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.
7 Likes
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!
22 Likes
Absolutely. Transparency goes a LONG way.
8 Likes
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.
28 Likes
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.
2 Likes
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.
10 Likes
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.
6 Likes
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.
5 Likes
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?
32 Likes
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.
6 Likes
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.
8 Likes
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.
8 Likes
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.
5 Likes
With all due respect, I didn’t read her comment as being an apologist for USEF, but rather as an observation that posting our opinions here was not going to get the job done - that we have to take our concerns to USEF. And that a strongly worded communication from an attorney such as yourself might open some eyes at USEF and make them start thinking that maybe, just maybe their legal counsel isn’t up to snuff regarding this issue.
I do agree that her post was pretty blunt and curt and hence sounded rather sarcastic but I get the sense that her intent was to reinforce the notion that USEF has a plethora of attorneys who have likely already looked at this type of issue and they repeatedly came to the same conclusion - “It didn’t happen at a USEF-licensed event, therefore we can’t do anything.”
Is USEF covering its a**? Of course it is - and it pays attorneys to help them do that. So maybe a communication from another attorney pointing out the error of their ways will gain traction there - or maybe not. But I suspect USEF isn’t going to budge regarding this particular individual until FEI sanctions him, and if that doesn’t happen, then unless and until he is caught on video abusing another horse AFTER Dec. 1. And that WILL happen at some point because he is apparently a serial abuser and those folks cannot stop.
18 Likes
Oh, wow, I read it as so mocking and belittling of me that I never would have guessed this was the angle. I just blocked and moved on I found it so bizarrely harsh and rude. Others have expressed to me that they, too, were shocked at the tone and content of that post so I was thinking it wasn’t just me. But you make an interesting point, for sure.
I have been engaging b/c 1. I really care about animal welfare and I’ve done most of my pro-bono for animal-related cases. It’s a topic I’m passionate about.
- I am genuinely curious where in their org docs and how they find a basis for not enforcing their own rules and regs. Like, if one of their legal team walked me through from Rule to Rule to Bylaw etc. and showed me how they build the position that what the CoC plainly says is not what they should do (can do?), I would find it truly interesting.
It’s like a puzzle and I just cannot see how they get from A to B given what I can read of their org docs. I’m really curious about the whole thing.
But, thank you for the much kinder take.
15 Likes
Soooo… I’m going to take a stab at something that was addressed earlier in the thread by @JER and @Bensmom - who are both DEFINITELY much better informed than me on this topic. And hopefully one or both of them will jump in and correct me when I inevitably get part of the issue incorrect. Because IANAL, and am just a bumbling ammy owner 
But here we go. I think what I am understanding is that part of the risk of enforcing the code of conduct in the manner you are laying out is not just that the governing body has failed to enforce it that way in the past, and this might get sued.
There is a whole different risk that USEF is being careful about.
USEF is the national federation for an Olympic Sport, and as such, they have a monopoly over recognized showing in certain disciplines. There are also some specific laws that seem to speak to this status as an approved monopoly. But… part of the obligation is that they abide by their own by laws, and don’t act “corruptly.” If there are serious complaints to the USOPC about corruption and inequitable treatment on the part of USEF towards their membership… or major lawsuits about such an issue… they risk decertification as a national federation.
If they lost that status, then they would lose monopoly power. And… that could be a major issue. Hunter jumpers have been discussing this issue for a while. Eventing? Not so much. Plenty of people enjoy doing local and unrecognized events. But… these are mostly for lower levels. There is a very real risk to the entire sport world the national federation was decertified. I can’t speak to how that might play out, but I think that’s part of the consideration in the background. Sooooo… USEF is being exceptionally cautious and risk averse concerning how they are enforcing rules. And seems to have chosen to punting things to the FEI when they can for some time. But… that approach has also seemingly resulted in a lack of action on some high profile cases, which definitely causes people to wonder if the inaction is also possibly the result of corruption? And now there seems to be real risk from having gone too far in a different direction.
Anyway… I’m probably bungling how I am speaking to this particular issue. I don’t fully grasp it. But… I think that’s part of the puzzle when trying to grasp why USEF is or isn’t enforcing the code of conduct right now. Hopefully better informed people will speak up and correct whatever I got wrong here.
7 Likes
No, I bet you’re right and that makes it even more interesting as a legal question. Maybe I need to dive back into the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act! 
It does seem a double bind: kick it to FEI b/c you think you’re doing a CYA and avoiding corruption accusations, but also NOT abiding by their own laws, as you mention, could get them in hot water, too. Interesting angle.
So as not to draw more ire my way, I’ll message you.
6 Likes
Still no statement from AM or FEI.
Tick, tock….
13 Likes
I don’t think we will get one from either of them.
I don’t really see what is preventing the chief of Sport for USEF from making a statement. After all, he just spoke to the issues involved at length and in detail in January of this year…
This part of the press release stood out to me:
O’Connor shared the action steps that Equine Ethics & Wellbeing Commission said all equestrians need to take:
- Not only optimize and prioritize equine welfare because it is the “right thing to do,” but also to be seen to be doing so.
- Understand their responsibility and the impact of their actions, words, and use of images.
- Ensure that they actively engage with and address concerns related to social license.
7 Likes
DMK, who pissed in your cornflakes? Jeebus, take a chill pill. FitzE was stating their opinion, which, from a legal standpoint, is well informed. You disagree. We get it. Why are you picking a fight with them? I, for one, have enjoyed their perspective, YMMV. But you don’t have to be a jerk about it.
35 Likes
