Wow. That one shocked and saddened me 
2 Likes
:eek: That name surprised the heck out of me.
2 Likes
I was just as surprised, I would never have guessed.
2 Likes
If it’s the one in the Jimmy Williams thread, that just ruined my day. 
2 Likes
Me either.
Yes, it is the same. Glad at least one website is leaving it up. I am hard to shock but I was VERY disappointed.
6 Likes
[QUOTE=Two Lea;n10099661
But I called a friend who is now a member and she told me it [the Flintridge letter]
says, among other things, that the Club was not contacted by the Chronicle in advance of publication.
[/QUOTE]
That’s odd.
That’s odd.
So Horse Show Diva names a well known trainer/rider, but who made the accusation ? And when ?
The rude comment about the appearance of the named trainer’s wife is complete hypocrisy.
2 Likes
EN published and article about him though he was not named in the article. The alleged victim named him in the comments to the article.
4 Likes
@Mardi I agree with you.
To be clear re the eventer for those who don’t go look, there is again a wide gaping chasm between trolling the twenty somethings and raping children.
A lot of top riders are slimy, not all, but a lot.
Not a lot of them are paedophiles.
One makes you a bad person, the other makes you a monster.
I’m not at all discounting any story about anyone being a scumbag, but these accusations are NOT comparable.
10 Likes
People are so very, very disappointing.
3 Likes
Is the article still up somewhere? I haven’t seen it. Extremely disappointing if it’s true.
2 Likes
This is the article but I believe the comments were edited/taken down
http://eventingnation.com/anonymous-dont-let-anyone-take-your-power/
1 Like
I’m not big into facebook but I think maybe this piece used to be cross posted on FB and the comments were on FB, but when EN took the piece off FB the comments were lost?
Anyway, the alleged victim herself wanted to out the BNT who she says preyed on her and took advantage of her. EN didn’t want his name published, but she was willing to name him and she did.
2 Likes
Thanks.
This was in reference to Flintridge not being contacted by COTH prior to publishing their article.
Why would they be contacted? To ask permission so they could issue some bland excuse about what their predecessors 25-50 years back did or didn’t know or suspect? Think we have all been so used to only carefully filtered “news” about our industry we forget actual journalism can exsit. IMO COTH did a pretty good job here and contacted plenty of people who were actually involved besides the current board.
8 Likes
Well, in point of fact, “actual journalism” would have required COTH to contact Flintridge. The article claimed that some report of the allegations had been made to them, by an unnamed “former board member,” and that some “file folder” supposedly “disappeared.” Why was this person not named when making such an important allegation? Why weren’t those circumstances properly investigated? That is a very serious charge. Possibly of illegal conduct at the time by the Club. That’s not “actual journalism,” it’s tabloid-ism. One unnamed, unconfirmed source.
I’m anonymous, and that really is disturbing to some people. But I’m not making any claims, only asking questions, and stating my opinions.
If COTH wanted to publish that, or felt it was a necessary part of the story, they should have contacted Flintridge in advance. But that would have then required COTH also to identify and contact the board members from that era still living. If they didn’t want to do so, they shouldn’t have published that claim of a “report,” and instead simply gone forward with the allegations of misbehavior by themselves, by those named, without the smear and innuendo of the Club condoning it. That would have been justifiable journalism.
However, contacting the Club and following leads from that contact might even have raised doubts about this claim, and given the lie to the idea that the alleged behavior was some kind of “open secret” or “common knowledge” around the Club 45 years ago, which is what I feel most strongly about.
It wasn’t.
“Actual journalism” requires that serious allegations be fully investigated, including the full circumstances of those making claims. Read the Washington Post any day now, or back during Watergate, when investigative journalism in modern times began. Serious, professional journalism requires objectivity and skepticism about any claims made, especially those based on events “25-50 years back.” It looks like COTH contacted two people for “the other side,” Hutchison and Balch, both very close to Williams. That’s not exactly “plenty of people” to balance the accusers. Contacting the Club may well have led to a great deal more information and more people for balance, not just a “bland excuse.” And it could also have led to more confirmation of the claims, as well.
Expressing any skepticism or even asking a question of any claim here, even suggesting nuance, in this #MeToo era, brings on the emotional wrath of many, many people. It’s understandable. But it’s also emotional, not rational. We’ve seen plenty of that on this thread.
Just ask Tom Brokaw, who has angrily denounced his accuser(s) and claims in return that he has been unfairly “perp walked.” At least he’s alive to defend himself, and to bring forward other colleagues on his behalf.
4 Likes
@Two Lea, you did make claims. You claimed that Jimmy Williams wasn’t so bad because you were raped at 13 by another big name trainer, ergo that guy was worse, because it happened to you.
You also claimed that the girls, now women, who were molested by Jimmy Williams were just fine, because you were around them and they were fine. Because you, another child, would have known if they were really being raped.
1 Like
Sorry ladyj79 – you have me confused with someone else. I never said any such things.
2 Likes
