Andrew McConnon horse abuse

[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

[FitzE]

Complete BS.

[FrittSkritt]

So basically, USEF is going to do f— all about the abuse that was submitted. Unless someone can provide a proof taken after the rule goes into effect, he’s getting away with it.

[Camellia]

I think I read USEF will enforce whatever FEI hands down. FEI must still be investigating him. Otherwise they’d make a statement exonerating him, no?

[FrittSkritt]

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a statement from the FEI exonerating anyone, so it would be a first!

I think FEI is going to kick the can down the road on this as long as possible (as @FitzE said) and try to punt it back to USEF once the rule change goes into effect. Then it’ll just be a game of hot potato, hoping people forget about what happened and let it fade from public view.

[FitzE]

Yes, USEF is doing and is going to do sweet FA except ‘yeah, what they said’ to whatever the FEI eventually says. It’s complete dereliction of duty on their part: the organisation’s duty to protect horses and it’s duty to protect the sport.

They had the power to do something (their CoC) and simply refused to use it. Instead, they took proof positive of abuse outside a competition setting by a high-profile rider they heavily support and looked to their rule re: abuse at competitions to come up with a finding that, ‘oh, woe is we, we simply have no way to act here’ (looking only at your ‘at competition’ rule, no surprise you’re finding no reach outside competition ), kicked it to the FEI, and are sitting back being useless AF while the FEI does/doesn’t do whatever they are doing/not doing.

Then they tout their new rule change to make it look like they care so much, but they proactively delayed the effective date of that rule change for several months. When questioned why, they claimed they need to staff up to handle all the abuse cases they will now have to look into. They could have allowed the rule change to take effect immediately (as it would have under their own rules if they had not instead set a very delayed effective date), logged in the cases that subsequently came in, and worked through them at the pace they could while staffing up. That was also an option, and the better option if you wanted to protect the most horses/stop the most abusers, but they chose not to take it.

I mean, it’s not like the FEI is moving swiftly by any stretch of the imagination. If this has been out there reported since May with no action, I’m sure the USEF could have done something in that time with their current staffing. It’s evasion, and weak evasion at that.

[FitzE]

@FrittSkritt

try to punt it back to USEF once the rule change goes into effect

That won’t work as it is irrelevant what happened before the effective date. That (in my view) is exactly why they delayed the effective date for so long.

[anonevent]

Your interpretation is that they’ll require proof that the abuse transpired after December 1st? That would effectively sanction abuse that took place prior.

If that is the case, there will be no need for whistleblowers to quietly approach governing bodies to report abuse that took place on, or before, November 30th. I’d expect their recourse to be full blast social media vigilante justice. Hopefully the areas being strengthened include robust protections for whistleblowers.

[FitzE]

That is absolutely my interpretation as most legal systems including the US abhor an ex post facto law and most organisations follow that same principle.

The rationale is that it is not fair to punish someone for something that was not against the law at the time it occurred. For example, I hate that my neighbour smokes cigars and makes the hallway stink. I would like it to be against the rules in our building. There is a fine schedule for violating rules. If I succeeded in getting a new bylaw prohibiting smoking, I could then report and ask that he be fined for continuing smoking after the new rule went into effect. But even I would find it unfair to fine him retroactively for something that was not restricted at the time.

This new USEF rule will most assuredly only apply to action one can prove happened on or after Dec. 1.

Or someone/some group can compell them apply their CoC to all past and current instances…

[anonevent]

If smoking cigars became illegal, the anti-cigar law would supersede whatever rules your building has about allowing or disallowing smoking. Lots of fines and fees are applied retroactively in the United States. Ask the IRS.

With horse abuse, the whistleblower currently reports it to the Humane Society or police, or sues the abuser civilly. Then USEF applies (or “can” apply) whatever the punishments or rulings were found to be. People had been bringing animal cruelty to the USEF as a professional courtesy to the abusive athlete. According to the email above, the USEF is preparing to directly investigate the abuse internally…after Dec.1st. So, until then, it’s preferable to pursue it criminally or just scream it from the rooftops. I’m just surprised that they’d want that. Even for a couple months.

[FitzE]

@anonevent

If smoking cigars became illegal, the anti-cigar law would supersede whatever rules your building has about allowing or disallowing smoking.

No. I’m talking solely about changing our internal building rules. They would not apply to the many years prior to the rule change that people have been smoking in this building. That would make no sense and people could not live normal lives never knowing what might be declared retroactively against the rules. It just makes no sense and is not practical to enforce.

@anonevent

So, until then, it’s preferable to pursue it criminally or just scream it from the rooftops. I’m just surprised that they’d want that. Even for a couple months.

This is such a good point. I don’t think they thought it through. I hope it results in everyone who has anything to report, reporting it via SM. That’s what the USEF and the FEI wrought at least in this case!