PDA

View Full Version : Amy Tryon Case?



boppin along
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:38 AM
Has anyone heard what is going on with the AT abuse case? Has there been any decision of any kind or is it just going away or being swept under the carpet? Haven't read a thing about it in weeks.

Janet
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:43 AM
There was an announcement of the date of the hearing. I forget the precise date, but it was at the end of June. So we should have some news then.

LLDM
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:05 AM
http://www.horsesport.org/news_center/archive/archive.htm?vID=1708&sub=pressnews&active=pressnews1&body1=&optype=&body2=&day1=&month1=&year1=&day2=&month2=&year2=


01/06/2007
Update regarding the case of alleged abuse at CCI 4* Lexington (USA)

In relation to the case of alleged abuse involving rider Amy Tryon (USA) and horse Le Samurai which occurred on 28 April 2007 at CCI 4* Lexington, please be informed that rider Amy Tryon has requested a hearing and in turn, the FEI has scheduled a hearing to be held on 25 June in Lausanne.

SCFarm

Sannois
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:57 AM
that she is under investigation, why can she still compete?? Not trying to cause trouble but in professional sports and olympic sports they are sidelined until a ruling takes place. :confused:

groom
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:15 AM
that she is under investigation, why can she still compete?? Not trying to cause trouble but in professional sports and olympic sports they are sidelined until a ruling takes place. :confused:

I think you are trying to cause trouble. I think you should be banned from the COTH until an international investigative panel can hold a hearing in Europe as to your status. You should know something one way or the other by mid-August, okay? ;)

rcloisonne
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:31 AM
I think you are trying to cause trouble. I think you should be banned from the COTH until an international investigative panel can hold a hearing in Europe as to your status. You should know something one way or the other by mid-August, okay? ;)
Oh please! Sannois hasn't killed a wonderful, talented horse in the prime of life. Amy Tryon did.

lizathenag
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:35 AM
So she has to go to Switzerland for the hearing? or will it be by video link?

olympicprincess
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:50 AM
groom- Sannois didn't attack AT, she asked a valid question. I was also curious of the same thing.

If she is found guilty-- will it have any effect on her placings since Rolex?

pegasusmom
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:55 AM
that she is under investigation, why can she still compete?? Not trying to cause trouble but in professional sports and olympic sports they are sidelined until a ruling takes place. :confused:

Neither USEF or FEI has yet suspended her. (and they may or may not) And I think your intrepretation of what happens in professional sports is a bit skewed. Until an investigation is completed, no penalities are assessed in just about every sport I know of. It's just that in this case the investigation is taking longer than perhaps a NFL drug violation might.

flyingchange
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:57 AM
Groom -

Sannois was asking a question that many, many people around the world are also asking ... OK???

A good/non-emotional discussion (started by T. Holekamp) of the issue is at:

http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7567&whichpage=1

onelanerode
Jun. 12, 2007, 10:59 AM
I think groom was trying for sarcastic humor, hence the wink at the end. That's how I read it, for what that's worth. :winkgrin:

I think Sannois poses an interesting question and I'm curious to hear more from the more knowledgeable people.

Sannois
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:09 AM
Seemed to have made someone mad. I think its a legit question, And apparently others do as well. I still love the sport of eventing even though I am no longer competing, maybe that makes me ineligble to ask questions??:confused:
Oops or I missed the wink and humor! Edited to add!! ;)

PiedPiper
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:10 AM
I believe this was discussed ad nausem in the multiple other threads where people were "asking" about why she could continue to compete. It is an innocent until proven guilty thing. If you don't like it then petition the appropriate parties but I believe that basically sums it up.

And groom was being sarcastically funny.

JAM
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:26 AM
Well, sarcastic at any rate.

Badger
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:40 AM
Groom -

Sannois was asking a question that many, many people around the world are also asking ... OK???

A good/non-emotional discussion (started by T. Holekamp) of the issue is at:

http://www.militaryhorse.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=7567&whichpage=1

Flyingchange, thanks for posting that link. It's a great discussion. Interestingly, when I discussed the Tryon incident with my own military husband (who foxhunts and trains dressage but does not compete nor event), his comment was that the four-star 3DE was originally conceived to test the horse and rider whose lives depended on the performance, and he wonders why on earth that degree of risk is still acceptable for "sport" or "competition" when horses' and riders' lives are at stake but their lives don't depend on the outcome any.

canterlope
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:58 AM
Well, sarcastic at any rate.Bwahahahahaha!!! Good one, JAM.

JAM
Jun. 12, 2007, 12:05 PM
Thanks, Canterlope. You may not think so kindly of me after my most recent post on the 3-hit thread, but remember it's all in good sport and in the interest of provoking serious discussion!

fergie
Jun. 12, 2007, 12:26 PM
I just find it disturbing to hear that she flew Poggio over to do the Jersey Fresh after he had competed on the west coast the previous weekend. I think a suspension until the hearing when it's an "animal abuse" allogation would at least protect the other animals in the meantime....

JAC2
Jun. 12, 2007, 02:18 PM
I just read the posts on the military forum and had the following reactions:

1. The Rolex example was presented with an extreme bias. The question being asked on the forum was silly. Even though Eventing has its roots in the military, it is only recognized by way of a nod in today's world. It would be like asking the same forum for a serious ruling on a paint ball incident. The question was setup to elicit a certain type of response from this group.
2. Now we are the "little people"??? How rude is that? I really, really resent this type of thinking. A lot of us "little people" are highly respected professionals in fields that are much more suited to evaluating an incident such as this then some of the upper level Eventers who bring their own personal baggage to the table. I would argue that some riders, whose entire livelihood is wrapped up in the Eventing world, are too close to see the forest for the trees. (Note: I said some not all riders.) We "little people" can often be more objective because our whole world is not at risk.
3. It is amusing to me that the owner of a horse that several posters on this list feel is being ridden into the ground is springing to the defense of the horse versus the rider who may or may not have sacrificed the horse in pursuant of her own personal objectives. It's that "people in glass houses" syndrome.
4. This B.B. does seem to be 50-50 for or against Amy. I question whether the percentage is so high against Amy at the upper levels. I wonder how many riders Tim has actually talked to in order to reach this conclusion. I don't think that he personally rides at the advance level so his personal opinion has to be filed with the "little people".

Tim obviously didn't want an objective military analysis of this situation. All his posts do is expand the controversy to a wider group which, quite frankly, we don't need at this point.

I honestly don't know what to think about this situation. I saw the big screen version at Rolex but I'm still undecided. In critical situations, I have been both fast and slow to make a decision so it is hard for me to judge Amy who I don't know at all. Regardless, this kind of post makes me burn.

RunForIt
Jun. 12, 2007, 02:24 PM
many of the BNRs live in a different reality - Amy appears to be no different. :(

farmgirl88
Jun. 12, 2007, 02:25 PM
i ahev ost all total respect for amy tryon....

snoopy
Jun. 12, 2007, 02:40 PM
I question whether the percentage is so high against Amy at the upper levels. I wonder how many riders Tim has actually talked to in order to reach this conclusion.


To answer the quote above:

I have spoken to a number of upper level riders...and Tim is right....quietly and among themselves, the feeling is not so good about the situation. Now I do not always agree with Tim...infact this may be the first time that I have, but I do believe he is correct regarding his remark.

As the USEF have made a statement that they will stand behind amy and help guide her through the process of this investigation, many upper levels riders are not chancing making their opinions public...that, sadly, is the politics of sport.

And please do not ask me to name those I have spoken to...as I will not for obvious reasons.

vineyridge
Jun. 12, 2007, 02:49 PM
I read the entire thread on the military horse forum and found it fascinating. Some of the inside scoop from Dr. Holekamp made me wonder something though. When he talked about Windfall just barely making the jog for showjumping at Athens, it kind of started a question about whether or not Windfall's problems since could be related to the footing at Athens? Don't mean to hijack the thread, but Windfall has NOT been the same since.

Does anyone know if he had lameness issues before Athens?

purpleice
Jun. 12, 2007, 04:06 PM
that she is under investigation, why can she still compete?? Not trying to cause trouble but in professional sports and olympic sports they are sidelined until a ruling takes place. :confused:




does anyone remember the idea of "innocent until proven guilty?" i know we are not talking us civil courts here, but it seems on this forum the principle has not only been forgotten, but put in the garbage can and burned.

those with real inside information tend to keep it quiet as they are given trusted info, rather than gossip. they also respect the sensitivity of the subject for all those involved, including bnr's for or against any stance.

Bravestrom
Jun. 12, 2007, 04:11 PM
First off let me admit that I haven't read all of the other posts about this issue.

But I did see the incident on tv. Realistically I thought that as soon as she noticed - and I noticed for that matter as a viewer - she stopped up.

While I was the first to cry when I heard that the horse had to be put down, I really have to wonder if the abuse train would have even been an issue if the horse had of been okay or survived.

I admit - I don't know all the details, or amy for that matter but I really think this is an unfortunate accident with sad results for all involved.

Is the investigation a formality that must be followed as a matter of course?

Has she been investigated for this before - is there a history?

KellyS
Jun. 12, 2007, 04:30 PM
But I did see the incident on tv. Realistically I thought that as soon as she noticed - and I noticed for that matter as a viewer - she stopped up.


If you were watching the NBC version, that is how it appears. However, the horse became significantly lame (trotting, trying to slow down, head bobbing lame) well before the last fence and Amy continue to urge him on and jumped it, crossing the finish line before she pulled him up.

And the outcry began long before Le Samurai was put down.

bambam
Jun. 12, 2007, 04:32 PM
prodomus- what was televised on NBC did not in any way, shape or form show the full incident. What was broadcast was significantly edited down from the time LS first had a problem and when AT pulled up after the finish line (and I think editing it down was appropriate- whole thing did not need to be on national TV). It is not possible to accurately assess what happened IMHO from just that snippet. The dvds you could get at Rolex of unedited x-country day on the other hand show the whole relevant time period.

Bravestrom
Jun. 12, 2007, 04:34 PM
my mistake - for some reason I though she pulled him up before the finish line?

bambam
Jun. 12, 2007, 04:38 PM
my mistake - for some reason I though she pulled him up before the finish line?
nope- right after she crossed

RAyers
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:02 PM
does anyone remember the idea of "innocent until proven guilty?" i know we are not talking us civil courts here, but it seems on this forum the principle has not only been forgotten, but put in the garbage can and burned.

those with real inside information tend to keep it quiet as they are given trusted info, rather than gossip. they also respect the sensitivity of the subject for all those involved, including bnr's for or against any stance.

No it has not been forgotten. However, when a teacher or police officer or an adminstrative officie is under investigation they are removed from their duties until the investigation is complete. Nobody is saying AT should not train or ride. What, at least I am saying, is that AT should NOT represent the US at ANY international competition until the investigation is complete. It is not taking any money out of her hands. Really, if you or I did what happened we would have been banned and strung up weeks ago. So why the kit gloves now?

Reed

PolestarFarm
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:08 PM
This is exciting.... I didnt know you can edit posts! Gosh, I wish I had seen this yesterday!

canterlope
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:15 PM
You people are all FU*!%$^*#D UP. Go do something useful, like sweep your barn or ride your horse.... if you have one other than the armchair that you are currently riding.
Everyone is an expert. Arent they?Hummm... It would appear, PolestarFarm, that you need to take a bit of your own advice.

RAyers
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:19 PM
You people are all FU*!%$^*#D UP. Go do something useful, like sweep your barn or ride your horse.... if you have one other than the armchair that you are currently riding.
Everyone is an expert. Arent they?

Meika, YOU as an upper level representative of the eventing community should be a HELL of a lot more professional about this. This little tiraid just implies that most upper level riders are spoiled brats who feel that whatever they do should NOT be questioned and those of us who are at lower levels have no say in how the sport should be managed. Good job being a representative of the elite of the sport.

Reed

purpleice
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:19 PM
for those who want an immediate response, take that up with the fei not at. i would bet just about anything she wants this over with one way or another as soon as possible...it's not her decision to keep hanging in limbo. it's the officials who are taking their time sorting through this, not some malicious plan by at to keep in competition. write letters to them, don't sit and continue bashing her as if she's the one in charge of the hearing.

i've never competed in a televised event. should that ever happen, i would expect to be treated the same as any one of my competition. there IS a difference between the upper levels and the lower levels; when a horse goes lame novice xc, the fei doesn't generally get involved. no i am not justifying, or liking the 2, except to say that you and i will be treated the same under the same rules, at the same level, under the same circumstance. that's why we have rules, regulatory bodies, and officials. under these rules, bnr's still rack up refusals and eliminations...why? because there is a standard under which we all compete.

when did she represent the us in an international competition since the accident? i must have missed that.

InVA
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:23 PM
You people are all FU*!%$^*#D UP. Go do something useful, like sweep your barn or ride your horse.... if you have one other than the armchair that you are currently riding.
Everyone is an expert. Arent they?

You spelled FU#&ed wrong...

Calvincrowe
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:24 PM
I am not taking sides on this, but I do have a question for you learned people: When the FEI is "investigating" a rider...any rider or competitor...does the FEI suspend them from competition automatically? What are their standards? Instead of raking Amy Tryon over the coals, again, what are the rules and standards that she will be judged by? I'm quite serious, and not trying to stir things up.

bambam
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:27 PM
when a horse goes lame novice xc, the fei doesn't generally get involved.

uuhhhh- that is because novice isn't run under the auspices of the FEI :)
As for international competition, I think she was supposed to go to Lumhelin (no idea how to spell it :)) on the USET's dime but I believe she has withdrawn. As of now, she is supposed to be one of the riders going to Beijing as part of the US team to test eventing in the August weather there and I will be surprised if the FEI has made a decision by then.

purpleice
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:27 PM
pegasusmom-
i'm well aware of when she has in the past, i was asking SINCE the accident. please read the previous posts.

RAyers
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:28 PM
for those who want an immediate response, take that up with the fei not at. i would bet just about anything she wants this over with one way or another as soon as possible...it's not her decision to keep hanging in limbo. it's the officials who are taking their time sorting through this, not some malicious plan by at to keep in competition. write letters to them, don't sit and continue bashing her as if she's the one in charge of the hearing.

i've never competed in a televised event. should that ever happen, i would expect to be treated the same as any one of my competition. there IS a difference between the upper levels and the lower levels; when a horse goes lame novice xc, the fei doesn't generally get involved. no i am not justifying, or liking the 2, except to say that you and i will be treated the same under the same rules, at the same level, under the same circumstance. that's why we have rules, regulatory bodies, and officials. under these rules, bnr's still rack up refusals and eliminations...why? because there is a standard under which we all compete.

when did she represent the us in an international competition since the accident? i must have missed that.

Who said I am taking this up with AT? I am pointing out, what I see as a problem in the system.

I hate to admit it, we are not treated the same under the same rules. As I have said before I have been told before BY the USEA and USEF that if I had a more well known name they would be willing to make more concessions to make sure I could compete at a given level. There is a HUGE political body at the upper levels that allow for lots of making the rules be more like guidelines. I saw this enough times at the 3-star World Cup level last year where folks without qualifications were allowed to run a 3-star because they had "the name."

If you or I did the same thing at Preliminary we would be out of there in a heartbeat.

At the same time, the USEF is NOT governed by the FEI. They can make their own decisions without FEI guidance but they have continued to sidestep the issues by saying it is up to the FEI.

Yes, I have discussed this with members of the USEF Eventing Committee and some members do agree while others don't.

Reed

purpleice
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:31 PM
bambam-
exactly my point. there IS a difference b/t upper and lower levels and their regulatory bodies.

someone was angry about her representing the us in current competition. as i thought, she has not.

pegasusmom
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:31 PM
pegasusmom-
i'm well aware of when she has in the past, i was asking SINCE the accident. please read the previous posts.

My bad - I was attempting to delete my post when my satellite failed. There is no reason to get snotty.

Erin
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:32 PM
Honestly, people, was this NOT already all hashed out in one of the other three million threads on the topic?

The question was about the status of the case. The question was answered. If you want to start a debate about whether the FEI should automatically suspend people during a pending investigation, have at it -- but do it on another thread, and in a generic way. This topic has already been debated round and round, and since there's no new news (and won't be til the hearing), I see no point in continuing to go round and round.

purpleice
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:34 PM
reed-
that was not specifically directed at you. i was simply amazed at how this thread, asking about information and questioning the wait of the hearing had turned back into venom spew.

JER
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:37 PM
What, at least I am saying, is that AT should NOT represent the US at ANY international competition until the investigation is complete.

In other words -- tell me if this is correct -- what you're saying is: AT should not be selected to represent the USEF in international competition while there is an investigation pending.

I think this makes sense given the circumstances. AT was already disqualified under FEI rules. Moreover, there's the possibility of further sanctions. Even from a practical/cynical point of view, why would the USEF want to put her on a team when there's a possibility she might not be eligible?

RAyers
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:43 PM
In other words -- tell me if this is correct -- what you're saying is: AT should not be selected to represent the USEF in international competition while there is an investigation pending.

I think this makes sense given the circumstances. AT was already disqualified under FEI rules. Moreover, there's the possibility of further sanctions. Even from a practical/cynical point of view, why would the USEF want to put her on a team when there's a possibility she might not be eligible?

JER, yes.

Reed

flutie1
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:47 PM
"Suspension pending the outcome of an investigation."

To play Devil's advocate - and my own feelings on the case are just that, my own - whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?"

JSwan
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:50 PM
As far as Amy Tryon competing while the investigation is ongoing - I see nothing wrong with that. I would expect that any competitor would permitted to continue.

In cases where public servants are suspended (with or without pay) while under investigation - in fairness - that is a lot different than the Rolex incident. Teachers, police officers - have unions, have certain rights, usually still get paid and have their benefits.

Other professionals continue to earn a living while their actions are under review. If an association like the NFL or NBA has different rules, that's their business. And even then - one would want to know if players still receive compensation guaranteed by their contracts while a matter is pending to come close to a true comparison.

I saw the live broadcast on-line - and did not think she was truly aware of what had happened to the horse. Whether it was adrenaline, extreme focus that blocked out sounds - I don't know - I can't read her mind. And neither can any of you - so why not just see what she has to say?

I've tried to put myself in her place - and think of things that might have gone through my mind. What I come up with is primarily adrenaline and intense focus. Or that the horse had acted similarly at another time - and it turned out to be a slipped boot, lost shoe - or something pretty innocuous. Because if she was going to disregard the welfare of the horse - she would have done it in Stadium - at the end of the trial. A breakdown in xc gets you no medals - but it can get you a lot of scorn.


The only explanation that makes sense is that she truly did not realize, for whatever reason, that the horse was severely injured. Of course she is responsible - she's the rider. But is she guilty of intentionally harming the horse? hmmmmmmmm...... that's a stretch.

I dunno. We'll see. I just hate to see folks referring to her as some sort of cold blooded killer. That's silly. There are plenty of dirtbags well deserving of that moniker - but not Amy.

edited to add - I respect Rayers a great deal - but must disagree with him on this one point - about Amy still representing the US while the matter is pending. Removing her from a team or taking other actions that are punitive in nature - will impact upon her ability to earn a living, remain competitive in the upper levels of this sport, and may results in lost income from students and training.

For merely being accused of an infraction of a rule governing a sport - I think those actions precipitous - and extreme. Ruin her livelihood and reputation even before a hearing?

snoopy
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:53 PM
but she was found guilty...according to the ground jury who DQ'd her at rolex....this is about appeal. To play devil's advicate, people are arrested on suspicion of crime and held until a court finds them guilty or innocent. they are not allowed to go about their normal lives if the nature of the situation warrents detention.

As this was a serious infraction of the rules...that resulted in death....I believe a rider should be asked to sit things out whilst a final decision is made.

Please note that I am not saying AMY should sit out but rather ANY rider who happens to find themselves in the same situation.

Also to add that maybe being asked to sit things out might help to stop a lot of the gossip, rumours etc due to speculation. Though this might not be the case.

Calvincrowe
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:54 PM
Well said, JSwan, well said.

PolestarFarm
Jun. 12, 2007, 05:59 PM
JSwan-

That is what I tried to say earlier! But (obviously) you said it much, much better.

Doodle
Jun. 12, 2007, 06:05 PM
responsible - she's the rider. But is she guilty of intentionally harming the horse? hmmmmmmmm...... that's a stretch.

edited to add - I respect Rayers a great deal - but must disagree with him on this one point - about Amy still representing the US while the matter is pending. Removing her from a team or taking other actions that are punitive in nature - will impact upon her ability to earn a living, remain competitive in the upper levels of this sport, and may results in lost income from students and training.

For merely being accused of an infraction of a rule governing a sport - I think those actions precipitous - and extreme. Ruin her livelihood and reputation even before a hearing?


I don't think it is a question of her intentionally injuring the horse. It is a question of her not noticing or riding THROUGH the injury or not acting sufficiently to prevent further injury to the horse. If anyone is found guilty of this sort of infraction why shouldn't they lose income...IF I performed badly or questionably at work then my bonus would be affected.. how is this different?

RAyers
Jun. 12, 2007, 06:14 PM
I know this thread is off on a tangent but I will add that this goes WAY beyond just AT and eventing. What about certain plastic chips in splint boots years ago? There are plenty of other cases out there where the supposed top riders who represent the US appear to not represent the true nature of sportsmanship. I have books on drugging studies done and how folks have attempted to circumvent the rules.

What if a rider was ever found to have given their horse huge amounts of growth hormones even if the horse was healthy. Would you all condone the action by saying it is alright for them to represent us, as a country? Is it all about the blue ribbon or the big bucks?

As denny said, Eventing is what we make it. I prefer to make it a place where if a horse and rider are going at the top and representing us, they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us. It gives us an IDEA to shoot at.

JSwan, no, NBA players and NHL players can be suspended without pay for infractions even when under investigation. See Todd Bertuzzi or Carmelo Anthony. They both were suspend by their teams until the investgations were complete and they were suspended by the leagues.

It is funny you bring that up becasue here are major league sports trying to clean up their houses and becoming VERY strict yet in the horse world (again not just eventing) the USEF plays variable rules.

flutie, I agree with you but that only applies in the US legal system and only in crimminal cases. Civil cases and specific organizations such as the USEF and FEI do not have to follow that.

Reed

Janet
Jun. 12, 2007, 06:20 PM
but she was found guilty...according to the ground jury who DQ'd her at rolex....this is about appeal. No it isn't. No one is attempting to overturn the DQ at Rolex.

This is an investigation into whether additional disciplinary measures (beyond the Rolex DQ) are called for.

snoopy
Jun. 12, 2007, 06:28 PM
No it isn't. No one is attempting to overturn the DQ at Rolex.

This is an investigation into whether additional disciplinary measures (beyond the Rolex DQ) are called for.

Janet

I was under the impression that the matter was referred to the FEI appeals commitee as the ground jury did not accept her withdrawl at the finish line and choose to DQ her instead.

My appologies for the error if this is not the case.

JSwan
Jun. 12, 2007, 06:38 PM
If the issue is that Eventing has a problem and needs to clean up its act a bit - that is truly deserving of attention.

But the crucify Amy folks get my dander up and that is what I was referencing specifically. The hearing will be held - the processes already in place are being observed.

People are confusing the US legal system with FEI. If the standard of proof was as high as required by our legal system, and the rules of evidence and procedures were as strict - Amy would never have been DQ'd in the first place.

The governing bodies of the sport shouldn't be equated with a criminal court - nor a civil one. Unless that is what the sport wants - which again is a separate issue.

Rayers - I remember the splint boot debacle, and I can list a few others as well.

But as it stands - Amy is subject to the FEI rules and procedures as they are now - not as we may wish them to be. Personally - I don't see a need for her to be put in the stock until the hearing date.

As far as politics goes - name one sport or activity in which politics and backroom deals play no part. I'd like Eventing to be the exception - but that isn't realistic.

RAyers
Jun. 12, 2007, 06:51 PM
I

But the crucify Amy folks get my dander up and that is what I was referencing specifically. The hearing will be held - the processes already in place are being observed....


...Rayers - I remember the splint boot debacle, and I can list a few others as well.

But as it stands - Amy is subject to the FEI rules and procedures as they are now - not as we may wish them to be. Personally - I don't see a need for her to be put in the stock until the hearing date.


I am in no way trying to crucify Amy but her situation does highlight a lot of aspects of where the horse world has gone and where it could go. I originally said I would never judge AT because it is too easy to be in the same situation.

Yes, and using AT as the example, she is subject to FEI rules, but she is ALSO subject to USEF, our OWN NGB, rules and they are abdicating (literally by the dictionary definition!) any responsibility in this or other cases. Just like teams can issue sanctions before a league, the USEF can do the same. The USEF could easily come out and support her by saying she has no sanctions in the US or they could go the other way.

This goes right back to the OP. The case could be resolved at many levels (it already has at the competition level) long before the FEI so that AT would have an idea of what the future held.

Reed

pwynnnorman
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:05 PM
Y'know, I can't imagine any rider approaching a hearing under these circumstances with the plan of arguing they were not at fault. Can you? Don't you think it almost has to boil down to the degree of fault?

And if we consider the degree of fault, then don't we have to deal with the psychology of the moment? What was going through her mind, that is? (I really appreciated what someone else pointed out about a possible history of something similar happening with the horse--maybe a longshot, but it shows that, if one is willing to think about them, other factors could have led to her mistake.)

And if we have to explore her mind at the time, don't you think we here are singularly ill-suited to do so? Can you follow my logic here?

To figure out the degree of fault and thus the extent of any penalties, in this situation it's just not possible to go only by what was seen. Isn't there some criminal situation where what was going on in the accused's mind is vital to the outcome of the case? Aren't there some parallels here to that situation which should impact the FEI's review process as well as its decision? How likely (and I'm not sure either way) is it that the FEI would say what she was thinking at the time doesn't matter? If they were planning to do that, then why bother with hearing her side of it at all?

I keep editing this as I come up with more questions. I suppose one could argue that "well, she could say anything to try to help her situation." But could she? What could she say? "The horse has a habit of pretending to be lame?" More likely any rider would say something caused them to interpret the situation erroneously: the boot came lose, the wrap was bothering him, or--what I thought I actually saw on the tape--there was a dip in the track. Watching the tape of other horses, I noticed (or think I noticed) a couple of horses look a bit funny near the rail as they rounded that bend.

But that might be just my imagination. STILL, it points out that there might indeed be other factors that ANY rider under these circumstances might point out. It wouldn't change the fact taht they were wrong and should have had the experience and sensitivity to be right, but those other factors are yet another reason, IMO, that suspending a rider before they get a chance to explain themselves would be pretty unfair.

JER
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:14 PM
es, and using AT as the example, she is subject to FEI rules, but she is ALSO subject to USEF, our OWN NGB, rules and they are abdicating (literally by the dictionary definition!) any responsibility in this or other cases.

Pass-the-Hat is popular in these situations in just about every sport. I think the fear of lawsuits is a factor.

In the riotously funny Floyd Landis doping case, the US NGB -- USA Cycling simply turned the matter over to the US Anti-Doping Agency, even though in cycling, the cyclist's NGB is supposed to decide if the cyclist violated the rules. Cycling federations have steadfastly refused to clean up their sport and the result is criminal charges and investigations in various European countries.

pwynnnorman
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:22 PM
Well, now that you point that out, JER, I think it makes total sense for USEF to pass the hat. We (because a lot of it is our membership dues) have spent enough in the past decade dealing with legal issues. Yeah, makes total sense to me: let the FEI absorb whatever costs there might be. (Not implying that AT would or would not sure if circumstances warranted that, but like with cycling, heck, if you can save your organization some money by letting big brother take over, why not? As long as you don't complain if big brother sees fit to step in and make you clean up your act. But that's not the case here between USEF and FEI.)

JAM
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:25 PM
J. Swan says: "Removing her from a team or taking other actions that are punitive in nature - will impact upon her ability to earn a living, remain competitive in the upper levels of this sport, and may results in lost income from students and training."

So what? Even putting aside that she is an adult amateur who has a full time job outside the horse world, the more generally applicable point is that the associations don't and for sure shouldn't exist for these purposes, i.e., to secure a living for their members -- they exist, according to the USEA's own statement of guiding principles, for the welfare of the horse; and the USEA is explicit (on paper, at any rate) that the welfare of the horse takes priority over the interests of riders, breeders, owners, etc. Letting someone so recently found by an international GJ to have engaged in horse abuse under the circumstances that happened at Rolex to continue to represent our country (she's still on the list for Hong Kong, and is competing in USEF selection trials all over the country) sends a decently clear message that the associations are not sincere in this statement of guiding principles, regardless what other ULRs may say when they think nobody of importance is listening. The silence of the U.S. governing bodies and their decision to punt to the FEI to take any disciplinary action probably has already sent the message to the international equestrian community that, in the U.S. eventing community (at least at the level of the "people who count") it's all about money, winning medals, and the other economic considerations you describe and that U.S. eventers are incapable of governing themselves. That is likely to have profound adverse long term effects, and if Snoopy is correct that the ULRs are scared to state their true beliefs publicly for fear that the USEF or USEA will take some form of retribution, they may find out that the possible long term damage from their silence is even worse.

To me, this is not about assembling a lynch mob and stringing a single rider up by her heels. It is about defining what the sport / hobby / vocation is and the roles and guiding principles of the governing bodies should be. As Denny said in starting one of these threads, eventing is what we make it. And I don't think that our governing bodies' lack of fortitude here sends a good or correct message on that subject.

Flutie says: "To play Devil's advocate - and my own feelings on the case are just that, my own - whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?'"

I think Snoopy and RAyers already covered this, but my $.02: An international GJ has found her "guilty" of horse abuse and DQed her for that reason; she is now appealing that determination. Also, I do wonder if everyone who is so vehement about the innocent until proven guilty principle would defend it so staunchly if a BN, N, T, or even P competitor had done the same or a remotely similar thing and then denied having done anything wrong. I strongly suspect not, judging by the substance and tone of many of the posts and anecdotes on the "3 hit rule" thread.

Sannois
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:37 PM
You people are all FU*!%$^*#D UP. Go do something useful, like sweep your barn or ride your horse.... if you have one other than the armchair that you are currently riding.
Everyone is an expert. Arent they?

does not do this sport any good. :no:

boppin along
Jun. 12, 2007, 07:47 PM
Ok Folks, I opened this up today to sincerely get an answer but I was also curious if it would still be a hot button.... WHOA, this is still a passionate topic!!!!!!
So ... to answer a lot of the responses...
I do know a lot of the upper level "elite" eventers and agree with some who post, I will not let your name on, BUT, Yes, they are all upset by this and do think there should be severe penalties,( IE why is she still out there competeing???) BUT, no one wants to be singled out, so BRAVO to you REED, for your courage in speaking up. Yes, Meicha, you of course would not be unbiased becasue you are on of her best friends.
Pwonny whatevere.... No ONE wants to condem Amy personally , I am sure because she is a good person, that is notg the issue... BUT... She F.. up big time. Penalities, HMMM, they need her.
WHY.... because the USEA/USEF is SO POLITICAL with "name" players.
Those of you who don't think so, look at the list of Pan Am team and alternates.... That is an obvious example. I won't name names, BUT Will rather than Jon???? That's a laugh!!!! But a sad one, and is a sad tale as to the status of our sport these days, bottom line, medals=money=medals= sponsors=money= look the other way.
Sorry guys, but the proof is in the whole tape, a BNR would know their horse was lame, but they don;'t have the pressure of $$$$$$$$=sponsors=medals

Erin
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:08 PM
An international GJ has found her "guilty" of horse abuse and DQed her for that reason; she is now appealing that determination.

See Janet's earlier post. This is not an appeal.

It's like when someone gets thrown out of an NBA game for a really flagrant foul. The league reviews the tape and has a meeting about it to decide if the player will be suspended for further games, if a fine will be assessed, etc.

The referee only has jurisdiction over that game, just like the ground jury only has jurisdiction over that event. The governing body has to decide if futher punishment is warranted.

And, again, can we please just not rehash the AT incident yet again on yet another thread? No one has anything new to say about it. It's all been said. No one is going to change their minds. Save your breath.

purpleice
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:13 PM
i find it quite humorous that while some sit and bash the 'special treatment' of bnr's, they then go on to quote them. fair weather what? from what i know, the people i respect most keep their mouths shut, perhaps because they know that no one would want to be in at's spot but we all have the potential to be. i have also heard how split those elite are in their opinions...showing further why time must be taken to produce a fair result. but clearly no one will find it fair, and i will add fuel to this fire by saying at AND LS'S OWNERS have handled this with class. and will probably do the same come time to accept what has been decided.

the other cases that have been brought up were intentional horse abuse. while we may debate whether or not at knew her horse was lame, i think it is safe to say she did not head out on xc knowing full well she was going to injure her horse. a horrid mistake was made, but it was not intentional. perhaps this is why at is receiving assumed 'special treatment.'

as eventers, we trust in our officials to regulate appropriately. it is their job. as i said earlier, if there is an issue with how the case is being handled, that is one discussion to be put in front of the fei. it is not a place to begin, yet again, the bashing of an already downtrodden and sickening story.

snoopy
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:18 PM
[QUOTE=Erin;2496540]See Janet's earlier post. This is not an appeal.QUOTE]


Please read the following link to the FEI statement


http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?section=rk3de&id=900


I believe in the second paragraph there is reference to the matter being heard by the appeal committee...If this is infact NOT an appeal could someone explain something to me?

JSwan
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:26 PM
I think we're starting to talk about two different things. This incident - and larger issues. I am concerned that some folks want Amy used as a sacrificial lamb.

The purpose isn't to provide a living for members, of course. But the association cannot take action that results in depriving her of a living without a darn good reason. Abuse is certainly a good reason - but for crying out loud - waiting until after a governing body has made its decision is not unreasonable. That's all I'm asking.

Whether its pass the hat - abdicating responsibility - politics - all those thing could enter into it. I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on how to improve ambiguity in the rules, or overlapping areas of responsibility, etc. Any actions or ideas that can streamline processes will help the sport - and have a positive impact on the horse's welfare.

Some folks think that she should not be permitted to continue competing or representing the US - NOW. I understand those reasons but think it is inappropriate to punish a person before the governing body has come to a decision. And removing her from a team - I think - would be punitive.

After the hearing - when we all know what's what - then everyone can move on and address larger issues that this incident has brought to light.

Regarding that other thread where the OP/troll was ticked she was reprimanded and she shouldn't have been because she's a PeTA - tough noogies, kid; don't be a bad sportsman. That's what I told her. That person was just complaining and didn't even know the rules to begin with. She was lucky she wasn't DQ'd.

I don't mean to come down on one side or the other - I saw the incident live on-line and was saddened and concerned - but will wait for the results of the hearing before deciding whether "justice" was served.

As far as those larger issues, such as Rayers et al have voiced so well - I hope this will be an opportunity to address and resolve them.



That's all.



J. Swan says: "Removing her from a team or taking other actions that are punitive in nature - will impact upon her ability to earn a living, remain competitive in the upper levels of this sport, and may results in lost income from students and training."

So what? Even putting aside that she is an adult amateur who has a full time job outside the horse world, the more generally applicable point is that the associations don't and for sure shouldn't exist for these purposes, i.e., to secure a living for their members -- they exist, according to the USEA's own statement of guiding principles, for the welfare of the horse; and the USEA is explicit (on paper, at any rate) that the welfare of the horse takes priority over the interests of riders, breeders, owners, etc. Letting someone so recently found by an international GJ to have engaged in horse abuse under the circumstances that happened at Rolex to continue to represent our country (she's still on the list for Hong Kong, and is competing in USEF selection trials all over the country) sends a decently clear message that the associations are not sincere in this statement of guiding principles, regardless what other ULRs may say when they think nobody of importance is listening. The silence of the U.S. governing bodies and their decision to punt to the FEI to take any disciplinary action probably has already sent the message to the international equestrian community that, in the U.S. eventing community (at least at the level of the "people who count") it's all about money, winning medals, and the other economic considerations you describe and that U.S. eventers are incapable of governing themselves. That is likely to have profound adverse long term effects, and if Snoopy is correct that the ULRs are scared to state their true beliefs publicly for fear that the USEF or USEA will take some form of retribution, they may find out that the possible long term damage from their silence is even worse.

To me, this is not about assembling a lynch mob and stringing a single rider up by her heels. It is about defining what the sport / hobby / vocation is and the roles and guiding principles of the governing bodies should be. As Denny said in starting one of these threads, eventing is what we make it. And I don't think that our governing bodies' lack of fortitude here sends a good or correct message on that subject.

Flutie says: "To play Devil's advocate - and my own feelings on the case are just that, my own - whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty?'"

I think Snoopy and RAyers already covered this, but my $.02: An international GJ has found her "guilty" of horse abuse and DQed her for that reason; she is now appealing that determination. Also, I do wonder if everyone who is so vehement about the innocent until proven guilty principle would defend it so staunchly if a BN, N, T, or even P competitor had done the same or a remotely similar thing and then denied having done anything wrong. I strongly suspect not, judging by the substance and tone of many of the posts and anecdotes on the "3 hit rule" thread.

canterlope
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:45 PM
Please read the following link to the FEI statement


http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?section=rk3de&id=900


I believe in the second paragraph there is reference to the matter being heard by the appeal committee...If this is infact NOT an appeal could someone explain something to me? While Rolex was still going on, the Ground Jury disqualified Amy and deemed that the incident required further penalty, but it was beyond their scope of power to assess more than what they had. As a result, the matter was turned over to the Appeals Committee who did have the power to determine if further action was necessary. The Appeals Committee deemed that further action was necessary and sent the matter to the Secretary General of the FEI. This is where the matter rests today until the 25th of this month when Amy will present her side of the situation.

snoopy
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:46 PM
THANK YOU for the clarification!!! This makes more sense to me. :) So does that mean she was infact found quilty of abuse (as per the DQ and the appeals commitee) and as such the finding warrents extra penalties?

gr8fulrider
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:56 PM
does anyone remember the idea of "innocent until proven guilty?" i know we are not talking us civil courts here, but it seems on this forum the principle has not only been forgotten, but put in the garbage can and burned.

those with real inside information tend to keep it quiet as they are given trusted info, rather than gossip. they also respect the sensitivity of the subject for all those involved, including bnr's for or against any stance.

It is true that we are innocent until proven guilty, but our rights can be suspended. People accused but not yet convicted can be held in custody, placed under house arrest, required to post a bond, or forbidden to leave the state. One might languish in jail for a year only to be acquitted at the end of a trial. Suspending a rider during an investigation is completely consistent with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The FEI and USEA have the right to suspend her.

I watched the video and it disturbed me greatly.

For whatever reason, however, the owners of her other mounts-- all valuable animals that I'm sure other great riders would love an opportunity to ride -- want her to ride them at big events even during this investigation. Perhaps they know more than we do, and if they don't, what do you recommend that the FEI and USEA do about owners who place their horses in the control of a person suspected of abuse?

It's all very messy and sad. No good answers.

JAM
Jun. 12, 2007, 08:57 PM
I agree with you 100% on the OP in the 3 hits thread. She (I'm assuming she was a she) came off as a spoiled brat who more or less deserved the flaming she got for her attitude if nothing else.

I was not thinking of her situation specifically, but some of the other ones that other posters described, where the abuse, if there was any, was far more borderline (in my view), but lower level riders were nevertheless subject to some sort of sanction (elimination, public flogging by the TD). True, these people were not suspended from further competition (so far as I know), but the reaction of the officials to their situations and explanations was a brusque "I don't want to hear about it" rather than the bending over backwards we seem to have here (even despite the dramatic differences in end results between the situations described in the other thread and what, tragically, happened at Rolex).

arnika
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:04 PM
Medals and money talk.

JAM
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:07 PM
PS -- thank you, Canterlope, for that extremely lucid explanation of where we are in the process. My own view is that this further takes the wind out of the sails of the innocent until proven guilty argument, since the appeals committee presumably had the rider's statement in hand (which, IIRC, was made the day after the events in question) when it agreed with the GJ that further penalty, above and beyond DQ, was necessary. But that is just my interpretation.

JSwan
Jun. 12, 2007, 09:15 PM
Yeah - there are a lot of discrepancies, that's for sure. And it's not like we can have a conclave every time someone does something funky.

I sure don't have any answers. And for the upper levels of the sport - geez - I don't even know that I have the right to really offer up an idea. That usually doesn't stop me for spouting off..... but......

for Westlaw - sorry but I do have to disagree with this:

It is true that we are innocent until proven guilty, but our rights can be suspended. People accused but not yet convicted can be held in custody, placed under house arrest, required to post a bond, or forbidden to leave the state. One might languish in jail for a year only to be acquitted at the end of a trial. Suspending a rider during an investigation is completely consistent with the principle of "innocent until proven guilty." The FEI and USEA have the right to suspend her.

I don't think it's appropriate to equate a sports governing body hearing with the criminal justice system. Denial of bond, travel restrictions - those are used in criminal cases in which the offense is violent and premeditated, or the suspect poses a flight risk.

Amy Tryon's "case" is purely an administrative matter - not a criminal one. The FEI/USEF has no authority to deprive her of any constitutional right - she is not a suspect in a criminal trial.

Though this incident does remind me of another kind of trial; the Salem Witch Trials. At the core - an incident witnessed by people who dispute or distort the details and facts- with layers upon layers of intrigue, whispers, politics, and of course - lots of lawyers!

flutie1
Jun. 12, 2007, 10:06 PM
"... Also, I do wonder if everyone who is so vehement about the innocent until proven guilty principle would defend it so staunchly if a BN, N, T, or even P competitor had done the same or a remotely similar thing and then denied having done anything wrong."

Damn straight I would. It's the principle I'm defending, not the person. As I said, I don't care to share my opinioin on the matter with the world, but I do believe in the innocent until proven otherwise principle.

Picasso
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:11 PM
or even expressing an opinion on Amy Tryon, but I would like to point out Major league athletes are all members of a union which throws THEIR infraction investigations into a whole 'nother ballgame (pardon the pun), so its not really apples to apples.

LLDM
Jun. 12, 2007, 11:25 PM
Under USEF rules, a competitor can be suspended pending an investigation. But, it seems that the USEF has decided to abdicate to the FEI and chosen not to exercise this option. Technically the USEF is saying (de facto) that she is under FEI jurisdiction, so they will not act until the FEI does.

This is a gray area in my mind. Rolex was a USEF sanctioned event. The USEF could suspend her under their own rules, under which she is bound as a member and competitor. This is where I think RAYers and JER are upset. If it were anyone else, we would likely be out on our butts until they got around to a hearing. It's the double standard that bites - and part of why folks are so angry.

While none of that is Amy's fault, it's the apparent strategies that gets under peoples' skin. The perception that the Team people are all running around trying to get her qualified for 2008 Beijing quick so she is good to go if she gets a year suspension. The idea that the consequences are already being worked around, Paris Hilton style. That it's all a plot to keep our "star" off the Team for 2008 by the rest of the world and not a real, "hey, you screwed up and maybe need some time to sort out your priorities" punishment because you made a huge mistake and need to learn a real lesson here.

What rankles so badly is all this energy and effort to protect Amy and none to protect the sport, or teach the lesson Samurai should teach us - to protect the horse first, err on the side of caution and not put winning or finishing or anything else first. It's called horsemanship, an old fashioned concept these days.

I don't know what the upper level riders think, nor the powers-that-be who are managing this mess. But it really makes me think very poorly of them. They say nothing and do things which appear to me as if they just don't get it. Makes me miss the USET - at least them I would have some more distance from them. If this is all so uncomfortable for people to talk openly about - well, then it obviously really needs the discussion. There are lines and gray areas and principles involved. So I guess we should all just be quiet, lest we actually learn something worthwhile. :rolleyes:

SCFarm

2LaZ2race
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:00 AM
You people are all FU*!%$^*#D UP. Go do something useful, like sweep your barn or ride your horse.... if you have one other than the armchair that you are currently riding.
Everyone is an expert. Arent they?

I'm so embarrassed for you right now. I hope Kinetic Technologies doesn't know you talk to potential clients like that (considering we're all lowly armchair riders that need your expert instruction).

As for the real point of this post... I'm not saying its right, but one could consider that if AT didn't continue riding it might be admitting guilt, or have people think she was questioning her own abilities (as many people on this board have already done.) I'm glad i'm not in her boots.

fergie
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:07 AM
You spelled FU#&ed wrong...

Baaahaaahaaaa!!!! I just fell off my FU#&ing chair laughing.....!!!

JAM
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:32 AM
See Janet's earlier post. This is not an appeal.

It's like when someone gets thrown out of an NBA game for a really flagrant foul. The league reviews the tape and has a meeting about it to decide if the player will be suspended for further games, if a fine will be assessed, etc.

The referee only has jurisdiction over that game, just like the ground jury only has jurisdiction over that event. The governing body has to decide if futher punishment is warranted.

And, again, can we please just not rehash the AT incident yet again on yet another thread? No one has anything new to say about it. It's all been said. No one is going to change their minds. Save your breath.

Erin -- this is basically my point. I was responding to the "innocent until proven guilty" point and, in the example you posit, which seems apt, no one questions that a "flagrant foul" occurred or asserts that the player is "innocent"; the question is the penalty. What concerns me here is that a ground jury DQed her for horse abuse -- a violation of what the USEA, at least, says is its foremost guiding principle of welfare of the horse -- and said that even more penalty is warranted, and an appeal committee agreed, yet there seems to be an effort to argue that the U.S. governing bodies are not entitled to take any action of their own because of some presumption of innocence and that, indeed, the governing bodies should refrain from any action of their own because doing so might interfere with her "right" to compete internationally, make money from teaching lessons, and the like. It just doesn't sit well with me. And it's not personal to the rider, but recognizing all the circumstances of the event in question and the reaction or lack of reaction is fundamental to understanding why people are so agitated about this and why that agitation has not died down.

On that score, I agree that most of what people, including me, are saying now has already been said, but the fact that people are still talking about it so vibrantly says something in itself, and this discussion, with one noticeable exception on the part of a ULR, seems pretty civilized and intelligent -- much more so than the threads in the immediate aftermath and the threads on Horse and Hound.

LLDM -- your post was spot on, in my view.

Flutie -- I take you at your word and congratulate you for your evenhandedness. It's good to know that some officials don't blindly accept hearsay accusations against lower level riders and punish them without according them a presumption of innocence and affording them a proverbial day in court. I wish all event officials were that way.

JER
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:43 AM
I just swept my barn and rode my horse, as a previous poster suggested. Now I'm back and looking for that darn armchair.

Janet
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:33 AM
See Janet's earlier post. This is not an appeal.


Please read the following link to the FEI statement


http://www.useventing.com/competitions.php?section=rk3de&id=900


I believe in the second paragraph there is reference to the matter being heard by the appeal committee...If this is infact NOT an appeal could someone explain something to me?
THAT referred to the Appeal Commitee AT THE EVENT.

The Appeal Commitee (at the event) made the decision to refer the incident to the FEI Secretary General (for referral to the FEI Judicial Committee).

THAT review (by the FEI Judicial Committee) is what is now going on. The Appeal Committee (specific to the Rolex event) is no longer involved at all.

Janet
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:39 AM
THANK YOU for the clarification!!! This makes more sense to me. :) So does that mean she was infact found quilty of abuse (as per the DQ and the appeals commitee) and as such the finding warrents extra penalties?
At the event she was found guilty of abuse to the extent that it justified DQ from that event.

It has not yet been determined if she is (or is not) guilty of abuse to the extent of justifying additional penalties. THAT determination is what is still being assessed.

vineyridge
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:47 AM
Under USEF rules, a competitor can be suspended pending an investigation. But, it seems that the USEF has decided to abdicate to the FEI and chosen not to exercise this option. Technically the USEF is saying (de facto) that she is under FEI jurisdiction, so they will not act until the FEI does.

This is a gray area in my mind. Rolex was a USEF sanctioned event. The USEF could suspend her under their own rules, under which she is bound as a member and competitor. This is where I think RAYers and JER are upset. If it were anyone else, we would likely be out on our butts until they got around to a hearing. It's the double standard that bites - and part of why folks are so angry.

While none of that is Amy's fault, it's the apparent strategies that gets under peoples' skin. The perception that the Team people are all running around trying to get her qualified for 2008 Beijing quick so she is good to go if she gets a year suspension. The idea that the consequences are already being worked around, Paris Hilton style. That it's all a plot to keep our "star" off the Team for 2008 by the rest of the world and not a real, "hey, you screwed up and maybe need some time to sort out your priorities" punishment because you made a huge mistake and need to learn a real lesson here.

What rankles so badly is all this energy and effort to protect Amy and none to protect the sport, or teach the lesson Samurai should teach us - to protect the horse first, err on the side of caution and not put winning or finishing or anything else first. It's called horsemanship, an old fashioned concept these days.

I don't know what the upper level riders think, nor the powers-that-be who are managing this mess. But it really makes me think very poorly of them. They say nothing and do things which appear to me as if they just don't get it. Makes me miss the USET - at least them I would have some more distance from them. If this is all so uncomfortable for people to talk openly about - well, then it obviously really needs the discussion. There are lines and gray areas and principles involved. So I guess we should all just be quiet, lest we actually learn something worthwhile. :rolleyes:

SCFarm

Maybe one good thing that might come of all this would be for the USEF to have included in its training of all upper level riders in any discipline a clinic by a jockey like, say, Edgar Prado on how to recognize a breakdown during competition and how to stop. Apparently all jockeys are taught this skill very early on; and they are under similar competitive pressures when a great deal of money is at stake.

A horse broke down at Keeneland in a flat race with an amateur rider at the High Hopes Steeplechase Day. The rider finished the race with the horse on three legs, and then the horse was put down. If he'd been a pro, he'd have been off the horse at once.

Wouldn't hurt for the eventing pros to learn this special skill from the race riders.

SBClancy
Jun. 13, 2007, 04:54 AM
I had my husband (who is definitely non-horsey) watch the video of this. I didn't offer my opinion one way or the other. He noticed something definitely wrong with the horse. He didn't know for sure what it was but that the horse was moving funny and he felt it shouldn't be. After I explained to him what I felt he was watching he said to me wow that poor horse. He wasn't concerned for the rider. He could have cared less that she was a professional and rode at the highest levels of this sport. He cared about the poor horse and the pain he was going through. Regardless of who is riding it boils down to a animal abuse and the right thing for the horse no matter what level the horse is going at. Professional or not, highest level or not, with it being obvious to even a non-horsey person that the horse was definitely in pain and not right tells me how obvious it should have been to the rider. This is a big mark against the sport and will come back to bite in the butt some time in the future especially since it was at the level it was.

PolestarFarm
Jun. 13, 2007, 09:47 AM
After sleeping on this... I have decided that I was &*%!#$ out of line! Sorry for offending the sensibilities of everyone.
I guess I realize that there are going to be mean-hearted people out there who are more than happy to use AT as a human punching bag. It bothers me that we all can forget that we are talking about a human being with feelings out there. I let that emotion in me type that post.
Thank you JSwan for bringing the subject back to more interesting things.

RAyers
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:04 AM
After sleeping on this... I have decided that I was &*%!#$ out of line! Sorry for offending the sensibilities of everyone.
I guess I realize that there are going to be mean-hearted people out there who are more than happy to use AT as a human punching bag. It bothers me that we all can forget that we are talking about a human being with feelings out there. I let that emotion in me type that post.
Thank you JSwan for bringing the subject back to more interesting things.


Mieka,

THIS IS NOT SCHEDENFREUDE.

What you as well as AT and anybody must realize is that this incident points out deficiencies in the system, just like the recent Paris Hilton fiasco. I am not here to crucify AT but to point out the failures of the system as well as the hypocrisy of the FEI and USEF when they say the horse's well being is paramount but choose to turn a blind eye when certain names are involved. It has nothing to do specifically with AT but with her situation. It just so happened AT is the point incident here. I would be saying the same thing if it was Joe Bob Frank from Eastern Bumblefu#$ (I think that is how you spelled it). ;)

Read LLDM's post. She said very clearly what a majority of riders feel about what is going on.

It is good and honorable that you defend your friend but you and AT have chosen to live in the Eventing limelight so you must also be willing to accept the responsibilities and repercussions of you decisions, good and bad, as well as always being second guessed by those outside of your circle just like politicians and movie stars. Becasue of your position, your choices are subject to public scrutiny and it will not be any better as the sport changes. Take this as a lesson in business professionalism which seems to be lacking at all levels and disciplines in the horse world (see the h/j and dressage forums for examples).

Reed

Whistlejacket
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:05 AM
LLDM - Thanks for your well-written, fact-based, and thoughtful posts (both on this thread and others related to this topic).

So if eventing, as Denny said, is what we make it, what are some of the bigger picture lessons to be learned from this incident?

Here's one...

In most industries, professions, etc., if an incident arises, after the specific incident has been addressed, all relevant protocols are reviewed and if necessary, improved upon so next time an incident arises the protocol that is in place to address it will be better. In my experience in "the real world", this is "standard operating procedure".

So how does this apply to the situation in hand? The "incident" being the AT and Le Samurai situation. The protocol in question being how to handle the issue of suspension during the timeframe for the FEI review.

There seems to be a gap in the protocol of whether or not it is appropriate to suspend the rider (or other horse professional) found quilty of a serious infraction at an event during the timeframe that it takes for the matter to be reviewed and ruled upon by the FEI.

So, as in most industries, after the AT incident has been addressed, then the protocol regarding suspending a rider during this interim period should be scrutinized and improved upon. So if this type of situation should arise again, the protocol in place to handle it will be better.

As has been discussed by multiple posters, there are both analogies and flaws in comparisons to what is done in criminal law, the NBA, NFL, etc. With that being the case, why doesn't the FEI. USEF, etc. use this incident to come up with a protocol regarding this suspension issue that is specific for and applicable to horse sports.

Maybe that is one action that will come out of this situation that will make eventing what we want it to be.

Ja Da Dee
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:10 AM
I think there is a big difference between doping a horse, or intentionally injuring them and making a really really bad decision on XC. I doubt the incident will be repeated, and I personally don't have any issues with her continuing to ride while this is being discussed at the FEI level. I'm fairly sure if she had a habit of this type of behavior, the USEF's stand regarding suspending her would be different.

fergie
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:25 AM
I I doubt the incident will be repeated, and I personally don't have any issues with her continuing to ride while this is being discussed at the FEI level. I'm fairly sure if she had a habit of this type of behavior, the USEF's stand regarding suspending her would be different.

Oh really? Why don't you ask Poggio who competed on the West coast the weekend before he flew over to do Jersey Fresh? Like that horse has anything left to prove to anyone..... The biggest focus on that horse should be on how to keep him sound - we all know he is a capable, successful Olympic athlete!
Her thinking doesn't seem to have changed since L.S. - me,me,me,me....all about me.....

moonriverfarm
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:34 AM
Anyone with any question as to whether Amy had ample time to know the horse was lame needs only to watch the Rolex video available from the people who filmed it for the network. Be sure to get the unedited version, and be prepared. It is not pretty.
I was not there, I was not on Le ASamurai, i am not Amy BUT I agree with fergie - from what you can see in the video, Amy was thinking about making her ride, and hoping she was wrong about the crumbling horse she was pushing ahead on. I am FAR from being a pro, far from brave enough to do even a *, but I know when the horse I am on takes a bad step vs. the horse I am on has come up crippled.
It will be very interesting to hear the outcome of the investigation, and to find out of Amy will be the Paris Hilton of the horse world.
Flame suit zipped.

Badger
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:35 AM
I'm curious, can anyone confirm the following comment by Tim Holecamp (made 5/25/07) on the military horse thread?

"in GB and Europe the public outcry is so loud she was privately asked by the organizers of the next big CCI (Luhmuehlen,in Germany in two weeks) not to come, so she withdrew"

Gnep
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:36 AM
Reed maade the right point. AT was already found guilty by the FEI and DQed after a investigation at the Rolex.

Riding a tired and or lame horse.

That should be good enough for our governing bodies to sanction her. By atempting to hide behind the FEI they are not doing our sport any service opposit they are doing our sport a diservice.

Besides riding an injured horse she comited one more serious rule brake and a very serious failure as a horseperson, she used the wip after the jump ( Normandi Bank and others ) to force a very tired horse to go on.

Since this happened at the showcase Event of the sport in this country and was on TV and she is a Medal Winner for this country and somebody who represents our sport our governing bodies should have reacted instantly to make a statement to everybody, that her actions are not tolerated and are not an example how we treat our horses during competition.

Ja Da Dee
Jun. 13, 2007, 10:50 AM
Oh really? Why don't you ask Poggio who competed on the West coast the weekend before he flew over to do Jersey Fresh? Like that horse has anything left to prove to anyone..... The biggest focus on that horse should be on how to keep him sound - we all know he is a capable, successful Olympic athlete!
Her thinking doesn't seem to have changed since L.S. - me,me,me,me....all about me.....

From what I heard, Poggio looked great at Jersey Fresh, and she wasn't pushing him to make time. I could be incorrect since I wasn't there though. Also, wasn't this a manditory outing? I am surprised that she and Poggio weren't excused from riding in it.

fergie
Jun. 13, 2007, 11:08 AM
From what I heard, Poggio looked great at Jersey Fresh, and she wasn't pushing him to make time. I could be incorrect since I wasn't there though. Also, wasn't this a manditory outing? I am surprised that she and Poggio weren't excused from riding in it.

I am not saying that he didn't ..... thank goodness. It's just a lot on horse, especially one who has a proven record, is not a spring chicken, and why take the chance, especially when you've had such bad publicity???? (me, me, me, me!) SO WHAT if it was a mandatory outing - put the horse's well-being before your desires!!!!!

GotSpots
Jun. 13, 2007, 11:09 AM
Generally, I'd like to think I have faith at least in the process, and look forward to seeing its resolution before I could comment on the fairness or appropriateness thereof. I have no complaint about withholding judgment until after the FEI concludes its investigation, and think the USEF and USEA have shown appropriate restraint in the interim. I'd far rather a thoughtful, careful consideration of the issues, than a jump-to-conclusions result.

That being said, I confess that while I have no knowledge of the horse's connections, abilities, and readiness, and I very much hope that they were utmost in his connections' minds, I was personally surprised and disappointed by the decision to run Poggio XC at Woodside and then ship across the country in order to run at Jersey Fresh. I understand that statements have been made that this was necessary to ensure that the horse was qualified for Hong Kong, but it seems at the very least in poor taste, and a decision not calculated to fortify a position that this rider places the horse's welfare uppermost. Regardless of actuality, the perception of this decision appears to be negative, and given the surrounding drama and interest, not advancing Ms. Tryon's case.

pwynnnorman
Jun. 13, 2007, 11:48 AM
...perception that the Team people are all running around trying to get her qualified for 2008 Beijing quick so she is good to go if she gets a year suspension.

But what difference does that make, really? And what about Poggio? I have to tell you, that’s one horse I’d really like to see have a shot at a gold medal. I mean, this whole thing makes me want to jump up and yell, “But what about the horse and the sport here?” Does the rest really matter? She’ll get punished, we know that. She didn’t do it on purpose. We know that, too. Upper level riders get preferential treatment. Yup, another fact we already know. USEF handled and is handling the PR badly. So what else is new? Eventually, the horses and the sport WILL be protected. Is there any evidence that shows that WON’T happen? Of course not. We know that, too.

Y'know, this is where the bad PR comes in. All AT's camp or the USEF has to say is "We want to give Poggio his chance at greatness" and everyone would probably understand how AT has proceeded. Shipping Poggio had everything to do with qualifying him for the Olympics--it was maybe a little tough on him (but how do we know how he ships? I have a filly who LOVES to travel, no matter how far--and she's travelled a lot). If that is what was necessary to insure he has a chance at his gold medal, WHY NOT??? Isn't that why we love the sport? For horses like him?

Can we try to remember that that medal won’t just be Amy's--it'll also be Poggio's and it will be OURS, too. I know the horse doesn’t care, but I do because I love American Thoroughbreds and OUR sport! I’d like to see Poggio go for the gold, whatever it takes (as long as he isn't harmed, of course!) I just don’t care about Amy personally. I don’t know her and, for me, the sport is about the horses.


Oh really? Why don't you ask Poggio who competed on the West coast the weekend before he flew over to do Jersey Fresh? Like that horse has anything left to prove to anyone..... The biggest focus on that horse should be on how to keep him sound - we all know he is a capable, successful Olympic athlete! Her thinking doesn't seem to have changed since L.S. - me,me,me,me....all about me...

Fergie! I think that is short-sighted of you. Not only did AT run him very slow and careful at both events, but have you ever thought that maybe what she’s doing is trying to give him HIS chance, without causing him harm.

This gets back to what I keep thinking about: the horse—in terms of the sport and the horse’s place in it. No, no, I’m not saying ignore the other poor horse who suffered. But I am saying that this is a sport that WE love—including, presumably, Amy. Ever think about what she and her supporters may think about POGGIO and his chances for greatness? How much they may have planned and hoped and sacrificed to show the world his incredible talent.

THAT I can feel for. I don’t know what Amy has set up as a back up for herself, but I do know that we who adore Teddy and think he’s great for the sport and just a marvelous phenomena to show the world have planned concrete plans to keep him going, even if something happens to Karen.

Which is, again, why I ask: Why does it matter when Amy will be punished or that she is still riding? Why destroy a horse’s avenue to greatness for no reason, folks? It doesn't matter WHEN Amy gets her due, DOES IT...really???

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:35 PM
I mentioned this on the other thread, per a Chronicle article.

Poggio had only run one other HT this spring, and none in the fall, for the express purpose of saving him. At Woodiside he had voluminous time penalties, so she didnt' exactly run his legs off. At Jersey, she had 20 plus (just under the maximum allowed to recieve a qualifying score) time penalties. She finished in the teens.

I guess I don't see how this was "about her personal glory". I understand there are people who don't want her to be qualified for anything, or get to go to Beijing, but until she is prevented from doing so, it's her job to do so--and frankly I think she went about in a way that was all about saving the horse.

I find it especially confusing to read this when there was a horse at Jersey Fresh who had run Advanced HT and CIC's since January, completed kentucky, WON (so ran for time) the CIC** at Virginia, and then did all the phases of the mandatory outing. How is that about "saving the horse"? Where s the moral indignation on that horse's behalf?

What's good, or bad for the goose, should be good, or bad, for the gander.

pwynnnorman
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:39 PM
I find it especially confusing to read this when there was a horse at Jersey Fresh who had run Advanced HT and CIC's since January, completed kentucky, WON (so ran for time) the CIC** at Virginia, and then did all the phases of the mandatory outing. How is that about "saving the horse"? Where s the moral indignation on that horse's behalf?

What's good, or bad for the goose, should be good, or bad, for the gander.

Gooooood point, Phoenix!

LLDM
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:55 PM
Pwynn - Looks like you are going with the argument that qualifying Poggio is "for the good of the sport" and so are medals, for that matter. So, from that angle, the argument goes on to "the more medals we win, the more hero horses we have, the more people join and support the sport and the horses in the sport", right?

But doesn't this incident and the strong reaction to it argue just the opposite? That many people care less about medals than the horses themselves?

Yes, the elite of the sport get special treatment - to a point - the limits of which we have just hit square. The limit is hurting one's horse (albeit out where that can be seen by anyone) and NOT doing anything to stop that pain immediately or just hoping it can be fixed later.

All of this effort to keep eventing in the Olympics will be for naught if the upper levels and powers that be keep alienating their base of support (except maybe the well-heeled). The merger (AHSA and USET) was driven by the idea that Olympic level sports must represent the whole sport for the grass roots to the top. The USEF is failing to do so in this case and others. This is a bloody MESS.

Amy was so popular because she was "one of us" - not wealthy, made up her own OTTB and made it to the top. But, not so much any more. She looks just like the rest of the elite. Forgetting one's roots is a risky move. (Be nice to those on the way up, as you will see them again on your way back down.) So she seems to be listening to them instead of using her own good(?) judgement. And quite frankly, I don't get what any of them are thinking any more. They are harming the sport and our reputation in the international eventing community - at least from what I hear, read and see.

Teddy is so popular (and you too) because you're NOT one of them. Yet. ;) But, the better one does, the closer one gets to the top, the more political one has to be to survive there. And it seems that our politicos are isolating themselves more and more and more. Let's see how that works our for 'em.

SCFarm

Gnep
Jun. 13, 2007, 12:55 PM
Pwynnorman.

This sport should be all about the horse. The horse first the rider a very far behind second.
But it is not about the horse, nobody cares that AT pushed a horse far bejond the point of no return, basicly killed the horse for the glory of a blue ribbon, not the horses blue ribbon but hers.
The denial of defeat handed down by the horse and in instead of steping back, make a moral pause the next one gets online, for the glory of a Olympic Medal.
No Medal, no Team is worth a horse. The horse does not understand the Medal or Glory or what it means to its place, it is just US the human who understand it and because of it forget what this sport is all about.

fergie
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:15 PM
Didn't Poggio already DO an Olympics? Isn't he ALREADY great? Is a life of a horse worth less if he has the ability to do great, grandiose things, yet the rider chooses to just treat him like a pet? Is that a wasted life? And if so, by whose standards? Whose are the "correct" standards? Define "great". Not so simple is it? What IS simple is pulling up and not jumping another fence if your horse feels "off", maybe for no other reason than you already think he is "great" just carrying your ass around an advanced course.....

snoopy
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:20 PM
Didn't Poggio already DO an Olympics? Isn't he ALREADY great? Is a life of a horse worth less if he has the ability to do great, grandiose things, yet the rider chooses to just treat him like a pet? Is that a wasted life? And if so, by whose standards? Whose are the "correct" standards? Define "great". Not so simple is it? What is simple is pulling up and not jumping another fence if your horse feels "off", maybe for no other reason than you already think he is "great" just carrying your ass around an advanced course.....


THANK YOU!!

Janet
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:22 PM
All AT's camp or the USEF has to say is "We want to give Poggio his chance at greatness" and everyone would probably understand how AT has proceeded. You mean Amy's chance, and Poggio's owners' chance, and so on. Poggio doesn't care about his "greatness".


If that is what was necessary to insure he has a chance at his gold medal, WHY NOT???

The question is, for what values of "that" is this a true statement? Certainly not for ALL values.

Ja Da Dee
Jun. 13, 2007, 01:49 PM
But it is not about the horse, nobody cares that AT pushed a horse far bejond the point of no return, basicly killed the horse for the glory of a blue ribbon, not the horses blue ribbon but hers.

not to be a stickler, but could you explain to me how, if she was supposed to know that LS had severely injured himself, she would have been able to complete the Sunday morning jog to win a blue ribbon?

Don't bother answering, it's been hashed out in the pages of those other threads, and no one was able to answer. Either you accept that she knew the severity and made a decision to finish with zero possibilities of winning, or you accept that she didn't understand the severity, and made a bad decision.

InVA
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:04 PM
Didn't Poggio already DO an Olympics? Isn't he ALREADY great? Is a life of a horse worth less if he has the ability to do great, grandiose things, yet the rider chooses to just treat him like a pet? Is that a wasted life? And if so, by whose standards? Whose are the "correct" standards? Define "great". Not so simple is it? What IS simple is pulling up and not jumping another fence if your horse feels "off", maybe for no other reason than you already think he is "great" just carrying your ass around an advanced course.....

I agree! It is like saying "my five year old daughter is BEAUTIFUL..I MUST put her in beauty pageants! "

yikes

Alice
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:04 PM
I love reading your posts.

You seem to be a professional in the horse world that is respected and liked, and manages to stay that way in spite of the fact that you give voice (text?) to your opinions.

But you lost me with your last post. As in stating that Poggio deserves a chance at greatness.

After reading your post, it seems to me (and others obviously) that you are saying it is worth jeopardizing a horse's well-being for the chance to be great.

I would say the horse would not choose to accept un-due risk for the opportunity to compete, even if that were a "very important" event.

arnika
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:07 PM
Ja Da Dee, my own personal belief, that I expressed once on the other thread and will again post once here, is that she wanted to have "withdrawn after completing XC" on LS's and her Rolex record rather than "eliminated XC".

It surely was an almost instantaneous decision to continue, made in the event of looking right there with the last fence staring her in the face. A tough call but unfortunately for the horse, she made the wrong one. This shows extremely bad judgement and "feel" for the unsoundness of the horse. If he had crashed at that last fence and died, or worse, injured or killed Amy in front of the hundreds of thousands watching live it would have been even worse for our sport.

InVA
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:10 PM
No one deserves a chance at Greatness. We musnt' forget that horses would just as soon stand in a field and eat grass... They do what we want because we train them to do it... (basically they think we'll kill them and eat them if they don't..)

I sincerely doubt that any BNR's try to make Olympic Teams because they want their HORSES to have their chance at Greatness....

Sannois
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:12 PM
Mieka,

THIS IS NOT SCHEDENFREUDE.

What you as well as AT and anybody must realize is that this incident points out deficiencies in the system, just like the recent Paris Hilton fiasco. I am not here to crucify AT but to point out the failures of the system as well as the hypocrisy of the FEI and USEF when they say the horse's well being is paramount but choose to turn a blind eye when certain names are involved. It has nothing to do specifically with AT but with her situation. It just so happened AT is the point incident here. I would be saying the same thing if it was Joe Bob Frank from Eastern Bumblefu#$ (I think that is how you spelled it). ;)

Read LLDM's post. She said very clearly what a majority of riders feel about what is going on.

It is good and honorable that you defend your friend but you and AT have chosen to live in the Eventing limelight so you must also be willing to accept the responsibilities and repercussions of you decisions, good and bad, as well as always being second guessed by those outside of your circle just like politicians and movie stars. Becasue of your position, your choices are subject to public scrutiny and it will not be any better as the sport changes. Take this as a lesson in business professionalism which seems to be lacking at all levels and disciplines in the horse world (see the h/j and dressage forums for examples).

Reed
Are you saying polestar is a ULR Yikes I am taken aback. only by their comment that we people are all F@#&*d up.
:eek::eek:
Reed, thankyou for your posts, they are very logical and make alot of sense. :yes:

arnika
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:17 PM
Check out the link at the bottom of her posts.

www.polestarfarm.com (http://www.polestarfarm.com)


by polestar:
I guess I realize that there are going to be mean-hearted people out there who are more than happy to use AT as a human punching bag.

I actually think that I have been pretty restrained, factual and logical in expressing my opinions.

When I was watching her live, I was screaming for her to pull up. I could tell in the first three seconds what had happened to LS and just could not believe my eyes when she continued to ask him to go on and thought she was INSANE when she asked him to jump that last fence. Then to see her push him on to the finish line, get off and never even LOOK at his leg while waiting for everyone to get to her was one of the most callous things I've seen in 48 years. After that experience I've amazed myself with my restraint! But the above comment just broke the camel's back. I think from now on I will post my real feelings.

lstevenson
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:35 PM
No one deserves a chance at Greatness. We musnt' forget that horses would just as soon stand in a field and eat grass... They do what we want because we train them to do it... (basically they think we'll kill them and eat them if they don't..)

I sincerely doubt that any BNR's try to make Olympic Teams because they want their HORSES to have their chance at Greatness....



Actually, I think many of the horses that compete at the top level are smart enough and competitive enough to understand their "Greatness".

I know I have one of them. My (now retired) Advanced horse would rather be running Advanced x-c, and showing everyone how great he is, than be standing out in a field eating grass. I know that FOR SURE, as he has been very unhappy since he was retired. Even from the time I started him Eventing as a 4 yo, he LIVED to compete and jump x-c. And when he got to the top levels, with the crowds cheering him on during x-c, he absolutely understood his greatness.

So you can count me in as a rider who wanted to "try to make Olympic Teams because they want their HORSES to have their chance at Greatness"

Some horses, just like some people, are not happy unless they have a larger purpose to their life.

So I understand and agree with Pwynn's point on not punishing Poggio for Amy's mistake.

InVA
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:38 PM
Actually, I think many of the horses that compete at the top level are smart enough and competitive enough to understand their "Greatness".

I know I have one of them. My (now retired) Advanced horse would rather be running Advanced x-c, and showing everyone how great he is, than be standing out in a field eating grass. I know that FOR SURE, as he has been very unhappy since he was retired. Even from the time I started him Eventing as a 4 yo, he LIVED to compete and jump x-c. And when he got to the top levels, with the crowds cheering him on during x-c, he absolutely understood his greatness.

So you can count me in as a rider who wanted to "try to make Olympic Teams because they want their HORSES to have their chance at Greatness"

Some horses, just like some people, are not happy unless they have a larger purpose to their life.


That's nice that you feel that way. But even my prelim horse gets grouchy when I'm not paying much attention to him... I believe that to be because the ROUTINE I created for him, and that he had gotten used to, has been disrupted.. Not because he wanted to be at the VA horse trials instead of out in the field...

Speedy
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:44 PM
They do what we want because we train them to do it... (basically they think we'll kill them and eat them if they don't..)

OK, I am not commenting specifically on AT here - but just in general on this remark. The 4 star horses in our barn do NOT do what they do simply because they are well trained, or afraid of the consequences if they don't perform to expectations. They do it because they want to do it. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make or even encourage a horse to go at that level...they either love it, or not...they either have the athleticism and courage to do it, or they don't. The training and ride is obviously relevant and may make or break the horse's career, but it isn't happening at that level on the overly simplistic reasons given above.

lstevenson
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:53 PM
That's nice that you feel that way. But even my prelim horse gets grouchy when I'm not paying much attention to him... I believe that to be because the ROUTINE I created for him, and that he had gotten used to, has been disrupted.. Not because he wanted to be at the VA horse trials instead of out in the field...



Then your horse is different than mine and a few other top Eventers that I have known. My horse has been retired to living out in a field eating grass for close to 3 years (so that is now his ROUTINE), and is still pining for his competitions and x-c jumping. Even though he is quite lame, he jumps everything in the arena when turned loose in it, and he gets upset when we leave for events without him.

Janet
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:53 PM
But I don't think the horse knows the difference between the regular Fair Hill CCI *** and the Fair Hill Pan Am CCI ***.

snoopy
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:54 PM
well 4 star horses need no rider....just wind them up, smack their bottoms and send them out on course...if they love it so much I am sure they will keep a steady pace, look for the jumps...and of course decide if they should take the easier or hard route and just maybe, when they cross the finish line, take a bow.


Horses do this because we ask them too, we train them to be obedient to our wishes....my horses have yet to say to me in the morning...hey snoops take the day off we will be happy to school ourselves!!

InVA
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:54 PM
Then your horse is different than mine and a few other top Eventers that I have known. My horse has been retired to living out in a field eating grass for close to 3 years (so that is now his ROUTINE), and is still pining for his competitions and x-c jumping. Even though he is quite lame, he jumps everything in the arena when turned loose in it, and he gets upset when we leave for events without him.

Ah yes.. but are the jumps numbered? and does he jump them in order?

(just kidding.)

Janet
Jun. 13, 2007, 02:57 PM
Then your horse is different than mine and a few other top Eventers that I have known. My horse has been retired to living out in a field eating grass for close to 3 years (so that is now his ROUTINE), and is still pining for his competitions and x-c jumping. Even though he is quite lame, he jumps everything in the arena when turned loose in it, and he gets upset when we leave for events without him.
Somewhat OT. My sister Gillian said that you had a horse that had a DDFT problem. Is it that one? Belle is facing a possible DDFT diagnosis (going in for the MRI next week). If that IS what she has, I would like to talk to you about your experience- what you tried and didn't and why.

Thanks

moonriverfarm
Jun. 13, 2007, 03:20 PM
The "glory" in eventing, show jumping, dressage, etc is FOR THE HUMAN, not the horse. for crying out loud, all the horse REALLY wants is food and a little freedom. Not one horse in this world "knows" he won a blue, a first, a good score. So saying someone is pushing for the next three or four star or show jumping across the globe is ALL...FOR...THE...HUMAN'S...GLORY. The horse could not care less. Don't patronize us by trying to sell us on it being anything else. The horse is there for us to use, abuse, push, love, coddle, or simply look at. We make the decisions and often they are terribly wrong.

flyingchange
Jun. 13, 2007, 03:34 PM
So if the goal is Olympic medals, it's OK to throw horsemanship by the wayside? That is sad.

:no:

fergie
Jun. 13, 2007, 05:02 PM
So if the goal is Olympic medals, it's OK to throw horsemanship by the wayside? That is sad.

:no:

No, it's never O.K., and that is the point that all prohorses vs. prohumans here are trying to say.

pwynnnorman
Jun. 13, 2007, 05:41 PM
Whoa, people! Some of you are putting words in my mouth that I didn't say, while others are ignoring what I did say--and still others seem to have the time frame of this all mixed up.

Remember my central question? What does it (the TIMING OF THE PENALTY) matter? I didn't say she shouldn't be penalized, but short of her being ruled off FOR LIFE--and somehow I doubt they'll do that--she's going to compete again...

So, given that she will compete again, what difference does it make when she will NOT be allowed to compete? Is it worth ruining (or lessening) the wonderful story of Poggio, a story that may bring more to the sport--including more sponsorship for events like AEC and programs like the Young Horse Program? That's a legitimate question, I think. Is punishing Amy worth the loss of Poggio? (AGAIN, assuming that, regardless, she will get punished--the question is "when and for how long.")

No where did I condone what Amy did, right? So please don't insinuate that I would have a horse abused for the sake of a medal. That's irrational in today's world--and that's not what Amy did, not when she made her big mistake with LS or when she shipped Poggio to run at JF.

I also very, very clearly wrote that I KNEW the horse didn't care--but selective perception is definitely the name of the game here, isn't it? What was it? Three posts harped about the horse not caring? Yeah, I SAID that, but it didn't get past your screens. And in a similar way, ya think maybe some selective rationality is being exhibited here, too? AT isn't going to abuse Poggio. AT didn't go out on the course at Rolex intending to abuse Le Samauri. Y'know, in a way, the reaction of some is kinda like AT is the equine equivalent of a pedophile: if you abuse a horse once, you're gonna do it again, for sure.

But you must recognize that's hardly the case. Poggio is not at risk by being ridden by Amy...and I'm sure that none of the owners of other horses which Amy rides think that way. Why would they? That's what's irrational, IMO, about some of the arguments being made here. AT should be punished for the mistake she make in Rolex--in the past now. But to project that mistake into the future as though horses have to be saved from her brutal hands? Well, that just doesn't make sense to me.

Of course, I suppose there's a possibility that she could get ruled off for life...but, wowser, that's be a bit extreme, surely. I think the real BIG question is, if she gets suspended, will that disqualify her--regardless of whether at the time she or Poggio are qualified--from a spot on the team? I think THAT is worth debating. Should her punishment be that she can't compete on a team for...what? Life? Nah, too extreme. 2008? Well, that'd sure have meaning, and I suppose USEF, if not FEI, could do that. Sad for Poggio and the thrills he brings to those who get to see him go, but it's an interesting issue.

RAyers
Jun. 13, 2007, 05:56 PM
Remember my central question? What does it (the TIMING OF THE PENALTY) matter? I didn't say she shouldn't be penalized, but short of her being ruled off FOR LIFE--and somehow I doubt they'll do that--she's going to compete again...

So, given that she will compete again, what difference does it make when she will NOT be allowed to compete? Is it worth ruining (or lessening) the wonderful story of Poggio, a story that may bring more to the sport--including more sponsorship for events like AEC and programs like the Young Horse Program? That's a legitimate question, I think. Is punishing Amy worth the loss of Poggio? (AGAIN, assuming that, regardless, she will get punished--the question is "when and for how long.")



Here is an interesting tibit fact. Some folks in the UK have submitted a petition of over 600 names to the the FEI to get AT banned for a minimum of 5 years. A recent poll on the Horse and Hound forums returned a 97% response for a significant punishment and they are pushing the FEI.


Now to comment on your post, pwynn,

My feeling is that in this age of short format I bet we will no longer see the long staying horses such as Dan or Poggio II. See the latest article by Jimmy Wofford in Practical Horseman. With this said, "wonderful" stories may no longer mean much. There will be so much churn of upper level horses and riders (or there will only be a few ULRs and they will ride all of the horses) that a horse may last a few years at the top and fade so that we will actually never get a chance to know the "story."

Anyway, besides the uniqueness of Teddy, how much does the horse count in getting sponsorships? We get sponsors by showing demographic data for the type of horse crowd. We show incomes and spending analysis. The sponsor wants that. Yes, a good story could increase the crowd and get those involved with the sport interested but it does little for getting sponsors.

The "creating horse heros" was another idea used to justify the need for short format when it was proposed. I just don't see it working because now the horses do more events so do not last as long at the top since conditioning is still just as hard. Only super special horse stories such as Teddy will survive. The story of a horse wiht heart winning Rolex 4 times is gone with the wind.

Reed

canyonoak
Jun. 13, 2007, 06:03 PM
It must be wonderful to have so much collective wisdom at one's fingertips, such learned responses.

Comparing Amy's situation to that of Edward Prado/Barbaro.
Comparing Amy's situation to any of your own.
Comparing Amy's situation to anyone else's that you care to drag in for personal purpose and perception.

You know what's amazing?

That when I type out the words, "I am on Amy's side in this dreadful and tragic event"...there are an enormous number of people who IMMEDIATELY come to decisive judgment.

Yes.
Just that sentence, that handul of words. Eleven words. And the reaction is so visceral, so knee-jerk, so unconscious as to make me tremble, make me spin, because I can feel it from here..

I could spell out WHY I am on Amy's side in all this...but I don't think there is any point.

Has there ever been a thread about anything emotionally involving horses that has ever changed one mind?


.......?


that's what I thought.

may all you love and hold dear remain healthy and happy.

cheers,

LLDM
Jun. 13, 2007, 06:26 PM
Pwynn - Okay, so I AM confused about what you are saying. Are you positing that they are trying to qualify Poggio so that He can go to Beijing even if Amy can't???

I guess I didn't pick up on that - for several reasons. First, I always "heard" that no one else could/would/should ride him, as he was, um, er, a rather interesting ride. Second, if there were another rider for him wouldn't they A) have to qualify together and B) have time to do so if AT was to be on "vacation"?

Also, I've heard this concept of "let's make heroes/stars out of our upper level horses" talk before. I kind of thought it was a bunch of crap then too. For those who care to pay attention, many of these horses are already stars. It just smacked of self-serving hooey to me. I honestly think these people are really out of touch. Most people don't care. The rest are either here, upset at the goings on, or home writing checks already.

IMO Poggio owes us nothing and is already a star. To say that she wouldn't harm him is a non sequiter. It's what anyone would have said about Samurai too. Since no one here knows what happened, how can anyone know it won't happen again? Not to say she meant him harm - I don't think she did. But something went very wrong, no?

You either know a whole lot more than we do, or you are making some big assumptions. I have little faith that US eventing is going to somehow be made whole after the FEI rules - no matter what they say/do/conclude. I seriously doubt the USEF is going to step up and address the issue - I really have no faith in them right now. Hopefully, I will be proved wrong.

As was said by someone on the military horse site, pilots who have accidents with fatalities are grounded until they are deemed fit to return to their duties. Timing does matter. When one is piloting a horse around at its mental and physical limits, one's judgment, mental and physical abilities must (should) be at their best. When they are not is when bad things happen. Intentional or not. And I don't think anyone knows what AT's state of mind is right now. Nor is anyone asking. The post mortum on Samurai's accident has yet to be completed. Why is erring on the side of caution such a unknown concept these days????

SCFarm

LLDM
Jun. 13, 2007, 06:37 PM
I could spell out WHY I am on Amy's side in all this...

You could. But you seem to have your mind made up just as much as anyone else here. So you're just going for the insult?

Personally, I am not sure "the sides" are all that clear. But if you have one, why not spell it out if you feel so strongly. More people read than write here, who knows whose mind you will change?

One thing I have failed to do, but tried - is to separate the act from the person. Try as I might, I just haven't figured out how.

SCFarm

arnika
Jun. 13, 2007, 06:44 PM
by canyonoak:

It must be wonderful to have so much collective wisdom at one's fingertips, such learned responses.

Comparing Amy's situation to that of Edward Prado/Barbaro.
Comparing Amy's situation to any of your own.
Comparing Amy's situation to anyone else's that you care to drag in for personal purpose and perception.

You know what's amazing?

That when I type out the words, "I am on Amy's side in this dreadful and tragic event"...there are an enormous number of people who IMMEDIATELY come to decisive judgment.

Yes.
Just that sentence, that handul of words. Eleven words. And the reaction is so visceral, so knee-jerk, so unconscious as to make me tremble, make me spin, because I can feel it from here..

I could spell out WHY I am on Amy's side in all this...but I don't think there is any point.

Has there ever been a thread about anything emotionally involving horses that has ever changed one mind?

canyonoak, I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't feel badly towards you or anyone else that is in support of Amy. Everyone has the right to their opinions. Although I have to admit, I don't like being called mean-hearted. I don't make my statements to change anyone's mind, just to give my own thoughts. So feel that wave of antipathy lessen a little bit. I, for one would be interested in why you are in support of Amy's actions. Perhaps you know something more about the situation than the rest of us. If it is something you can share maybe it would help us come around to your point of view.

If not, than I will have to go by what I know and saw myself.

canyonoak
Jun. 13, 2007, 07:41 PM
<< you seem to have your mind made up just as much as anyone else here. So you're just going for the insult? >>

<< I have to admit, I don't like being called mean-hearted>>


WHERE and HOW did I call anyone here 'mean-hearted'?

WHERE and HOW did I insult anyone here?

I refer once again, to the statement I made above, about perception and prejudice.

RAyers
Jun. 13, 2007, 07:44 PM
Huh? Outside of a few posts I never saw anybody do what you are describing on this thread. We have been discussing the case which goes WAY beyond AT. Or, at least that is what I have been reading here.

That being the case, I honestly would love to hear your perspective on how upper level riders (regardless of discipline) should be treated when confronted with disciplinary action by both the national and international governing bodies. Yes, AT or any others that you can think or can be used as example cases for or against your arguement.

If the FEI and USEF tout that the welfare of the horse is paramount and they have specific penalties in place, do you think that they should or should not apply those penalties EQUALLY in all cases regardless of the stature of the rider? Or do you feel that each case becomes very individual and that the statements of animal welfare by the GBs are only to be applied in specific instances pending investigation?

I honestly am not concerned with AT anymore but with the fact that this sport is seen as a brutal killer of horses and people by the general public as well as those in other riding disciplines. It is time we change that and the sad part is that AT's incident is the most obvious as it was seen on TV by 5 million viewers. It has an obvious impact on our sport and that can not be ignored nor will it simply go away.

What happened is a tragedy for both LS and AT but even more so for the sport. The issues are much larger than the indiviuals now as evidenced by the fact petitions are being presented to the FEI by Europeans against AT.

The other option is to do like major league baseball after the BALCO scandle and pray things go away without accountability.

Reed



It must be wonderful to have so much collective wisdom at one's fingertips, such learned responses.

Comparing Amy's situation to that of Edward Prado/Barbaro.
Comparing Amy's situation to any of your own.
Comparing Amy's situation to anyone else's that you care to drag in for personal purpose and perception.

You know what's amazing?

That when I type out the words, "I am on Amy's side in this dreadful and tragic event"...there are an enormous number of people who IMMEDIATELY come to decisive judgment.

Yes.
Just that sentence, that handul of words. Eleven words. And the reaction is so visceral, so knee-jerk, so unconscious as to make me tremble, make me spin, because I can feel it from here..

I could spell out WHY I am on Amy's side in all this...but I don't think there is any point.

Has there ever been a thread about anything emotionally involving horses that has ever changed one mind?


.......?


that's what I thought.

may all you love and hold dear remain healthy and happy.

cheers,

arnika
Jun. 13, 2007, 07:52 PM
Sorry canyonoak, I had assumed that you had read all the prior posts on this thread. My post at the top of the page I had quoted Polestar's statement that everyone who didn't stand behind Amy is mean-hearted and using her for a human punching bag.

I didn't mean to imply that you had said that statement.

Sannois
Jun. 13, 2007, 07:56 PM
The "glory" in eventing, show jumping, dressage, etc is FOR THE HUMAN, not the horse. for crying out loud, all the horse REALLY wants is food and a little freedom. Not one horse in this world "knows" he won a blue, a first, a good score. So saying someone is pushing for the next three or four star or show jumping across the globe is ALL...FOR...THE...HUMAN'S...GLORY. The horse could not care less. Don't patronize us by trying to sell us on it being anything else. The horse is there for us to use, abuse, push, love, coddle, or simply look at. We make the decisions and often they are terribly wrong.

It doesnt matter how much we want to think they know they are great or that they love it so much, I will admit some are more into it that others. But giving them human emotions is just not realistic. We are all guilty of it. IT is for the humans pleasure. Some abuse it some work with the animal to make it the best experience for them We all know of people who use horses as a means to gain respect, importance or to impress. The horse would rather hang out in the field with his buddys and eat and play and be a horse.

True Southern Pride
Jun. 13, 2007, 07:58 PM
I agree with Rayers this form is to talk about AT's case not to BS one another. I can see both sides but there isn't enough fact that at least I have seen out there to choose a side yet.

Sannois
Jun. 13, 2007, 08:00 PM
After sleeping on this... I have decided that I was &*%!#$ out of line! Sorry for offending the sensibilities of everyone.
I guess I realize that there are going to be mean-hearted people out there who are more than happy to use AT as a human punching bag. It bothers me that we all can forget that we are talking about a human being with feelings out there. I let that emotion in me type that post.
Thank you JSwan for bringing the subject back to more interesting things.

who said MEan hearted people, not Canyonoak. :confused:

snoopy
Jun. 13, 2007, 08:01 PM
The horse would rather hang out in the field with his buddys and eat and play and be a horse.


Exactly what INVA said...and I must agree...my horses do not give a rats whether they are competing or eating...but I am sure given the choice they would quite happily wave back to me from my bedroom window whilst out grazing.

Erin
Jun. 13, 2007, 08:18 PM
I agree with Rayers this form is to talk about AT's case not to BS one another. I can see both sides but there isn't enough fact that at least I have seen out there to choose a side yet.

No, actually, I believe I specifically requested that this thread NOT talk about AT's case, which has been talked to death, and with no new information, it seems rather silly to KEEP talking about it.

If you want to do something productive, start a new thread discussing what the FEI should do in the wake of an allegation of abuse. Issues, not individuals, and all that jazz.