No, it went back even older than that. For some reason, I want to say that it had to do with a horse or rider death, definitely after 2012 (when she was involved in the car accident) because the accident was discussed.
i must have missed the #metoo controversy.
And thatâs the funny thing about opinions and perspective.
I believe he handled the situation more graciously than was warranted, as I said above.
as for what âhe did to himselfâ, I dont really know what that means, and itâs probably not worth further discussion for me.
This is more than someone speculating online. It looks like this poster has an axe to grind with the land owner and is on a campaign to paint him in a negative light.
I wish people had to sign their posts with their real names ~ it would certainly add some context to their opinions.
This is more than someone speculating online. It looks like this poster has a problem with the land owner and is on a campaign to paint him in a negative light.
The evil rich white man didnât bow to the mobâs (not so gracious) demands so he deserves what he gets.
There is more than one way to view a situation. I have a different opinion than the current flow of conversation. Different opinions are something that happen sometimes.
I never heard of the guy until last week.
You do realize, that if Cuyler Walker hadnât agreed to lease his land to a PFEE 20 years ago⊠there never would have been an event on that land?
The fact that itâs HIS PROPERTY is still relevant in America. Property Rights arenât something we all split amongst the collective just yet in this country.
I know, I know⊠itâs 2020 and people seem to think change is coming quick, and happening NOW, and maybe thatâs why so many people seem confused and think that the way to solve this was for a small committee to apparently decide what to call the venue that was developed primarily by Denis Glaccum over the span of twenty years, and located on property owned by Cuyler WalkerâŠ
But actually thatâs still not how stuff works in America.
You can blame Mr. Walker all you like⊠but the fact is that a group of people who actually donât own his property have no right to jam their opinion down his throat. And itâs odd that they are so outraged that he wonât just do what they told him to do, when they told him to do it.
Seriously⊠itâs really odd.
Not because he didnât agree with what was being asked. But because he handled it so terribly.
Unless there is some backstory compelling reason that hasnât yet been aired, in my opinion throwing away so much investment and work by others was reprehensible. He had a moral obligation to either ease out of the situation, or manage it more considerately, after having permitted so many people to pour their work, time and money into the event on his property.
But I get it that there is a thing these days of not having much tolerance for other opinions, and characterizing them as vicious and evil, instead of as just another opinion. 
Not because he didnât agree with what was being asked. But because he handled it so terribly.
Unless there is some backstory compelling reason that hasnât yet been aired, in my opinion throwing away so much investment and work by others was reprehensible. He had a moral obligation to either ease out of the situation, or manage it more considerately, after having permitted so many people to pour their work, time and money into the event on his property.
Itâs a moral obligation to have permitted people to invest in the event on his land that he not throw it away so capriciously. Morally, the contract goes both ways. He allowed them to build, bring in sponsors, etc. - was it right to just knock it aside as if none of that effort ever mattered? If he really wanted to be done with it, give them at least a couple of years notice to ease out of it and not keep investing. There were fairer ways to end the lease - or better yet, to handle the entire situation.
He had the LEGAL RIGHT to do it. But it wasnât right, morally. It was a dirty thing to do.
He behaved like an autocratic despot from another century. And thatâs the nicest description I can come up with.
In my opinion.
In another context, another situation, I think people would see this the opposite of what they have been expressing in this thread. If I said to you âYou can build a house on my land and live there indefinitelyâ, and you put everything you had into that house and made it a wonderful place that you depended on, and then after 20 years you said something that hurt my feelings and I said âget outâ and it meant you lost your house and had to start over from nothing ⊠how would that be? Itâs legal. Is is a nice or fair thing to do? Is it right?
Meanwhile, the crowd on Twitter is watching this thread. Hi Twitter!
They have mis-identified me as some poor person named Wanda. Sorry Wanda, whoever you are. I typically pi$$ off lots of people when I go on little streaks like this participating on COTH threads here and there⊠and you donât deserve the accidental association.
But on a more positive note, âpink haired nihilistâ was amused by my comment about the irony of her twitter moniker, and has apparently updated her bio accordingly. Which I also find really amusing.
Predictably enough though, the juvenile twits all have decided several folks who are participating on this thread must all be closet racists.
Please, young impressionable twitter sheeple, refer to my earlier post about how people that run outlets like EN engage in deliberate silly little social media games that play upon you allâs really easy to identify confirmation bias, and in so doing, lead you kids around by the nose. Or nose ring, such as the case may be, with some of you.
Weâre here to help you guys work through confusing stuff like this. Not to worry. And if ever any of you want to grow up, and participate in mature, thoughtful discussions, where you actually form coherent sentences and develop complex ideas and discuss topics⊠it would be fun to chat with you on the forums.
It would be REALLY awesome if you came on the forums with names like âhelmet bitchâ and âpink haired nihilistâ when discussing topics. Iâd find that super funny. Seriously.
Focusing in on this â the people who made the demand were not the ones who were most injured by cancelling the event. Well, maybe the USEA was.
Thatâs not the point Iâm making. I am not concerned about them.
Itâs the people who didnât make the request. The people who built the event, invested in it, the people who donated to it, the volunteers, the riders, the sponsors, Area II ⊠etc. The organizer Denis Glaccum who had a big part of his lifeâs work thrown away by Cuyler Walker. They didnât demand anything, they poured their hearts and souls into it. For 20 years. And Cuyler Walker didnât care or honor their work and investment.
have you ever looked up the term âwhite saviorâ or âwhite savior complexâÂ?
That pretty much describes the role of certain parties in this whole situation⊠to a T.
I do not know Mr. Walker, abut I think your characterization of him as an âautocratic despotâ who handled this situation poorly is⊠not on point. But thatâs ok. We can agree to disagree.
Iâm also going to disagree with your line of thought regarding any sort of perceived or inherent moral obligation with respect to the land owner in this situation. There was a contract spelling out every detail of everyoneâs rights and responsibilities in this situation. And Iâm sure as they shut down the event, all parties will follow the terms outlined on their contract, applicable to this set of circumstances.
It sucks that the venue is shutting down though, and that so many people will be harmed by the situation. About that we agree. For sure.
To be clear again - I am not discussing those people.
Itâs everyone who gave a part of their lives to building, maintaining and competing at that event. Including and especially Denis Glaccum. They did not deserve to have it all thrown away in a hissy fit. Its clear from his statement that Cuyler Walker had no regard or consideration for all that they had put into that event, because he was mad at a situation that none of them created. As best we know so far, it seems that the pressure was definitely not from DG or his helpers/supporters. Cuyler Walker doesnât seem to have cared who was involved, or what was just and fair for all that work and investment.
[ATTACH=JSON]{âdata-alignâ:ânoneâ,âdata-sizeâ:âmediumâ,âdata-attachmentidâ:10736208}[/ATTACH]
The most important part of any contract is not whatâs written into it, itâs who is on either side of it, and how they behave toward each other. Contracts are not really intended to be as legalistic as people sometimes assume. The line items donât matter as much as both parties acting honorably and with consideration for each other. That is what makes contracts work. That is what creates sustainable good for both parties.
If weâre down to just working through the line items, item by item ⊠thatâs not so good for the success of the endeavor.
The contract doesnât make harmful behavior ok. It may be legal, but itâs not right. Itâs not the kind of person most people want to be.
I work with people who care more about doing whatâs right than about taking advantage of contract terms only in their own interest. Iâm sure that Denis Glaccum thought that is the kind of person he made a contract with, or he wouldnât have made it. Speculating about Denis Glaccum, of course. He ended up with someone who took his temper out on the contract, and on Denis, as it were.
The more accurate analogy would be this: I let you park a trailer on my land and you make it a wonderful place and live there for 20 years. Then one day you say to me, âI donât like the design of the yard anymore. Iâve come up with a landscape plan to add gardens, terraces, and a stream and you need to get it done asap⊠or else Iâll go around and tell all the neighbors and the local paper what a rotten landlord you are.â Iâm pretty sure most landlords would say, âIf youâre no longer satisfied with this place the way itâs been for the last 20 years, time for you to move your trailer somewhere else.â
Wow. Catching up on the last many pages and this certainly took a turn.
I will say one thing: the best way we could go about decreasing interest and participation in the sport of Eventing is to turn this discussion (though now really an echo chamber) into the first annual meeting of the Get Off My Lawn Club. The sheer number of pejorative references to younger people (âwhipper snappersâ, the much maligned âyounger generationâ including a list of all the things âtheyâ donât respect, âjuvenile twitsâ, trantrums, 3-year olds, etc.), mocking their twitter names, their looks, their concerns, weaponizing terms like âwokeâ, and on and on is just :eek:. And âtheyâ are the ones who donât see the other side? âTheyâ are the ones who are set in their ways and donât care about others?
Even âolderâ folk line @OverandOnward are mocked merely for presenting an alternative scenario to the one everyone agrees with. Her scenario is put down as âspeculatingâ and evidence of a grudge against someone she never knew about until a week ago, while the other one is treated as gospel even while itâs acknowledged as what âmost likely happened.â
If I were a young equestrian with some money to spend, or a parent looking to invest a lot of money to get my child into an equestrian sport, this thread would convince me that Eventing was the last place that would be welcoming of a young rider, regardless of socio-economic/ethnic background. Iâm not surprised @ake987 stopped posting several pages back.
The âyounger generationâ (and many others beside them) may, indeed, have different concerns, different culture, different values. Belittling them and name calling (and it started well before anything appeared on twitter, so thatâs no excuse, nor is responding in kind, esp if maturity and diplomacy is the angle youâre pushing) does nothing to either resolve problems like this or make the sport attractive to them. And simply because other generations were painted with a broad brush doesnât mean we should perpetuate that nonsense and tell them to just suck it up. We should be the ones to do better by them than was done before. The anger and vitriol here aimed at younger people all on the strength of reconstructions of what âmost likelyâ happened is really off putting. Especially from people accusing them of approaching everything the wrong way, being too aggressive, not understanding the other side, pushing an agenda. Where is this diplomacy and grace and respect that, by comparison, you claim the younger generation is missing? We donât even know how many young people are really angry about what has happened and wish it hadnât - who disagree with EN - but they are alienated anyway.
Not a good look for the sport at all.
Flame away, Iâm 100% expecting it. But off line think about the anger and negatively spewed at young people here the last many pages and at least examine privately the wisdom of that response. Ask the simple question: is all this any better a tactic for change and/or community and consensus building than what you think EN did to the LO and event manager?
I donât see a need to flame away. People are entitled to their opinion.
They arenât entitled to bludgeon or threaten others into agreeing with them.
Or rather they can try, but shouldnât be surprised when people say no, thank you, and extricate themselves from an untenable situation.
Agreed. A young rider would be wise to think she should say no thank you to Eventing after reading the attacks on here based on age. Just odd to bludgeon people b/c one thinks they bludgeon other people. Seems counter intuitive and is an example fo displaying the very behaviour which is being denounced.
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
