come back like a personal attack pit viper when the favor is returned. Personally, I don’t care, you gotta be you, but let’s not pretend it’s a conversation, so much as a one sided barrage of the World According to FitzE
For the record, I’m pointing out that USEF has a long history of stating that they have no jurisdiction outside of competition and that the code of conduct, which is only a small part of a hefty rule book only applies to instances where they have governance. Which is, again, competition grounds. This goes back to instances far more egregious than this one, and I’m not entirely certain they didn’t lose civil lawsuits related to this issue (not certain enough to throw it in the mix… But Paul on the other side of that WEF hedge on Monday sticks in my brain).
They were so certain about this that they took the time and effort to implement a rule change that allowed governance outside competition grounds. They may not be correct, maybe they didn’t need to do that, but they been pretty clear that “at all times” means at all times during competition grounds, not just in a competition. Your one legal opinion vs their legal team and extensive contentious legal history in this area? I do not know the answer to that, but I genuinely do feel if you have the legal interpretation breakthrough, you would be doing us all a solid by sharing it with their legal team. And that is really and truly, not snarky.
Regardless, if they had done nothing to correct this, I too would be pissed. But they did. They:
recognized the deficiency and took steps to address it with a rule change.
When an issue showed up in advance of the rule taking effect they promptly sent it to the one organization that could enforce action.
Even after a rule change that may still happen since both organizations honor each others suspensions. I suspect USEF may always be inclined to turf their FEI membership up to the higher authority and focus their efforts on USEF only members. I’m OK with that. There’s a lot more of the latter and some trainer practices that desperately need some sunlight.
So they’ve done something. Could they have done more and sooner? Sure, but I’m not beating them over the head for action actually taken. I DO think the FEI needs to better communicate how it handles these complaints, otherwise it is just going to keep doing the equivalent of stepping on a rake and hitting itself in the face.
Now I’m certain you have many opinions about this, so carry on!
Absolutely. Transparency goes a LONG way.
One thing I find really interesting about this is how nearly it parallels cases of human/child abuse.
“If they were so worried why did they wait?” being used to attack victims/reporters of such things is nothing new, and has a long history (along with its close friend, the “if she was being abused why did she stay?”). It’s really old, and as lots of people have said here, there’s tons of reasons it could take so long. Being worried about one’s professional future, difficulty in getting actual evidence, the perpetrators relationships with the very people one would be reporting to, or plain old wanting to put the mess behind them for their own well being.
I mean look at the George Morris thing - “why’d they wait so long” was bandied about frequently in his defense, but there’s plenty of good reasons why that took so long, and it doesn’t change the facts of what he did.
It’s a DARVO play and it’s sad to me that people still try to do it.
I’ve thought of that situation as well and wondered if it was a factor in choices made this year when responding to this situation (as well as Parra) and rewriting certain rules.
Ok, I’m sorry but not sorry I keep intruding with related but in the timing questions or points.
So I have a largely young audience that I’m surrounded by both in person and online. I consider “us” on the forum primarily Millennial to Boomer (in the nicest way) generation.
I almost wrote a little statement yesterday encouraging my audience (again who are
mostly 14-25, a larger chunk at the 18-21) to tell their friends, family, professionals, organizations if they see something. How admirable it was of those like Allie Conrad to say something .
But then, I thought, well who are “we” to tell juniors to say things against adults, that’s not their obligation, it’s on “us” adults. Do we just show in our own actions of speaking up or do we encourage younger generation to not fear “whatever power imbalance” there is. You read examples further up of those working student positions, and it’s heartbreaking. I haven’t come to a conclusion yet.
There is. If you violate the CoC you hop over to GR703 which provides for Censure, Suspension, Expulsion, and Fines.
First there is the Code of Conduct, then the next section is Enforcement which reads in the entirety:
A violation of this Code of Conduct may be grounds for action, which could result in an admonishment,
warning, required training, or penalties set forth in General Rule 703.
I listed the penalties above.
If they haven’t enforced it that way in the past, barring the rule change they are absolutely screwed in court should they try to enforce it that way now.
Past practice and setting precedent and all that.
You read my mind. I’m having a hard time putting the words together, so will try to make sense.
I get schooling and competing up the levels. I get that some horses are naturally gifted physically and mentally to handle the stress, but my god, there are very, very few that can. And why as human beings do we feel the need to push past a horse’s capabillities? Why can’t we be happy with our horse’s abilities, celebrate the small milestones, and enjoy their company?
Having just watched Chimp Crazy (omg, crazy doesn’t begin to describe this level of insanity), it really hammered home to me that our animals aren’t there to cure something lacking in our own souls. We’re lucky to have them. Don’t they deserve lives where they’re lucky to have us?
I don’t know about that, though. Their failure to follow their own rules doesn’t mean the rules aren’t there and people potential relied on those rules when signing up and paying their fees.
The challenging party would have to take them to court and try to argue that, in the face of blatant demonstrating abuse, they should nonetheless keep their membership b/c they USEF didn’t enforce it before. I don’t think that’s a winner. Plus, any case brought wrt AM would be post whatever the FEI is going to find so it would be moot as USEF will follow FEI sanctions.
I don’t see a big risk here for the USEF actually following their own protocol whether or not they have in the past. I’d also be interested to see what CoC violations they have sanctioned in the past. Just b/c they are high-profile and public doesn’t mean they haven’t enforced this previously in cases that didn’t make the headlines and/or were pre-SM so fewer people would know.
If a city doesn’t prosecute for X for 20 years and then suddenly wants to against Joe Blow, that absolutely will come up in the suit or the counter suit.
I have interacted with working students in the 18-25 year old range in a few different programs over the course of the last decade, and become very friendly with some.
Honestly, if any one of them was faced with a very stressful situation like this, and came to me for advice, I wouldn’t tell them to have no fear of a power imbalance. I think doing so would set them up for a rough experience.
I would take time to talk to them about options, and paths forward to address concerns. And encourage them to think about what they define in their own heads as “personal conduct boundaries” that they are comfortable with when interacting with workers and roommates and employers on a day in and day out basis, and what “personal conduct” falls firmly outside of their “acceptable zone.”
If people find themselves working and living in a situation where people or employers are consistently engaging in conduct that falls outside of their own “acceptable zone” and crosses defined boundaries… then something must change. And the hard reality of life is that frequently it’s more effective to vote with your feet and move on, than to try and change other people’s conduct.
When it comes to speaking up for horses in situations like this? At the end of the day, the owner is responsible for the wellbeing of their horse. I know this thread has focused intensely on governing bodies and rules… and that’s important… but the bottomline is always going to be that wellbeing is the responsibility of the horse’s owner. Allie Conrad has shared that during the time her horses were at AM’s barn, several people tried to warn her. Some seemed to be more direct and specific than others. I think that’s part of the story we all should take note of… to listen closely when people try and warn you there might be issues going on with your horse. And think about how you would try to speak to someone else if you had concerns their horse was being mistreated.
But that’s a government that can deprive you of fundamental rights, so, higher scrutiny. This is a club. And, again, we don’t know how many times they have enforced the CoC. We only know the high-profile cases.
But, look, that’s just my take based on a plain reading of the docs. I don’t know how ‘applies at all times’ to ‘members’ could possibly mean ‘only applies at USEF events’, but maybe there is someone here who can walk me through other parts of the org docs that somehow undo this language or something. I’m just not seeing it yet.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
