Fantastic post and points. Just have to throw in there, all of my horses don’t flinch when my whip is flailing around as I do up my girth or scratch a bug from their side .
Abuse is easy to define, in my opinion. This was vicious, vicious abuse. Goodbye AMc.
I mean it’s not the same thing, however I’d argue it’s a very similar cause. Men thinking they have a right to something they don’t and using violence to get it.
Thank you for the kind words – I’m just so over another situation in which a narcissistic abuser has weaponized society’s desire to have empathy, and used it to wreak havoc repeatedly. Dealing with that in a private situation has made me super short of patience when this discussion around Andrew’s horse abuse came up. And maybe that is a good thing. This horse abuse situation and the discussion about it has really made me dwell on whether and when it is appropriate to just shut someone out completely.
And you are 100% correct about USEF being a private club – the organization uses the idea that it doesn’t have “jurisdiction” when it wishes to distance itself from a situation. The fact that its status as a National Governing Organization under the Ted Stevens Act is a delegation from the US Government does not make it a governmental entity. It can deny membership to an individual who violates its code of conduct regardless of where the conduct occurred without having to provide the sort of due process that a governmental entity would. The new rule change that is coming is proof of that. This position is the one they take, though, because despite the fact that USEF loves to waive around its exemption from anti-trust regulations, it is, in fact, terrified of being sued. Way back up-thread, JER made the suggestion that individuals contact the National Olympic Committee with complaints about USEF’s handling of the incident. Will it make a difference? So unsure, but maybe it would help. Because believe this – one of the only things that matters to USEF is that Equestrian sports remain in the Olympics. If the anti-trust protection that NGO’s receive under the Ted Stevens Act is no longer in place, USEF would no longer have a monopoly to be able to be in control of show licenses, calendars, officials etc. and they’d be vulnerable to other organizations. That has already happened in a small way with the competition from the NSBA. If they lose the monopoly protection by no longer being in the Olympics? Trust me, that is a big concern. So, contacting the NOC might be effective.
EN has posted their article (I’m just about to read it)
When I read the FB post fron MB and CB, I felt like this was the kind of witch-hunt that needs to stop.
I’m all for calling on the powers that be to fully investigate and prod them to take action if they are dragging their feet.
But the vigilante justice of individuals personally tearing down someone and their career does not sit well with me at all.
Well said! I had posted something rather similar some time back on the dressage forum (on one of the Barisone threads). Civilizations/societies have to draw lines regarding egregious behavior that threatens the safety and security of individuals within the society, and that, if not dealt with, can threaten the survival of the society itself. Although different societies have different tolerances for what it deems “egregious behavior,” historically most have dealt with unacceptable/undesirable individuals in one of three ways - incarceration, execution, or expulsion - mostly the last two in more primitive societies. More progressive societies also use methods such as mental health counseling/treatment, with varying degrees of success. I do not know though how successful the latter course is for serial animal abusers. My sense is that they are somewhat like child predators and cannot and will not stop until they are physically prevented from contact with their “prey.”
Question, just of thought. At least previously when other professionals, or, really now it’s become common in any case for the individual to release a public statement of apology and admission. Not just in regards to horse abuse, but I think of other instances in media/pop-culture, the guilty party releases a statement/video of apology (in many cases written by a PR team)
In this case, my question. Does AM owe “us,” those who are dissapointed and maddened by his abuse a statement. Let’s say for example, AM reached out personally to the parties involved like AC, PDF, USEF, Broussards… Ok, while owed, maybe not what will happen. But, let’s just say he did reach out privately to those he directly affected.
Does he owe the public a statement?
IMO, for his image it seems like that might be beneficial. But also IMO, I never know how to feel about public statements. Are they genuine? I don’t know. It seems like overall thats what is now expected to happen. But, in the terms or right and wrong, is it morally one way or the other if a statement is never released to the public.
** I personally detest and hope this human never touches/interacts with a horse again. I want our organizations to do the right things.
I do have thoughts on Matt Brown’s post. I really think his post was well intended, and I think most of it was really good.
However… it seems the AM abuse has been going on 10 years. That is not a few mistakes of being too harsh we all make every now and then. It is a pattern of abuse.
No one had to tell me (a 32yo) that punching horses in the face and whipping so hard it leaves welts regularly is bad. AM is not a young professional. He is 38… a grown man. He is not a 20yo young pro making mistakes at this point. There is no excuse for his behavior.
Matt talked about looking back and being reflective. I doubt he was engaging in this level of abuse for 10+ years.
This is the big difference for me. AM’s behavior sounds like a habit, and he has just now been caught out publicly enough. This is not a witch hunt or making an example of someone. This is accountability for abusive behavior that has been a pattern for a decade.
The fact he has not made a public apology speaks volumes. Silence is very loud IMO.
I also don’t agree with excusing the behavior due to he needs mental health help. I’m a mental health professional. MH could be a contributing factor, but MH does not excuse violent behavior. There are still consequences for actions.
Matt’s words are overall positive in a general sense. I do think it misses the mark with this particular situation.
That was shockingly well written and not protecting him at all…very pleasantly surprised by EN taking a firm stance. Well done.
worth a repost
Note from the article his abuse was originally reported in 2021 and no one followed up with the original whistleblower.
Super astute observation and definitely makes one wonder if the only reason USEF pushed through that new rule change was because TPTB were terrified that USOPC would use reports of animal abuse by high level riders as more ammo in its efforts to oust equestrian sport from the Olympics.
In my opinion, yes, due to his status and involvement with the sport on a professional level.
This is interesting food for thought. I guess I expected a statement because it is so common even though, to your point, how many of them are sincere?
In the EN article they said when given a chance to comment he told them he was cooperatiing with FEI, USEF etc.
So does he owe us John Q Public a statement? I suppose not.
His behavior isn’t a habit. He doesn’t do it when the tv cameras are on him, his behavior is a choice. No one makes him abuse horses.
My guess he sees horses as a means to an end, not actual feeling creatures, more like a machine to accomplish his goals.
Agreed. Clear and concise.
Only one note: the repeated use of McConnon’s first name in a hard news story. While it might be a stylebook choice, EN editors might want to avoid sounding like the subject’s friend, nor hint that readers should feel like his friend either.
Actually the article states that the individual did not follow up in providing USEF with a full evidence report and thus they were not able to open an official inquiry at that time.
He won’t make a statement. If he’s ok abusing animals chances are he is a weak person and doesn’t have the stones to face the public.
Agreed.
I, too, usually assume that statements prepared by PR firms in these situations are frequently insincere. But, what troubled me specifically, was that the community was already addressing compassion and empathy towards someone who hasn’t indicated that they acknowledged any problem or even made an insincere apology. If the community as a whole is so quick to assure someone that the group will not shun the offender, even without any sort of public statement of wrongdoing and request for forgiveness, why should anyone fear any retribution from the community at all?
It really is something that I’m ruminating on today. Any system of laws and acceptable standards of behavior is, at its core, built on society’s approval and disapproval. And to remove the pain of disapproval and exclusion publicly prior to there even having been an acceptance of accountability publicly seems a bit like a waiving of the rules of the group, when no waiver has even been requested. And it leaves me wondering if the rules and codes of behavior matter at all, if they are waived in this way.
Deep thoughts today from me, I guess.
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
