Re: RC: Conflict of Interest/note to Truman

["Truman Prevatt, PhD" <truman.prevatt@netsrq.com>]

Actually I think Kat's post points out more a difference in perception of what a
"conflict of interest" is. Take a different situation - the problems with the
2002 Olympics. Some IOC officials accepted "gifts" from the Salt Lake City
committee. They probably got gifts for every organizing committee in every city
in competition.

It just turns out that in the US this type of behavior is not viewed as it is in
many other parts of the world. There were congressional hearing and  IOC came
very close to losing tax exempt status for contributions to the Olympics by US
corporations and individuals. The biggest sponsor in the US, John Hancock
Insurance, withdrew it's sponsorship until the IOC got it house in order.  The
UAE is providing financial support to the FEI, which is basically a regulatory
body with broad powers, to help the FEI accomplish a goal. How is that any
different than the Salt Lake City committee providing financial support to the
IOC ( it doesn't matter if it were members or the organizations since each member
represents the organization they are one in the same ).

We in the US seem to have a very strict view on "conflict of interest."  I think
it is up to each of us to determine for ourselves what all this means. But one
question, is the FEI ( regulatory body with broad powers ) accepting significant
financial support for a country which it has the charter to regulate in
equestrian sports any different than the IOC ( a regulatory body with broad
powers ) accepting gifts from the SLC committee?

Truman

Tivers@aol.com wrote:

> Kat,
>
> Your post is an excellent example of how to use foot-stomping rage to make a
> mountain out of a molehill. The sport has its problems, as does every sport.
> As it becomes more professionally conducted, many of these problems will
> disappear--and others will probably take their place. But all problems can
> eventually resolved.