PDA

View Full Version : AT Hearing update



Pages : [1] 2 3

belambi
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:19 PM
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2007/06/159.shtml

NeverTime
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:27 PM
The people giving testimony mostly had obvious functions -- the FEI veterinary guy, the ground jury guy, the horse's owner, the U.S. coach, the FEI eventing director -- but I wonder what testimony Karen O'Connor and Wayne Roycroft were there to give?
I hope another news source will post something slightly more detailed.

fergie
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:30 PM
Attornies? Wow....

snoopy
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:42 PM
armed to the teeth she is....

JAM
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:46 PM
Lawyers wouldn't be uncommon in this kind of proceeding. Interestingly, though, both these lawyers are from high-powered firms -- think of anywhere between $400 to $750 per hour each, probably including the travel back and forth, etc. I'm also betting each one of them has spent at least 100 hours each so far on the matter. She, like everyone else, is absolutely entitled to the best defense she can get, that's not my point. My point is that that's a lot of money -- one wonders if USEF, USEA, or one or more of her sponsors is footing some or all the bill. If it's one or both of the associations, it would be pretty ballsy to spend member funds, particularly given what seems to be the prevailing (not universal, but prevailing) sentiment.

snoopy
Jun. 25, 2007, 08:56 PM
[QUOTE=JAM;2523621] My point is that that's a lot of money -- one wonders if USEF, USEA, or one or more of her sponsors is footing some or all the bill. QUOTE]

One does not have to wonder to long about that....I seriously doubt a fire fighter earns that type of money...and if she did, I am in the wrong business.

Money money money...always sunny...in a rich man's world. (Thank you ABBA)

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:00 PM
Both of the lawyers present with Amy Tryon mentioned in that article are litigation lawyers and USEA personnel.

JAM
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:01 PM
Do you know if they are doing it totally pro bono (including the disbursements such as the travel)? Or, since they are USEA personnel, are they doing it under the auspices or with the financial support of the USEA? I thought the USEA had taken a public stance of neutrality, and many posters here have assiduously distinguished b/w the USEA and the USEF in this matter. If, and I recognize it's an if, the USEA is directly or indirectly supporting the cause, the distinction may be quite a bit blurrier than previously postulated.

see u at x
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:06 PM
I would be VERY surprised if membership money was being used in this instance to foot the bills. Sure, it could be one of her sponsors, and if so, it is entirely their right to do so. For all we know, it could be a pro bono case as well and/or a matter of her simply knowing the right people to put her in contact with these attorneys/firms who are willing to help. There are any number of ways to come up with the money to pay for this representation - family, friends, etc. Is it really anyone's business so long as the money isn't coming from USEF or USEA membership funds?

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:11 PM
They doing it pro bono?

Heck if I know but this may be politics at play. I don't know who her sponsors are but I would imagine she still does have friends with influence and it is very much possible these two litigation lawyers are doing it pro-bono, have been chosen by her sponsors, or they could both in fact be sponsors of hers as they don't work for the same litigation firms and they are both on the USEA executive board in addition to being eventers themselves. As for the other eventers there, they are present to provide their own experiences running the course and to act as expert witnesses to provide whatever professional testimony is requested. Just for the record, I think the USEA could very well be footing the bill because of her status as an upper level competitor and US team member.

JAM
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:29 PM
Given that they are both on the USEA Exec. Bd., one would hope the USEA would inform its members exactly what resources, financial and otherwise, it is providing for the defense of this case, particularly given the public statement the USEA previously made and the posture of neutrality it has sought to stake out. Why didn't the USEA disclose that two of its Exec. Bd. members were representing her in this matter? One also wonders when these lawyers were retained for her defense. For example, were they (or either of them) representing her when the USEA (presumably through its Executive Board, of which they are members) decided to issue the press release. Were they, or either of them, involved in the drafting of the press release? What role, if any, have they had in decisions regarding her while they have been representing her in this matter?

These questions and comments have nothing to do with AT -- as I said before, she's entitled to her defense, and the two lawyers are entitled to represent her on whatever terms they and the client agree on (and provided that all actual and potential conflicts have been disclosed to all relevant clients and have been consented to by those clients). It's the association's conduct here -- i.e., the failure to disclose and the at least potential conflicts of interest -- that seems disturbing, at least to me.

deltawave
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:31 PM
Since when is it immoral, unreasonable or even the least bit suspicious to have an attorney? Or to avail oneself of the services of an attorney that is on retainer for an organization of which one is a member? Jump to conclusions much? Jeez. Not every attorney is something from a television trial drama. More often than not their job is less "LA Law" and more interpreting the law, deciphering contractual language, etc. Plus Kevin Baumgardner is a high-level USEA official whose job description is far wider than "legal counsel". It didn't say anyone was "representing her", only that they were present.

snoopy
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:34 PM
Just for the record, I think the USEA could very well be footing the bill because of her status as an upper level competitor and US team member.

IF this is the case, and I repeat IF...then would USEA MEMBERS effectively be footing the bill?!! :mad:

JAM
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:39 PM
...It didn't say anyone was "representing her", only that they were present.

The official FEI press release makes clear that Baumgardner and Temkin were there on her behalf. See http://www.horsesport.org/c/news/news.htm.

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:39 PM
Given that they are both on the USEA Exec. Bd., one would hope the USEA would inform its members exactly what resources, financial and otherwise, it is providing for the defense of this case, particularly given the public statement the USEA previously made and the posture of neutrality it has sought to stake out. Why didn't the USEA disclose that two of its Exec. Bd. members were representing her in this matter? One also wonders when these lawyers were retained for her defense. For example, were they (or either of them) representing her when the USEA (presumably through its Executive Board, of which they are members) decided to issue the press release. Were they, or either of them, involved in the drafting of the press release? What role, if any, have they had in decisions regarding her while they have been representing her in this matter?

These questions and comments have nothing to do with AT -- as I said before, she's entitled to her defense, and the two lawyers are entitled to represent her on whatever terms they and the client agree on (and provided that all actual and potential conflicts have been disclosed to all relevant clients and have been consented to by those clients). It's the association's conduct here -- i.e., the failure to disclose and the at least potential conflicts of interest -- that seems disturbing, at least to me.


I don't think they are likely to disclose the specifics given the fact that everyone involved seems to be at the top levels of eventing but maybe that will change.

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:49 PM
IF this is the case, and I repeat IF...then would USEA MEMBERS effectively be footing the bill?!! :mad:

Given the interconnected nature of the USEF/USEA/USET and how they more or less have the same high level sponsors, officials, and cash flow, I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case. All it would take is someone with pull at the USEF to put the plan in motion. If that is true then it only confirms my beliefs about what really goes on.

JAM
Jun. 25, 2007, 09:51 PM
I agree with you that the reality is that the USEA will not likely voluntarily disclose such matters, but the leaders do have certain obligations to the membership (defined by such things as the law, the association's by-laws, the membership agreement, etc.), and these obligations likely include financial disclosures and disclosures about activities being undertaken on behalf of the membership at large -- the question is how detailed they need to be.

deltawave
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:17 PM
OK, maybe they're "representing" her. But this is not a criminal hearing. They might be there in a capacity to represent the USEA, for all we know.

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:22 PM
I agree with you that the reality is that the USEA will not likely voluntarily disclose such matters, but the leaders do have certain obligations to the membership (defined by such things as the law, the association's by-laws, the membership agreement, etc.), and these obligations likely include financial disclosures and disclosures about activities being undertaken on behalf of the membership at large -- the question is how detailed they need to be.

I think the horse world is run just like the business world. You have an obligation to your shareholders (the people/clients) but your ultimate goal is to get as much money as you can to continue doing what you do. I'm sure Amy Tryon's investors have a lot at stake here and those same investors probably have a lot of money invested in the USEF/USEA/USET organizations so only time will tell.

nature
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:27 PM
Report on the hearing in the case of alleged abuse at CCI 4* Lexington

The hearing in the case of alleged abuse at CCI 4* Lexington involving rider Amy Tryon (USA) and horse Le Samurai, which had occurred on 28 April 2007, took place today 25 June 2007 at the FEI Headquarters in Lausanne.

Composition of the hearing:

Panel of the FEI Tribunal:
Ken Lalo
Patrick Boelens
Erik Elstad

Present for the FEI:
Alex McLin, FEI General Counsel;
Laetitia Zumbrunnen, FEI Legal Counsel

Present for the rider:
Amy Tryon
Kevin Baumgardner, Attorney
Andrew Temkin, Attorney

The following individuals gave evidence at the oral hearing:
Christian Landolt
Wayne Roycroft
Catrin Norinder
Frits Sluyter
Rebecca Broussard
Amy Tryon
Mark Phillips
Karen O’Connor


The hearing began at 9h00 Lausanne time and finished at 16h30. The panel examined the evidence received, which included numerous witness statements and video footage in addition to the testimony of those listed above.

The panel accepted the evidence presented and will issue its motivated decision within a short time and in any event no later than 30 days of today.

TB or not TB?
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:33 PM
The panel accepted the evidence presented and will issue its motivated decision within a short time and in any event no later than 30 days of today.

What does "motivated decision" mean? Is that just legal terminology?

JAM
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:39 PM
Deltawave -- the FEI release that I just linked to states that they were "present for the rider" not the USEA.

Lex -- I understand the business relationships and, in the ordinary course, there's nothing exceptional about them. What is exceptional is when an association publicly takes a position that it is neutral (a) without disclosing that two of its Executive Board members are representing the rider and (b) even though it may be spending member funds or devoting other resources to defend the rider that would otherwise be devoted to the peons who provide most of the funding for the organization (we don't know, the association hasn't bothered to say). It's unseemly, at best.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:41 PM
I don't know who, if anybody, might be paying any legal costs, but I am beyond confident it is not coming out of anybody's membership dues to any organization. Kevin and Andrew are both west coast event riders who have ridden at the upper levels, so Amy would be a fellow competitor and more than likely friend or good aquaintance to them. The fact that they are on the executive committee (which is a totally volunteer position BTW, they are not "personnel" at all, in fact they spend quite a bit of their own money for the "privelege" of traveling to meetings, etc. ) is not related to their reasons for being Amy's legal team, I am quite confident.

It's funny, I used to be called something of a conspiracy theorist by my friends, especially during the last gaps of the long format days. After reading these threads with their tales of nefarious plots and intrigue, I realize I am incredibly uncreative and apparently more of a slave to the system than I realized. :rolleyes::winkgrin:

oldbutnotdead
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:42 PM
Hey, hiring an attorney, or two, is a smart thing to do, whether in business transactions or in a case like Amy's. Hiring the best attorney you can is also the smart thing to do.

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:47 PM
What does "motivated decision" mean? Is that just legal terminology?

It is a term which basically is what it sounds like. A motivated decision is a ruling made in legal matters based on beliefs or reasoning in regards to what is right or in the best interest of those making the choices. So the FEI might rule that Amy Tryon was naughty and ban her from international competition to set an example and because they believe it is wrong. Or they may go another way based on whatever reasoning they choose to use. Without knowing their opinions at this point, it's hard to say but I think a decision will come soon though I bet some people outside of the FEI hearing will have some input in the ruling.

flyingchange
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:48 PM
Yep ... that's what OJ did.

LexInVA
Jun. 25, 2007, 10:54 PM
Deltawave -- the FEI release that I just linked to states that they were "present for the rider" not the USEA.

Lex -- I understand the business relationships and, in the ordinary course, there's nothing exceptional about them. What is exceptional is when an association publicly takes a position that it is neutral (a) without disclosing that two of its Executive Board members are representing the rider and (b) even though it may be spending member funds or devoting other resources to defend the rider that would otherwise be devoted to the peons who provide most of the funding for the organization (we don't know, the association hasn't bothered to say). It's unseemly, at best.

I think it's just shady but since I don't pay dues to any of them, my two cents don't mean much in the big picture.

Gnep
Jun. 25, 2007, 11:04 PM
conflict of interest is what it is called. any attorney in a normal case would walk out of that one.

the ugly question who does the USEA and USEF represent raises its head again.
Who paied for the entourage to fly over there. And why is the USEF and USEA so heavily envolved and at whos cost.

She did not ride as a team member, there was no team, so why is MP there and who pays for it.
Why are members of the Gov Body there as her lawyer, that is a real conflict of interest, or at least questionable. It is comparable with a goverment employee, that is represented in a private matter by a goverment lawyer or a federal attorney. Very strange.

oreo
Jun. 25, 2007, 11:40 PM
Bravo Gnep - well said.

vineyridge
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:29 AM
What I don't understand is who is paying for all the trips to Switzerland?

Wouldn't it have been cheaper for the FEI hearing committee to come here, where all the witnesses were, including ones that hadn't been pre-selected to limit negative testimony? I read the letter in an earlier CoTH this month from someone who was in at the Finish and saw the whole limping to the finish scenario. Why wasn't that person and others like her used in the hearing? Where was the vet from Hagyards?

From the way this has been handled, the people involved as witnesses and the hearing in a place far from where the incident occurred, it sure looks like a cover up to me.

tulkas
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:43 AM
Ah! The lynch mob is forming. Did you remember to bring your flaming torches and the rope?

I will tell you what I know to be facts. Keving B. and Andrew T. are working pro-bono. No USEA or USEF funds are being spent. I love the fact that the act of being represented by council is apparently proof of guilt. How Amy is affording any of this is none of your business. Speculation as to those details is the sort of tittlilating nonsense that makes tabloid press possible and convinces those of us with a shred of human decency that most of the population of this country has taken leave of its senses. Those of us who know her would support her to the end. If Sparky's owners are behind her 100%, why can't you just mind your own business and wait for the decision?

It is really sweet that Amy is now equivalent to O.J. My God, have you people not sense or perspective? Oh, and Guenther, you're a nice guy, it is too much to ask yoiu to learn how to spell English? After all, you guys lost to them twice.

Tulkas

Madeline
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:57 AM
[quote=tulkas;2524061]Ah! The lynch mob is forming. Did you remember to bring your flaming torches and the rope?

I will tell you what I know to be facts. Keving B. and Andrew T. are working pro-bono.

Kevin


I love the fact that the act of being represented by council is apparently proof of guilt.

Counsel


Speculation as to those details is the sort of tittlilating nonsense

Titillating


It is really sweet that Amy is now equivalent to O.J. My God, have you people not sense or perspective?

No sense????


Oh, and Guenther, you're a nice guy, it is too much to ask yoiu to learn how to spell English?

You

( Someone had to do this)

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 26, 2007, 01:01 AM
Actually viney, you can thank the FEI for that, and in fact, it is set up that way for the purpose (supposedly) of being above reproach.

It is my understanding (though please don't take that as solid fact) that the FEI hearing is ALWAYS in Switzerland, and that any and all testimony must be done in person, and that those who are testifying there for the defense have done so at their own expense. Sworn staments or afadavits are apparently not allowed in an FEI hearing, so the only testimony (pro or con) must be done in person. The FEI pays for it's witnesses, after that it's up to the defendant and their witnesses to either get there, or not.

If the FEI did not pay for, say, the vet from Hagyard, then that vet's statement (it follows logically) must not have supported their viewpoint. Perhaps the defense could not afford to fly that person over. Who knows? But, this hearing, thus far, is completely similar to all other such hearings in FEI history. They are always in Switzerland, and they always feature live testimony, versus sworn statements or afadavits, and this is regardless of the type of case, or where the location of the incident was.

It is interesting to me that if you turn the kaleidoscope of this trial one way, to some it looks like a cover up, and if you turn it another, it looks to some like a railroading.

Perhaps we are all seeing what we want to see?

Risk-Averse Rider
Jun. 26, 2007, 01:27 AM
( Someone had to do this)smoochies to Madeline :D

tulkas
Jun. 26, 2007, 01:40 AM
Madeline,

You got me. I was in a hurry and didn't proof my post. I plead guilty to all but two of your charges. "not sense" is archaic and perhaps a little Shakespearian, but I will defend it as correct usage. My errors were the result of haste and some small outrage, but G's are constant and unremitting and given that dictionaries are cheap, without excuse inasmuch as he is domiciled in this country.

When Amy rode through severe pain to finish a team score in Jerez, you all applauded her physical courage and willingness to sacrifice for the team. When she rode that startlingly unconventional show jumping round in Athens, you all cheered her horsemanship and ability to allow her brilliant, idiosyncratic horse to do things his way. The fact that she was one of you, from humble background (ignoring that she is a brilliant, dedicated horseman) validated your own yearnings to excel. But now you have found that she is capable of error, and the mob seldom forgives it's idols when they fail to live up to expection. Cato knew why the mob was to be feared and the manner in which the mob was so easily manipulated by the Caesars gave proof to his fears.

France, and many of the European nations works under the Napoleonic Code which presumes guilt. Be thankful that this country adopted English common law, with its presumption of innocence, and have the decency to honor that choice.

Tulkas

buschkn
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:47 AM
She isn't being accused of stealing something that nobody saw and should be presumed innocent until the fingerprint test comes back. She is accused of riding an obviously lame horse for many strides and over a jump and over the finish line which subsequently resulted in his euthanasia. It is on video and was at a public event for all the world to view.

Just as I think she should be lauded for her efforts to carry on and help the team etc, I also think she should be held to the same standard in the reverse, and reprimanded for a tremendous error in judgement, at best. You seem to think that those of us who feel some measure of punishment or sanction is deserved feel that AT is ALL bad, ALL the time. This is not so. However, those of you who are so quick to her defense certainly seem to think she is ALL good ALL the time, which is also not the case.

I am interested to see how the ruling turns out.

PiedPiper
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:54 AM
So now an OJ comparison? Seriously folks, get a grip.

Now all we need is to have Michael Jackson and JonBenet thrown in there and we have a trifecta. :lol:

pinkngreen
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:55 AM
OH MY GOD! Can't you people give this a rest? I don't normally pipe up in these AT threads because I don't want to fuel the fire.


However, those of you who are so quick to her defense certainly seem to think she is ALL good ALL the time, which is also not the case.
I'm pretty sure that Tulkas and other AT supporters don't think she is incapable of doing wrong. If any of you think that other upperlevel riders haven't ever put their horses at risk you are living in a fantasy world. There are those of us who have had the misfortune of working for some BNTs that were cruel to their horses on a regular basis. So I find it hard to sit here while Amy is being crucified by all of you when I know there are other BNTs that make bad choices on a daily basis concerning the welfare of their horses.

Though it seems that there are very few AT supporters out there, I can promise you that isn't the case. I believe that most of us who don't want to crucify her are like me and don't want to be involved in the train-wrecks of the BB's so it appears that she has little support from the general eventing population.

Can't you just wait quietly for the results instead of speculating about why so and so is there and who is paying for it? It doesn't do any good or help speed up the process.

CookiePony
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:59 AM
Thank you, pinkngreen.

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 08:41 AM
Thank you tulkas and PnG. This is ugly, ugly, ugly. :no: I actually think AT did the wrong thing and should be held accountable, but damn, I think EVERYONE should be held accountable for mistakes, bad judgment, etc. That doesn't mean I think that those people (who number about 7 billion at last count) should be reviled, lynched, or subjected to this kind of suspicion and loathing. :no:

Madeline
Jun. 26, 2007, 08:42 AM
Can't you just wait quietly for the results instead of speculating about why so and so is there and who is paying for it? It doesn't do any good or help speed up the process.

Because I saw the video.

Because I didn't see the other upper level riders being abusive (even though I know it happens and I've heard of other instances).

But, mainly, because I saw the video.

LisaB
Jun. 26, 2007, 08:50 AM
Bravo DW, but tulkas, please tell me you're not a lawyer because you stink at arguing your point. I get it but personal bashing should be above you. You're not helping AT at all.
She should be banned from international competition through the Olympics. Considering the lynch mob waiting for her overseas, she needs to stay away. Meanwhile, some supporters are doing everything possible to save her pro career. Good for them as long as she pays for her crimes. Even Paris had to pay (had to get that one in there since we forgot about her and included jonBenet and wacko jacko)

flyingchange
Jun. 26, 2007, 08:50 AM
Trollkas, oh, sorry, I mean Tulkas:

When you learn German and are able to write it fluently and mistake-free, perhaps then you might have a point to make. Otherwise, you sound miserably rude and self-righteous, very Ugly-American and all the rest.

annikak
Jun. 26, 2007, 08:56 AM
Totally agree, DW-

There have been some horrible things that have happened, esp THAT Rolex, THAT day, that no one comments on as A) they were not caught on tape and B) the outcome was not as devistating. But it COULD have, and that is where AT sits. Often decisions are made, and the outcome COULD have been horrid, yet is not. AT fell on the wrong side of that. Make no mistake, I am sure she agrees, she made a horribly wrong decision. But good GOD! She's human. And I know I am human, and thankfully, I have never made a decision that was so costly (on so many levels.)

Being there for the rider- I would think that would happen in any situation, but I may be wrong.

Ja Da Dee
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:05 AM
Thank you tulkas and PnG. This is ugly, ugly, ugly. :no: I actually think AT did the wrong thing and should be held accountable, but damn, I think EVERYONE should be held accountable for mistakes, bad judgment, etc. That doesn't mean I think that those people (who number about 7 billion at last count) should be reviled, lynched, or subjected to this kind of suspicion and loathing. :no:


Well said.

flyingchange
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:05 AM
Nobody is saying she is not human. Nobody is saying she is evil. Nobody is saying they hate her. No "lynch mob" is forming (do you see any of us banding together to go find her and kill her? or to go out and destroy her career?) You can go to H&H for that where they ARE emailing her sponsors and complaining. Has anyone suggested doing anything close to that here? No.

We are all COUNTING on the FEI to balance and weigh the arguments made yesterday and we are all planning on respecting their decision. Sorry, but if a "lynch mob" was forming, we would not be waiting for the FEI on this.

Some of us are saying that she should be punished (banned for a certain amount of time). And history - both recent and ancient - shows that justice is not always served. Politics get in the way. And we debate whether that might happen here. That is it.

Lisa Cook
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:14 AM
[quote=tulkas;2524061 How Amy is affording any of this is none of your business. [/quote]

Well, actually it is my business as a member of the USEA. When Amy is using USEA lawyers to represent her, I want to know if my membership dues are paying for those lawyers. It's not an unreasonable question on my part.

If Amy had used lawyers with no connections whatsoever to the USEA or USEF, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is not my business on how she is paying them.

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:27 AM
The snide and insidious comments on the first page of this thread may not be tantamount to a "lynch mob", but they smack of the same mentality, IMO.

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:42 AM
The snide and insidious comments on the first page of this thread may not be tantamount to a "lynch mob", but they smack of the same mentality, IMO.

I reviewed very carefully all the comments on the first page of the thread, many of them mine, and fail to see a single comment directed to AT personally or to what the outcome of the hearing should be. Indeed, I said, at least twice, that I thought AT was entitled to the best defense she can get. (Had I been part of a lynch mob, I might have added, "and Lord knows she needs it," but I did not do that.)

All of the comments concerned the facts that she had lawyers representing her -- a fact that I said in the first line of my first post was not uncommon in these kinds of cases -- and that two USEA Executive Board members are representing her in the hearing, a fact that (a) the USEA chose not to disclose to its membership or to explain how that fact was consistent, or at least not inconsistent, with its public posture of neutrality in this matter; (b) raises numerous actual or potential conflicts of interest; and (c) raises the possibility that member dues or resources are being used to pay for some or all of AT's defense.

I fail to see the lynch mob here. I can't speak for the others whom you seem to be castigating, but my criticism here is directed at the Association, not the rider.

Lisa Cook
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:00 AM
Well, speculating doesn't get very far, so I just e-mailed the USEA and asked them outright about AT's lawyers. Here's my e-mail:

Hello,

I see that Amy Tryon has participated in a hearing with the FEI in Lausanne, Switzerland regarding the incident with Le Samurai at the Rolex Kentucky ****.

In the recaps I have read, Amy Tryon was represented by two attorneys, Kevin Baumgardner and Andrew Temkin, who are both USEA board members.

Can you please tell me if USEA funds were used to pay any expenses towards her USEA lawyers? As a member of the USEA (member # xxxxx), I want to know if USEA money (ie. my membership dues) is being spent on this case.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Lisa Cook

snoopy
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:01 AM
OK, maybe they're "representing" her. But this is not a criminal hearing. They might be there in a capacity to represent the USEA, for all we know.

I wasn't under the impression that the USEA was being investigated for anything...so why they would need representation?:confused:

ravenclaw
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:18 AM
Yep ... that's what OJ did.
That comment was really out of line. :no:

If Karen O'Connor and the others who attended the hearing spoke up in defense of Amy, are we going to have threads bashing all of them now???

fergie
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:22 AM
Potential USEA money being spent on USEA attornies is not the biggest issue here - it's their obvious conflict of interest and its effect on the outcome of the case that's the most disturbing part. And CMP is just making the US look like stupid, irrational human beings (with a lack of compassion for animals) to the rest of the world. He needs to shut his toilet - publicly writing and talking about how he did similar, senseless acts??? What is HIS IQ, about an 85? And why is he still "coaching" this country?
And if this is "not a criminal hearing", then why the need for attornies? And if there are defense attornies, where are the prosecuting attornies? Sounds like more political crap with a bunch of rich people trying to use power and influence to get their way, AGAIN!

fergie
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:27 AM
If Karen O'Connor and the others who attended the hearing spoke up in defense of Amy, are we going to have threads bashing all of them now???
Perhaps... are they, also, beyond reproach?

Lisa Cook
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:33 AM
OK, hopefully this clarifies the USEA role in the hearing, at least monetarily. Here is the response back to my e-mail from the USEA. I just have to say that I am very impressed with the speed with which the USEA has responded to any of my inquiries - not just this particular one.




To answer your question, no USEA funds have been used to pay any of Amy’s expenses, legal or otherwise.

I appreciate your concern, and that you took the time to contact our offices to get an answer to your question. It’s good to know that our members are so passionate about the sport. Best of luck this season!

sm
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:34 AM
Who paied for the entourage to fly over there. And why is the USEF and USEA so heavily envolved and at whos cost.

She did not ride as a team member, there was no team, so why is MP there and who pays for it... Very strange.

I believe because the penalties can include being permenantly barred from FEI competition, so that means the loss of a team rider. I went back to see if I can refind the article where I first read about the penalities, but didn't find it. Will look some more...

oh, great insight from LisaCook above!

LisaB
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:38 AM
:D for the USEA!
Thanks Lisa. I was beginning to get a little miffed.
Okay, so now onto the other questions. The lawyers have a conflict of interest? Maybe. Depends on what capacity they are there in. Do we know?
MP and KOC there? I dunno why they should be there. They have nothing to do with the incident. It's between the GJ, AT, the owners, and the vets. Then the FEI appointees to hear the case.

Paks
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:39 AM
That comment was really out of line. :no:

If Karen O'Connor and the others who attended the hearing spoke up in defense of Amy, are we going to have threads bashing all of them now???

Actually if Karen O'Connor defended riding a lame horse to the last jump it would affect my opinion of her, and where I spend my money. If she was there as an impartial expert witness that is something else. I really would like to know in what capacity she was there.

I am hoping as an impatial expert witness, though with CMP there and Karen most likely wanting to be on future USEF teams she would be hard pressed to be impartial and not back CMP's opinion. Though if she did I am sure the comittee would also realize the portential conflict of interest and dismiss the testomony. Makes it kind of a waste to even be there then.

Obviously that she was there was not private information. Maybe after the ruling the transcripts would become available.

Where any of the other people at the FEI hearing international eventers riders not from the US? Basically, experts over which CMP had no influence?

Speedy
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:57 AM
I am going to ask a question that has really mystified me since reading these threads about AT - flame suit on -

Why isn't there similar outrage over Laine? Her horse died of exhaustion after crossing the finish line and no one is talking about it.

I can only speak for myself - but when I am riding one of my horses, I absolutely know when they've reached their limits. I can feel the difference in their breathing, movement, their heart beats, the amount they are sweating...you name it, I can feel the changes physically and I'd like to think that if they reached the limits of their fitness on xc, I would pull up rather than continue on.

I imagine that Laine would have had an ever greater sense of this given what goes into prepping for the upper levels...so where is the outrage? Physical exhaustion is something that would have evolved and been increasingly obvious over a much longer period of time on that course than the misstep and subsequent lameness that AT probably felt before the last fence.

I am really curious about what you think the differences are between the two cases and why, apparently, AT's case should be taken more seriously than the other...it's just my opinion, but if there is fault or culpability, I would think Laine's is greater.

Definitely not trying to bash Laine here, btw. But it is an elephant in the room. A really, really big one, IMHO.

3Day-Eventer
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:04 AM
I am going to ask a question that has really mystified me since reading these threads about AT - flame suit on -

Why isn't there similar outrage over Laine? Her horse died of exhaustion after crossing the finish line and no one is talking about it.

I can only speak for myself - but when I am riding one of my horses, I absolutely know when they've reached their limits. I can feel the difference in their breathing, movement, their heart beats, the amount they are sweating...you name it, I can feel the changes physically and I'd like to think that if they reached the limits of their fitness on xc, I would pull up rather than continue on.

I imagine that Laine would have had an ever greater sense of this given what goes into prepping for the upper levels...so where is the outrage? Physical exhaustion is something that would have evolved and been increasingly obvious over a much longer period of time on that course than the misstep and subsequent lameness that AT probably felt before the last fence.

I am really curious about what you think the differences are between the two cases and why, apparently, AT's case should be taken more seriously than the other...it's just my opinion, but if there is fault or culpability, I would think Laine's is greater.

Definitely not trying to bash Laine here, btw. But it is an elephant in the room. A really, really big one, IMHO.


I've been wondering the same thing!! I think its because it didnt happen on video for all the world to see.
Also, maybe they have found that Laine's horse has some kind of medical condition that caused it, it might not have been pure exhaustion.

Let me also add that I really hope this type of situation never happens to me!! I would love to think that I know my horses so well that I would absolutly 'know' if something was off, but I would hate for the eventing world to judge me. We seem like a hard to please bunch!!

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:20 AM
And if this is "not a criminal hearing", then why the need for attornies?

For pity's sake, not all attornies are criminal defense or prosecuting attornies! Haven't you ever closed on a complicated real estate deal, been the executor of a will, started a business, entered into a contract? Yup, attornies, right at the heart of all that "criminal" activity. :rolleyes:

I can't comment on a horse "dying of exhaustion" except to say that without a necropsy and a statement of a veterinarian there is almost certainly a whole lot more going on than that. But hey, speculate all you like, I'm sure it's very soothing and does a world of good.


I'd like to think that if they reached the limits of their fitness on xc, I would pull up rather than continue on.

We'd all "like to think" we would make the correct judgment, on the spot, under pressure, 100% of the time in every circumstance, wouldn't we? I certainly would, but I haven't always, and bad things have happened as a result. Too bad we have those pesky human limitations and flaws, eh?

InVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:21 AM
Well, speculating doesn't get very far, so I just e-mailed the USEA and asked them outright about AT's lawyers. Here's my e-mail:

Hello,

I see that Amy Tryon has participated in a hearing with the FEI in Lausanne, Switzerland regarding the incident with Le Samurai at the Rolex Kentucky ****.

In the recaps I have read, Amy Tryon was represented by two attorneys, Kevin Baumgardner and Andrew Temkin, who are both USEA board members.

Can you please tell me if USEA funds were used to pay any expenses towards her USEA lawyers? As a member of the USEA (member # xxxxx), I want to know if USEA money (ie. my membership dues) is being spent on this case.

Thank you very much.

Sincerely,
Lisa Cook



Please let us know IF you get a response!

LisaB
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:22 AM
I thought Laine's horse had an aneurysm or something like that, it wasn't necessarily from exhaustion. Does anyone know the cause?
Laine's case wasn't so blatant and she supposedly wasn't pushing the horse around (and using the crop after the fence 3 times on multiple fences). He supposedly came off course fine then boom, went down.
different circumstances.
And if we get on the subject of reactions from each individual and how stoic Amy was compared to Laine, that's just personalities. I know Laine and she's a very bubbly person who wears her heart on her sleeve. I don't know Amy but I would venture a guess that she's just not that type of person so differing reactions.

marta
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:28 AM
it is a well known fact that adrenaline rush can cause a horse to work well beyond its physical limitations. the adrenaline levels take a while to decrease, hence, you might not know you have a problem untiil an hour or more after the horse crosses the finish line.
this is a well known fact in distance riding. i'm sure it applies in eventing as well.

perhaps laine's horse was not showing any signs of exhaustion during the ride? that's a really tough call to make. i'd like to think i'd be able to tell but can i be certain?

Paks
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:28 AM
I am going to ask a question that has really mystified me since reading these threads about AT - flame suit on -

Why isn't there similar outrage over Laine? Her horse died of exhaustion after crossing the finish line and no one is talking about it.

IDefinitely not trying to bash Laine here, btw. But it is an elephant in the room. A really, really big one, IMHO.

I heard that her horse collapsed. Is that an official necropsy diagnosis of exhaustion? Their are many reasons why a horses heart can stop. Often that it is about to stop shows to outward signs at all.

Though I would say if the results come back that the horse was indeed ridden to death. You will see an out cry there. Though if Laine is smart enough to learn by example she might admidt her error up front and not make excuses for inexcusable behavior. That can make a big difference also.

Even human atheletes die in competition with no warning. Usually at the highschool and college level. Which is why many school districts require ECG's before competing on a team.

If you know more abou the situation enlighten us please.

Speedy
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:29 AM
I can't comment on a horse "dying of exhaustion" except to say that without a necropsy and a statement of a veterinarian there is almost certainly a whole lot more going on than that. But hey, speculate all you like, I'm sure it's very soothing and does a world of good.



We'd all "like to think" we would make the correct judgment, on the spot, under pressure, 100% of the time in every circumstance, wouldn't we? I certainly would, but I haven't always, and bad things have happened as a result. Too bad we have those pesky human limitations and flaws, eh?

Yikes! No need for the venom! I am actually one of the people who agrees with you on this. Honestly just curious about the differences in the cases - people are having such a visceral reaction to AT's case, it seems odd that there has been practically no mention of Laine's. I'm not speculating about anything - given what I've read about each case, no one of us really knows the answer w.r.t. either case, so why the discrepancy, why the furor over one and not the other?

So far the answers seem to be - it wasn't on video, and Laine is a warm and fuzzy person everyone knows and likes?

RiverBendPol
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:31 AM
Horses can drop dead and it is not necessarily 'exhaustion'. It can happen in the field, on the lunge line, in a stall. I knew a race horse once (Swale) who dropped dead long after an easy training gallop. He was having a shower, cheerful, happy, playing with the hose, chatting with his groom. The horse was 3, he reared up and keeled over, dead before he hit the ground. A horse dropped dead after XC at Badminton this year, not bc he was 'exhausted'. He had just put in a perfect round, easily. Aneurysms happen. Pre-existing conditions happen. Hearts stop. *MAYBE* if Laine's horse hadn't run XC he'd still be alive but I challenge you to prove that. Let us not take a kid to task for killing her horse WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Take a look at the 2 rides and you'll see some V-E-R-Y different styles of riding on that course that day.

kcooper
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:32 AM
I would like to explain a few things about administrative process for those of you who find it so astonishing to have attorneys present even though this is not a criminal proceeding. I work as a prosecutor of ethical and administrative violations for professional boards (such as the Board of Medicine, Board of Veterinary Medicine, etc.). This is a process with a similar legal structure to the one that Amy Tryon is going through during her hearing.

It is a more fair process to have all hearings held in the same location (i.e. Switzerland) for all defendants/respondents. Taking live testimony is also considered (by most scholars of the legal system) to be the most fair and accurate means of obtaining evidence. The FEI has legal counsel in this proceeding and AT is also entitled to legal counsel -- if she can afford it. The FEI lawyers will call whatever witnesses they feel are necessary to prove their case.

Administrative hearings like this are usually governed by very technical rules as well as basic foundational principles of due process. It would be very unwise to go through a hearing like this without an attorney. Even as a person who does this for a living, I would NEVER taken on representation of myself in such a hearing.

Although it is clear that many people on this board have a great distain for attorneys, most people who go through a legal process appreciate the advice and guidance they receive from a lawyer -- both specific legal advice and also life advice. Everyone loves their personal lawyer but seems to hate the profession in general. However, in many parts of the country, there are movements underway to help more people obtain lawyers for non-criminal processes because, in most cases, having lawyers helps the process work better for both sides. (And to fund representation for the poor in a manner that is constitutionally required for criminal defendants).

I find it insulting to my profession to have people assume that these FEI prosecutors will not do their jobs due to political pressure. That would be unethical and there is NO BASIS for making such accusations that have been remotely supported by facts. People in the public constantly make their judgements about trials based on news reports that do not contain all the facts presented and frequently mis-state or misunderstand testimony and the law. It is really not fair to judge a lawyer or a governing body's decision unless you have watched an entire proceeding. Nor is it fair to assume that a decision was "wrong" or "politically motivated" just because you don't agree with it based on your own knowledge of the facts, however incomplete they may be.

In short, isn't everyone entitled to the same fair process? I know if AT was my Mom or my sister, I would like for her to be able to give her side and state her perspective to a fair and impartial fact finder, and, even if I was really mad at her for what she did, to be punished (or forgiven) in a rational manner.

Janet
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:33 AM
I thought Laine's horse had an aneurysm or something like that, it wasn't necessarily from exhaustion. Does anyone know the cause?.I heard this weekend, from someone that was in a position to know, that the necroscopy results showed an aneurysm ("burst bool vessel") somewhere in the digestive track- colon IIRC. Could have happened any time, not related to the event. Said person thought the information had already been posted on the web site, so I don't think I am betraying any confidences.

LisaB
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:33 AM
No Speedy, AT blatantly kept pushing the horse for at least 3 jumps that I saw and then he really hit the wall coming around the corner before the last fence and was on 3 legs.
Laine's was doing fine and then boom, gone after the finish. There have been a few unfortunate incidents like this. All have had hearings.
I don't think we've ever come across anything like AT in recent history. That's what all the hub bub is about.

annikak
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:35 AM
the question is fair- and since we don't know, then, we cannot guess...but of course, I shall guess. I would think that if the horse was out in a field, he would not have had such an issue once he crossed the line.

This is where I worry for our sport- bringing AT out into the spotlight, and I agree with DW, it FEELS like a lynching to me, we open ourselves up to FAR too many questions on all levels. No one seems to listen except to hear themselves tout how THEY would have responded, but here it is guys- If you event, then you should be very concerned, not only what happened to AT, or Laine, but to what people are saying abt the sport in general. Its been said better then I can say it, but Sh*t happens- and it's happened all too much in the past several months. It has happened before, just not in such a public forum, and will probably happen again.

And for the poster that said it might change her opinion on Karen should Karen support (or what have you) AT, well, history shows that Karen has had a few horses not cross the finish line and walk back to the barn. It has happened to the best of them, and each time it hurts and is horrible.

magnolia73
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:36 AM
I think the purpose of the hearing is to insure that it was indeed a mistake vs some blatant abuse of a horse. That no doubt requires some level of investigation (such as expert witnesses who can help define locking on, the tendency to feel a lameness, horses that "sting"themselves). It's such a grey area- did the rider make an error? Yes, but they must determine if the rider was being cruel (stupid horse I don't care if you are lame we are finishing) vs "negligent" (Gee, he must have clipped himself) vs did not notice (I did not notice he was lame). I imagine the expert witnesses present testimony related to this. I would think she would want a lawyer, and it seems reasonable that the team would provide that, since what is at risk is her ability to represent the US in international competition. I assume if they found her to be a horrible horse abuser that it would not effect her ability to compete in USEA events.....

The other person- the one who's horse collapsed- how can you really prove anything since there was no visual evidence (for example- the horse stopping or trying to walk and needing to be whipped excessively). How could the rider have known what was happening internally?

snoopy
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:38 AM
Horses can drop dead and it is not necessarily 'exhaustion'. It can happen in the field, on the lunge line, in a stall. I knew a race horse once (Swale) who dropped dead long after an easy training gallop. He was having a shower, cheerful, happy, playing with the hose, chatting with his groom. The horse was 3, he reared up and keeled over, dead before he hit the ground. A horse dropped dead after XC at Badminton this year, not bc he was 'exhausted'. He had just put in a perfect round, easily. Aneurysms happen. Pre-existing conditions happen. Hearts stop. *MAYBE* if Laine's horse hadn't run XC he'd still be alive but I challenge you to prove that. Let us not take a kid to task for killing her horse WHEN YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. Take a look at the 2 rides and you'll see some V-E-R-Y different styles of riding on that course that day.



VERY WELL SAID.....two very different incidents....two very different rides....two very different responses...unfortunately the same result in the end. But to compare the two INCIDENTS, and I repeat INCIDENTS is apples and oranges.

InVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:40 AM
And for the poster that said it might change her opinion on Karen should Karen support (or what have you) AT, well, history shows that Karen has had a few horses not cross the finish line and walk back to the barn. It has happened to the best of them, and each time it hurts and is horrible.

... might help to remember that when Biko broke down at Badminton (slipped both achilles tendons) they were 2 or 3 fences from the finish... and Karen pulled him up....

annikak
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:46 AM
InVa- (any anyone else) I never wanted to imply that Karen should be lynched or what have you- only that Karen is the best (I believe) and that sh*t has happened to her. As I added, its horrible in every incident. Every darn one. So, to pull ones support of Karen because she is supporting a fellow rider, even IF that fellow rider made a poor decision seems rash to me. Karen made the right response in that instance- and that is great. sorry if it sounded otherwise.

I just worry for the sport in general. In a big way. And since I love eventing and event horses, and for the most part event people, I find this whole thing very very sad.

lstevenson
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:47 AM
Horses collapse from exhaustion, but they don't drop over dead. It was clearly an internal problem, NOT exhaustion. Eye witnesses said he looked absolutely fine when he finished, and better than most. And then suddenly collapsed and died. That sounds like an aneurysm or aortic rupture to me.

InVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:00 PM
[QUOTE=annikak;2524671]InVa- (any anyone else) I never wanted to imply that Karen should be lynched or what have you- only that Karen is the best (


NO offense taken. My point is that she pulled up. close to the finish because Biko didn't feel right.

Gnep
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:06 PM
Tulkas,
Since you seam to know who I am, than you should know that I am far past the stage were I care about my accent, grammer, and spelling.

But the question of envolvement of USEA and USEF officials ( even volunteer officials ) and the interest of conflict will not go away.

Kevin is an excelent choice for AT and I figured that he would not accept pay for his service. But on the other side he is a terrible choice because of his involvement with our Organisations. Especialy if one takes the statement of our Organisations, or none statements.
Same with MP.

If you are hinting at the hearings of Bettina Hoy, than there is that small differance, she rode for her National Team and naturally as everybody knows her screw up effect that team.
But AT's screw up is a private matter, it did not happen during a team competition and since our Orgs have kept a rather low profile, they should have kept it that way.

By the way since you are using my name you should disclose your name, you can pm it.

Night of Songs
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:08 PM
Administrative hearings like this are usually governed by very technical rules as well as basic foundational principles of due process. It would be very unwise to go through a hearing like this without an attorney. Even as a person who does this for a living, I would NEVER taken on representation of myself in such a hearing.



Well written, informative post.

Thank you!

ravenclaw
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:28 PM
My point is that she pulled up. close to the finish because Biko didn't feel right.
Didn't Karen have a horse die on cross-country once? I think it was Mr. Maxwell? I can't remember if it was an aneurysm or a heart thing or if it was an injury from a fall (this was several years ago).

I have the utmost respect for Karen. Just pointing out that while she made a good decision pulling up Biko, maybe she was able to make this decision because she learned from previous experiences and/or mistakes.

LexInVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:39 PM
Didn't Karen have a horse die on cross-country once? I think it was Mr. Maxwell? I can't remember if it was an aneurysm or a heart thing or if it was an injury from a fall (this was several years ago).

I have the utmost respect for Karen. Just pointing out that while she made a good decision pulling up Biko, maybe she was able to make this decision because she learned from previous experiences and/or mistakes.

Yeah that horse died at Badminton in 92. It was not soon after that she married David and the O'Connor Eventing team was born.

InVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:39 PM
Didn't Karen have a horse die on cross-country once? I think it was Mr. Maxwell? I can't remember if it was an aneurysm or a heart thing or if it was an injury from a fall (this was several years ago).

I have the utmost respect for Karen. Just pointing out that while she made a good decision pulling up Biko, maybe she was able to make this decision because she learned from previous experiences and/or mistakes.

Or maybe she KNEW he didn't feel right. Mr Maxwell fell and broke his neck and Regal Scot had an aneurism on course at Bramham (sp?)...

hb
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:49 PM
Well, actually it is my business as a member of the USEA. When Amy is using USEA lawyers to represent her, I want to know if my membership dues are paying for those lawyers. It's not an unreasonable question on my part.

If Amy had used lawyers with no connections whatsoever to the USEA or USEF, then I would wholeheartedly agree that it is not my business on how she is paying them.


How does being on volunteer board positions make them "USEA Lawyers". Are they even on the USEA payroll? I don't think they are.

If Amy had used lawyers with no connections to the USEA, she would have used lawyers that had NO IDEA what the case was about. Using lawyers who are upper-level riders themselves makes a lot of sense.

CBudFrggy
Jun. 26, 2007, 12:54 PM
Hey, hiring an attorney, or two, is a smart thing to do, whether in business transactions or in a case like Amy's. Hiring the best attorney you can is also the smart thing to do.

Especially, BEFORE you sign a contract...I keep telling my clients that and someday I hope they'll listen.

flutie1
Jun. 26, 2007, 01:57 PM
"... Are they even on the USEA payroll?"

They are not.

Ilex
Jun. 26, 2007, 01:58 PM
Didn't Karen have a horse die on cross-country once? I think it was Mr. Maxwell? I can't remember if it was an aneurysm or a heart thing or if it was an injury from a fall (this was several years ago).

I have the utmost respect for Karen. Just pointing out that while she made a good decision pulling up Biko, maybe she was able to make this decision because she learned from previous experiences and/or mistakes.

According to the July 1992 issue of Dressage & CT No.70 "Badinton CCI**** May 7-10, a tragic date to be remembered by all eventers."
"Tragedy struck again, although it was not known until much later how desperate the result of Karen Lende and Mr. Maxwell's fall at the Vicarage Vee was. 'He seemed to have jumped all right, but the ground just slipped.' Another sad loss for an experienced and capable rider."

This article contiunes on in the discussion of demise of three horses that day.

Tami

PS...I'm not a librarian, I just happened to read the article this morning as I'm listing old issues of the magazine on eBay and was deciding which ones to keep.

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:03 PM
How does being on volunteer board positions make them "USEA Lawyers". Are they even on the USEA payroll? I don't think they are.

If Amy had used lawyers with no connections to the USEA, she would have used lawyers that had NO IDEA what the case was about. Using lawyers who are upper-level riders themselves makes a lot of sense.

If they provided any legal services to the USEA, they are "USEA lawyers" regardless whether they get paid for it.

I don't dispute your last sentence -- it makes a lot of sense from her perspective. I do question, however, their taking on the representation, or the USEA allowing them to take on the representation, given that they are on the Executive Committee of the Board -- THE decision-maker for the organization and the most powerful body within the association -- and given that USEA said, in substance if not in exact words, that it is not taking any sides in this matter until the FEI rules. There is at minimum the appearance of a conflict if not an outright conflict. The USEA could have avoided this issue if it had disclosed at the outset of their representation of AT that two of its Exec. Comm. members are representing AT in the FEI hearing and that these members are either or both (a) resigning from any position of authority in USEA until this matter is finally concluded; and/or (b) recusing themselves from all decisions, actions, and anything else having to do with AT (one hopes that in fact they are recused from such matters; if not, there's a huge actual conflict). But it chose not to do so. This is not necessarily a question of legal ethics (though it may be depending on what all of the facts are), but much more of a huge image issue.

I can hear the comeback already that they're representing her on their own time and in their personal, not USEA capacities, but such compartmentalization is not so easily accomplished. You can't simultaneously be (i) a zealous advocate for AT, which is the job they have undertaken, even on their own time and PERHAPS their own money (someone should ask the same question of USEF that Lisa asked of USEA), and (ii) an independent, objective Board member making decisions for the benefit of the Association as a whole and all of its members, which is another job they have undertaken, albeit without pay.

flutie1
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:17 PM
"...If they provided any legal services to the USEA, they are "USEA lawyers" regardless whether they get paid for it."

So in my former life, I worked in the field of psychology. I have sat and sit on many USEA Boards/Committees. Using this premise then, can I say that I'm a "USEA psychologist"?

Cool! Let me at 'em!

Flutie

LLDM
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:26 PM
"...If they provided any legal services to the USEA, they are "USEA lawyers" regardless whether they get paid for it."

So in my former life, I worked in the field of psychology. I have sat and sit on many USEA Boards/Committees. Using this premise then, can I say that I'm a "USEA psychologist"?

Cool! Let me at 'em!

Flutie

:lol::lol::lol:

Actually, what that means is IF you are psychoanalyzing anyone on their behalf, then yes, you are a redn..., er, USEA psychologist. ;)

SCFarm

Classic Melody
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:31 PM
He supposedly came off course fine then boom, went down.


I saw him go over the last two fences. He was not fine. As a jump judge at a galloping fence, I was watching the riders' faces with interest to see how they were looking at the jump and riding the turn. When Laine's horse came by, my attention immediately switched to the horse. He was MUCH more highly stressed than any other horse I saw finish the course.

I'm not going to pass judgment on Laine in this case ... because yes, maybe the horse did have an aneurism or seizure. I don't know. And I did hear her screaming. I'm sure she feels terrible enough without any help from us.

Amy's mistake was much more visible. But I'm with those who want to forgive, not condemn. I'm sure both riders are learning a very, very hard lesson.

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:36 PM
Flutie says: "So in my former life, I worked in the field of psychology. I have sat and sit on many USEA Boards/Committees. Using this premise then, can I say that I'm a "USEA psychologist"?"

If you were asked to and did provide psychological services to or on behalf of the USEA, yes. There are also some issues pertaining to application of legal ethical rules. Board licensed psychologists may have the same thing.

flutie1
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:42 PM
So does being a lawyer and being on a Board of an Association constitute providing legal services to that Association? And does providing legal services to an Association member constitute providing legal services to that Association? I'm not being argumentative, (well, maybe a little), I'm just trying to get this all straight in my head.

Flutie

vineyridge
Jun. 26, 2007, 02:55 PM
I know this has been discussed before, but I'm really confused about the purpose of the FEI hearing.

We know that the Rolex GJ disqualified AT for "abuse". So there is a finding that it existed.

Then we have the FEI hearing. Is the GJ's finding presumptively correct? Or is the hearing to start all over with whether or not abuse existed in the first place? Who has the burden of proof? The GJ, the FEI, AT?

In other words, what happens if the FEI finds against the GJ, or will they be able to? Is this more a sentencing hearing or a guilt hearing?

As to whether or not the FEI hearing panel will consider anything other than live testimony, it's pretty clear from the news release that they do.

bornfreenowexpensive
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:05 PM
So does being a lawyer and being on a Board of an Association constitute providing legal services to that Association? And does providing legal services to an Association member constitute providing legal services to that Association? I'm not being argumentative, (well, maybe a little), I'm just trying to get this all straight in my head.

Flutie


There is a thin line to walk and why as a lawyer, I'll not ever sit on another board...did it once and got out as fast as I could. People start looking to you for legal advice even when you are acting as a member of the board and not a lawyer for the association....there is a BIG BIG distinction. Being a member of a Board does NOT constitute providing legal services.


I think in this context however (at least as described), they are fine to represent Amy as long as any matters concerning Amy that then come before the board, they dismiss themselves as interested directors in that case.

This is just my quick gut reaction to the situation. I'm sure that before these lawyers made the decision to represent Amy, the ethics and conflicts were reviewed. No one case, client or deal is worth your bar license....and ANY lawyer worth hiring knows this.

Janet
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:14 PM
I know this has been discussed before, but I'm really confused about the purpose of the FEI hearing.

We know that the Rolex GJ disqualified AT for "abuse". So there is a finding that it existed.

Then we have the FEI hearing. Is the GJ's finding presumptively correct? Or is the hearing to start all over with whether or not abuse existed in the first place? Who has the burden of proof? The GJ, the FEI, AT?

In other words, what happens if the FEI finds against the GJ, or will they be able to? Is this more a sentencing hearing or a guilt hearing?

As to whether or not the FEI hearing panel will consider anything other than live testimony, it's pretty clear from the news release that they do.
It is a question of jurisdiction.

The Ground Jury had jurisdiction over THAT EVENT (Rolex). But no jurisdiction over anything else. They disqualified her FROM THAT EVENT.

The FEI committee has jurisdiction over the entire sport. They can do anything from deciding that the disqualification was sufficient, and no further punishment is needed, to banning her for life. AFAIK, there is no question of overturnimg the DQ from Rolex

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:18 PM
So does being a lawyer and being on a Board of an Association constitute providing legal services to that Association? And does providing legal services to an Association member constitute providing legal services to that Association? I'm not being argumentative, (well, maybe a little), I'm just trying to get this all straight in my head.

Flutie

Your first question: In and of itself, no, but it's hard to imagine that they didn't provide legal advice in Board meetings (this may be part of the reason they were asked to serve on the Board). If they provided legal advice (whether asked to or not) on any issue at Board meetings (at any Board meeting, for that matter) then yes. My experience representing trade and professional associations suggests that it is virtually impossible that, at some point along they way, they did NOT provide legal advice, and therefore legal services, to the Association. (Your question seems to assume that the only service they provided to the Ass'n was to sit on the Board, and that they never did things such as draft or analyze contracts, provide other conventional services, and the like. And I will make that assumption though, again based on my prior experience of how people get appointed to Executive Committees, I'm skeptical that they never ever provided legal services to the Ass'n other than possibly w/r/t their participation on the Board.)

Your second question -- probably not, but in some circumstances perhaps (I think you've raised legal ethics issues that are far thornier than you can imagine), but that's not the precise issue as I see it. As I see it, the issue revolves only partly around their possible role as lawyers for the Ass'n and more around their roles as 25% of the Executive Committee. Like it or not, the USEA is deeply involved in this issue -- its (purported and inevitably temporary) hands-off approach, which is a position that I presume was decided upon with some participation by the Exec. Comm. (I would be shocked if it wasn't), is itself taking a position, and one that is inconsistent with a position of zealously advocating for AT, which is the ethical obligation they undertook when they decided to represent her. I've said this before on another thread -- the USEA lists as its two foremost guiding principles as (1) the welfare of the horse and (2) putting the horse's welfare above the welfare of everyone else associated with the sport, including riders, sponsors, owners, breeders, organizers, etc. I don't see how they can uphold their responsibilities as Exec. Comm. members to enforce and apply these guiding principles (whether or not they have provided legal services to the Ass'n) when they have undertaken an ethical obligation to zealously advance AT's interests. Did they participate in any decisions or the like involving this matter while they were representing her? If so (we still don't know), aren't those decisions tainted? Is the USEA's decision (if by inaction) to allow AT to compete at USEA sanctioned events attributable in any part to their representation of her, which entails zealously advancing her interests? How can we be sure? (This is the "appearance of conflict" point.) And what are they going to do when the FEI hands down its ruling and, if it's adverse to AT, they (as 25% of the Exec. Comm. and perhaps also legal advisers to the USEA) are called upon to determine whether the USEA metes out any further sanction of its own?

Ghazzu
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:34 PM
"...If they provided any legal services to the USEA, they are "USEA lawyers" regardless whether they get paid for it."

So in my former life, I worked in the field of psychology. I have sat and sit on many USEA Boards/Committees. Using this premise then, can I say that I'm a "USEA psychologist"?

Cool! Let me at 'em!

Flutie

Wow. Guess I'm a USEA vet. Who knew?

Tiki
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:36 PM
Those of us who know her would support her to the end. If Sparky's owners are behind her 100%, why can't you just mind your own business and wait for the decision?Because she rode the horse into the ground and caused his death.

As far as the USEA Board Members who are attorneys. There is a saying in the Federal Government that it is not just the impropriety, but the perception of an impropriety that matters.

As far as horses not just dropping dead in their paddocks, without running an event? Yes, it happens all the time. The most recent time I can recall is a couple of months ago. Contango, of Iron Spring Farm, was turned out in his paddock for his morning exercise. The grooms said they turned him out as usual, he walked out and went down for a roll - as he always did - and he just lay there. They wondered why he didn't get back up after his roll, they went out to check, and he was dead. Just like that!

bambam
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:45 PM
Even if there is no actual ethical/legal conflict (and I doubt there is), it is a perception problem for the USEA once again. Why is it our organizations are so consistently foolish and shortsighted about publicity and perception? :no:

LexInVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:49 PM
Well the more I find out about these two lawyers, the less optimistic I am. One of them has a rather sordid past in terms of his career and is involved with Amy Tryon as a sponsor, fellow local competitor, and has assisted in her dealings with the USEA/USEF. The other is pretty much unknown as a lawyer and from what I've dug up about his legal credentials, he has really no reason for being present (he specializes in IP and Tech law) other than he's represented the USEA before in dealing with the USEF and USDF when they decided to become one big happy family and pool their programs/resources. So the only commonality I can find are their USEA connection as competitors and their USEA positions. From their backgrounds I would say that one is there because Amy Tryon is familiar with him and the other is there because he knows what the USEA/USEF leadership wants to get out of this and they trust him to act on their behalf as they have dealt with him before. But this is just speculation on my behalf so until the USEA/USEF issues a public statement concerning these lawyers and what exactly is going on in terms of their roles, who is paying them, etc, all we can do is speculate and ponder.

agromustang
Jun. 26, 2007, 03:58 PM
Even if there is no actual ethical/legal conflict (and I doubt there is), it is a perception problem for the USEA once again. Why is it our organizations are so consistently foolish and shortsighted about publicity and perception? :no:

I've read through most of the posts on this forum but I still don't understand why no one grasps this: This is an FEI issue. This has NO BEARING on the USEA. Amy Tryon is simply a member. The USEA does not make or enforce any rules, so any ruling by the FEI affecting her competition privledges would be handled through the USEF. Look at the cover of your rulebook sometime: United States Equestrian Federation Rules For Eventing. USEF handles all things rules-related on a national level and the FEI handles international.

The USEA has stayed out of this. And kudos to them for not choosing a side for this issue, merely reporting facts through their website news.

Mr. Baumgardner and Mr. Temkin are citizens of the US and intitled therefore to the freedoms of trade and commerce of this nation, are they not? Professionals in their field? They can't represent someone as an individual now? Can attorneys only have one client? Of course not!

The USEA didn't tell those two gentlemen to represent Amy Tryon. They didn't pay for anything concerning this case as the email from the association stated. Why does everyone continue to support the idea that the USEA is behind all things you find unsatisfactory?? Can we please instill some common sense in this forum?


______________________________________
Think before you type...

Erin
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:00 PM
all we can do is speculate and ponder.

Uh, yeah...

Is it the heat, or do people really not have anything else to do today? Five pages? (And it just went to six while I was typing this reply.) Solely discussing the fact that a hearing *happened* although no decision has been issued yet? Researching the lawyer's backgrounds, for heaven's sake?

Honestly, I have a pretty high tolerance for BBer weirdness, but some of y'all are really starting to go off the deep end.

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:05 PM
Flutie, since I have now been elevated to the position of "USEA Cardiologist" I now have a few stipulations for volunteering. I demand that my whistle be the BIGGEST one. :D :D :D

agromustang
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:08 PM
Uh, yeah...

Is it the heat, or do people really not have anything else to do today? Five pages? (And it just went to six while I was typing this reply.) Solely discussing the fact that a hearing *happened* although no decision has been issued yet? Researching the lawyer's backgrounds, for heaven's sake?

Honestly, I have a pretty high tolerance for BBer weirdness, but some of y'all are really starting to go off the deep end.

AMEN

austin
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:10 PM
This may have been mentioned, but David had a horse die on Advanced course at Red Hills (The Native, 2002?). he had reportedly pulled up earlier because the horse was not quite right, (to me he did not appear to have any energy?), but decided to continue and the horse collasped and died several fences later at the water fence. I was about 15 feet away and I can tell you from the look on his face David was devestated.

On a smaller scale, in a 2002 Prelim, I continued my beloved horse in the heat of competition when he stepped in a hole and carried his hind leg for several strides. I was locked in on the next fence (7th fence on the course) and hoped he had just stung himself. but thinking back he could have broken it for all I knew. We were running at speed and he put down just before the fence and finished the course fine. but I made a decision to push on and hope for the best.

Now I am a person who never went Intermediate because I though it was too dangerous for my babies. I still own that horse becasue I love him so much I would never sell him, partly for fear someone would go on above prelim and hurt him (he had done 25 prelims without a Xcountry penalty).

It is hard to judge if you have not been in the same position.

NeverTime
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:11 PM
I think people grasp perfectly well the difference in jurisdiction between the USEA and FEI -- the questions here (as I read them, at least) related not to which organization enforces the rules but rather whether the fact that the two independent businessmen entitled to free trade and commerce who represented her also happen to be members of the USEA board.
People were concerned whether that implied the USEA was somehow mounting or funding her defense. I think that's the "perception problem" bambam was referring to.
The things people have posted here make me feel confident that there is no grassy-knoll conspiracy theory involving the USEA mounting her defense, and that AT (Temkin that is) and KB are simply friends of AT's who offered to represent her pro bono.

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 04:13 PM
It is hard to judge if you have not been in the same position.

Apparently this does not hinder a good number of people from judging all the same... :no:

bambam
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:18 PM
I've read through most of the posts on this forum but I still don't understand why no one grasps this: This is an FEI issue. This has NO BEARING on the USEA. Amy Tryon is simply a member. The USEA does not make or enforce any rules, so any ruling by the FEI affecting her competition privledges would be handled through the USEF. Look at the cover of your rulebook sometime: United States Equestrian Federation Rules For Eventing. USEF handles all things rules-related on a national level and the FEI handles international.

The USEA has stayed out of this. And kudos to them for not choosing a side for this issue, merely reporting facts through their website news.

Mr. Baumgardner and Mr. Temkin are citizens of the US and intitled therefore to the freedoms of trade and commerce of this nation, are they not? Professionals in their field? They can't represent someone as an individual now? Can attorneys only have one client? Of course not!

The USEA didn't tell those two gentlemen to represent Amy Tryon. They didn't pay for anything concerning this case as the email from the association stated. Why does everyone continue to support the idea that the USEA is behind all things you find unsatisfactory?? Can we please instill some common sense in this forum?


______________________________________
Think before you type...

let me assure you that I know the difference between the FEI, the USEF and the USEA and who has jurisdiction over this case.
On some days, but not all, I even have some common sense. I also did in fact think before I typed.
It was not necessary to get snide in order to state that you disagree with me.
Regardless of whether the current hearing is an FEI hearing or not, USEA has publicly taken a neutral stance on this whole thing. Having two board members representing AT at the hearing does not look all that neutral- as I said in my original post, I am talking about perception here.
Also, having her attorneys (and by virtue of this her advocates) on the board of the organization that will be making decisions as to her ability to compete in non-FEI events should FEI sanction her is neither neutral nor appropriate and flat out looks bad for the USEA (even if they recuse themselves).
Having board members represent AT at a hearing that is such a volatile, hot button issue in the community is bad publicity pure and simple and a bad idea IMO for USEA.
While Mr. Baumgardner and Mr. Temkin are indeed probably US citizens, that is irrelevant. If you think there are no limitations on who attorneys can represent just because they are citizens, you are sadly mistaken. Board members of organizations can absolutely be limited in who they represent and the code of professional conduct for attorneys also limits who they can represent (although as I said, from what I know it does not look like there is a problem there). Regardless, I am not saying they cannot legally represent her, but from the USEA point of view, they should not.
I do not think that the USEA is responsible for all things bad- quite the opposite. I have defended the USEA numerous times both on this board and in real life. I think it is great BUT it appears to be simply ineffective at publicity and image control- it comes up again and again and while it is not limited to the USEA, since eventing is where my heart is, that is the organization that I care about. USEA looks to me like an organization that does not take sufficient consideration of public perception and as an organization that cannot survive without public support, that is short-sided and ultimately could be very unfortunate for the eventers that need the USEA.
now I am thinking I should have stuck with my policy of not posting on the AT threads :no:

LLDM
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:39 PM
No matter which side (or even the middle) of this argument one is on. So as I read these threads and try to see beyond the emotion (again, on all sides), I am trying to understand the heart of the arguments that have emotions running so high.

I believe Amy's defenders are paranoid that she will get railroaded - and, in effect, pay for the sins of ULRs (or anyone) who are, um, shady(?) but have never been caught "red-handed", as it were. That she will be "made an example of" in order to put the world on notice that poor behavior is not going to be tolerated. And, if I am reading this right, those who actually know her feel that this is ridiculous, as she is not "shady" and has made just this one (albeit awful) mistake. They seem to feel it is not "fair" for her to be the one who serves as this example to others. Thus, they are happy to have all the stops pulled out in her defense.

I believe Amy's detractors are paranoid that she will "skate", and in effect not even be held accountable for a very public misjudgment that led, directly or indirectly, to the death of her horse. And that if this incident goes unpunished it is tantamount to saying that there are no ramifications to disastrous judgments which harm one's horse. And that a judgment like this would, in effect, give tacit consent to mistreatment of horses as long as one is of a certain stature or has enough wiggle room to claim it was just a mistake. Couple that the list of those participating in the Tribunal hearing (aside from FEI officials) consisting primarily of governing members of the USEF and USEA - it leads to the perception that they fall into the Amy supporters camp - with all that seems to imply.

I believe there are a couple of things that cause a big part of the divide in this case. First, this is not a trial based on some constitutional law. So while the individual's rights are not as protected as they would be in a court of law, the ability for the Tribunal to impose any penalty beyond some period of suspension from competition does not exist. They can not put someone in jail, ban them from owning horses or prevent them from making a living in the industry. Both the individual rights AND the scope of punishment is limited in the Tribunal process (as I understand it, of course).

Second, for the same reasons as stated above, there is NOT the transparency we have come to expect from regular trials. I do not believe we (meaning anyone outside those who were there and certain FEI officials) will have access to the transcripts of the hearing. So it is doubtful that we will ever know just who thought what and what was testified to in any detail. I could be wrong here, but this is how I understand it.

So why do people want to know so badly and why do they think this is any of their (the publics) business?

Well, normally it would be a case of balancing the rights and protections of the individual vs the rights and protections of the whole (be it the members, the sport of eventing, the equine industry as a whole, or just the public and its perception). But - we are NOT normal. We are horse people. There is a third party in this whole mess which must be considered - the horses.

When I really try to boil this all down to its essence this is where I end up. The FEI and the USEA have extremely strong statements concerning The Welfare of the Horse. (The USEF does too, but the wording tends to be more evenly divided between the human and equine - at least to my reading of it.) What these statements and policies say, in effect, is that their competition horses' welfare takes precedence over the rights and protections of the individuals AND the respective organizations.

It's all well and to say that the Welfare of the Horse is paramount, it is another to actually uphold that concept when weighed against the rights of a particular individual - a real person, rather than a theoretical one. I believe this case sits on a very fine line.

In general matters of regular laws, human rights supersede animal rights in just about all cases with the exception of abuse, and, to a lesser extent, neglect. But for those of us who use horses for our pleasure and our sports - we have said, in effect, that we will put their needs above our own to a large extent, and be a voice for their welfare as a whole.

Considering that this case will set a significant precedent, it is no wonder that emotions are running high.

To a certain extent (if we are to be honest with ourselves) what we accept is the fact that in eventing horses die in competition on a fairly regular basis as a direct and immediate result of the competition itself. This is also true of racing and endurance, not really true of dressage and reining, and rarely true of hunters or even jumpers. (In fairness, I'll point out that eventers tend to share the mortality and injury rate with their horses.)

The truth of the matter is, that at the end of the day, when the Tribunal decision is rendered and published, it will say something about us. It will make a statement about how seriously we consider the welfare of the horse and how far we are willing to go in defense of it - how much we will tolerate, even if there is no direct intent.

I am not sure it is such a bad thing for any rider who leaves the start box to realize ALL the things they risk. They risk the lives and health of themselves and their horses, and, in all honesty, risk both their careers as well. Maybe that is what this comes down to for me.

SCFarm

hb
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:41 PM
If they provided any legal services to the USEA, they are "USEA lawyers" regardless whether they get paid for it.

The person to whom I was responding in my post was concerned about whether her USEA dues were paying for Amy's defense. So the fact that these attorneys do NOT get paid by the USEA was key in that discussion. Also, the USEA responded to her e-mail that they are not funding Amy's defense.

flutie1
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:45 PM
DW
My whistle is the biggest - but you can be second!
:-)

Lisa Cook
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:46 PM
The person to whom I was responding in my post was concerned about whether her USEA dues were paying for Amy's defense. So the fact that these attorneys do NOT get paid by the USEA was key in that discussion.

To clarify - the lawyers are not getting paid to represent Amy Tryon at the FEI hearing. I did not ask the question, and it was not mentioned, if the lawyers ever got paid by the USEA for other services, legal or otherwise.

LLDM - that was a great post. Thank you.

austin
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:56 PM
I am all for cooler heads creating rules to help us adrenaline junkies protect the welfare of our horses (make decisions for us in the heat of the moment that we ourselves would make if we were sitting on a chair watching a video).

Janet
Jun. 26, 2007, 05:58 PM
To clarify - the lawyers are not getting paid to represent Amy Tryon at the FEI hearing. I did not ask the question, and it was not mentioned, if the lawyers ever got paid by the USEA for other services, legal or otherwise.

LLDM - that was a great post. Thank you. In an OPEN BoG meeting (at the annual USEA meeting) one of them (I forget which) made a comment about "how much it would cost if we were billing USEA" which certainly led ME to believe that they are not being paid by USEA.

shea'smom
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:04 PM
I am not surprised this has gone to 6 pages. We are discussing it at the barn, at the Pony Club meetings, at a party I went to the other night with someone who evented 20 years ago.
I'd find it stranger if we weren't discussing it here.

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:11 PM
The USEA has stayed out of this. And kudos to them for not choosing a side for this issue, merely reporting facts through their website news. ... Can attorneys only have one client? Of course not!



The USEA has purported to stay out of it publicly. Judging by the intimate involvement of two of its eight Exec. Comm. members in defense of the rider, what it is doing behind the scenes (at least until yesterday, when it was disclosed by the FEI as opposed to the USEA) appears to be entirely different.

And lawyers can have more than one client, but not in the same matter where the two clients' positions and interests are not consistent with each other.


Uh, yeah...

... Researching the lawyer's backgrounds, for heaven's sake?

The article I imagine LexInVa was referring to was actually quite interesting reading on a hot summer day.


I don't see how they can uphold their responsibilities as Exec. Comm. members to enforce and apply these guiding principles (whether or not they have provided legal services to the Ass'n) when they have undertaken an ethical obligation to zealously advance AT's interests. Did they participate in any decisions or the like involving this matter while they were representing her? If so (we still don't know), aren't those decisions tainted? Is the USEA's decision (if by inaction) to allow AT to compete at USEA sanctioned events attributable in any part to their representation of her, which entails zealously advancing her interests? How can we be sure? (This is the "appearance of conflict" point.) And what are they going to do when the FEI hands down its ruling and, if it's adverse to AT, they (as 25% of the Exec. Comm. and perhaps also legal advisers to the USEA) are called upon to determine whether the USEA metes out any further sanction of its own?

Flutie, in response to what you described as your perhaps argumentative questions about what constitutes lawyers' services, others (and perhaps even I) gave you some thoughtful responses. Perhaps you or someone else high in the pantheon of USEA can return the favor by answering some of our questions (I'm thinking of bambam's points).

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:15 PM
In an OPEN BoG meeting (at the annual USEA meeting) one of them (I forget which) made a comment about "how much it would cost if we were billing USEA" which certainly led ME to believe that they are not being paid by USEA.

And that suggests they are in fact providing legal services, and a substantial amount of legal services, to the Association and are not, as some have tried to suggest, merely sitting on the Exec. Comm. with their lawyer hats tucked away in a corner.

flutie1
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:16 PM
" ... One of them has a rather sordid past in terms of his career"

I sincerely hope you consider very very carefully the potential ramifications of throwing the word "sordid" around. I find your not very thinly veiled slam offensive at best.

pegasusmom
Jun. 26, 2007, 06:30 PM
So does being a lawyer and being on a Board of an Association constitute providing legal services to that Association? And does providing legal services to an Association member constitute providing legal services to that Association? I'm not being argumentative, (well, maybe a little), I'm just trying to get this all straight in my head.

Flutie

Flutie - the Greyhounds want to know if you shouldn't be flagging fences and not worrying your pretty little head about such silly things.

I just love trainwrecks. . . . where is American Idol when you really need it.

flutie1
Jun. 26, 2007, 07:00 PM
Ah Dana, I've jobbed out mowing and aeravating, flagging comes next week, and I'm avoiding the 90 plus humid weather by wasting time on the computer. I know the greyhounds would understand! The ghost of Flutie would too as he spent his life in various creative forms of time wasting. The other option is doing laundry or cleaning the house - and that's a non-starter!

retreadeventer
Jun. 26, 2007, 08:14 PM
Ah, public perception....
Take every lawyer in the country. Here's the pile.
00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
Now take away all those who don't know anything about horses.
00000000000000000000
Now out of what's left, take away all those who don't know anything about eventing.
000000000
Now, out of what's left, take away all those who don't have the expertise or experience to understand competition rules.
0000
Now, out of those that are left, take away all that know nothing about upper level or international competition experience.
00
Now out of those that are left, pick the ones that have the time to fly to Europe and represent a rider for the FEI and can jump thru all the other hoops we don't know about to assist in the process.
o
I'd say that pool is pretty damn small!
Bornfree, you and those guys are about it, I'd say!!! So it's not a matter of perception or no perception -- that's just the only ones available in the US probably that had the background and could do it! This is not a huge sport, folks!

annikak
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:15 PM
This may have been mentioned, but David had a horse die on Advanced course at Red Hills (The Native, 2002?). he had reportedly pulled up earlier because the horse was not quite right, (to me he did not appear to have any energy?), but decided to continue and the horse collasped and died several fences later at the water fence. I was about 15 feet away and I can tell you from the look on his face David was devestated.

On a smaller scale, in a 2002 Prelim, I continued my beloved horse in the heat of competition when he stepped in a hole and carried his hind leg for several strides. I was locked in on the next fence (7th fence on the course) and hoped he had just stung himself. but thinking back he could have broken it for all I knew. We were running at speed and he put down just before the fence and finished the course fine. but I made a decision to push on and hope for the best.


It is hard to judge if you have not been in the same position.

You are a brave, brave person to bring up what has seemed to be unmentionable.
I feel the same as you do- It could have been me, and I guess that is what bothers me the most.
Plus...it seems that NO one wants to talk about anything that has happened that is not youtubed or video'd to death. I don't know-perhaps it's because at the events where terrible things happened, it was eventers that were there, and not non-eventers. I don't know, really I don't.

At Wayne last year, an ULR/T tried to pass a horse at the CIC*** that was totally lame. And I mean LAME. THAT was poor horsemanship- and the ground jury said as much. In that case, the Ground Jury saved that horse- and to date, I have not seen that horse out competing at all. That system worked that day, and I appreciate that greatly. I guess that is why I like the CIC and the CCI formats- I want to know that others think my guy is fit enough, healthy enough to go on. (Then again, I did not present at Wayne- stepped on a clip, don't 'cha know?:eek:)

poltroon
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:33 PM
Also, having her attorneys (and by virtue of this her advocates) on the board of the organization that will be making decisions as to her ability to compete in non-FEI events should FEI sanction her is neither neutral nor appropriate and flat out looks bad for the USEA (even if they recuse themselves).

USEA does not sanction riders or bar them from competing; USEF would be the body to take that action, if it desired.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:35 PM
RE: the Lainie siutation versus the Amy situation.

Flame suit firmly zipped, and with no intention of implying that Laine's situation was anything other than terrible luck, I will say this . . .

One thing I have learned this year, that I have suspected for years previously, but now I KNOW, is that if God forbid something should ever happen to one of my horses at an event, I will scream, and weep, and wail, and rend clothing and fling myself to the ground and make a scene.

I am not that kind of emotional outburst in public type of person, but it seems extremely clear to me if you behave in the above manner, the way the public thinks you ought to, "if you really love your horse", they will forgive and support you, and feel bad for you. If you are stiff upper lip type who would rather go cry quietly in the porta potty out of view, or who would rather focus on the horse than make a scene, they will *#^$%*#ing crucify you.

Past situations have led me to suspect this. This year's tragedies have confirmed it.

As far as all the hoopla over Andrew and Kevin, and a "conflict of interest" it should be pointed out that the USEA has no power to restrict or punish Amy. All of that falls in to the wheelhouse of the USEF. So, it's not like the Executive Commitee, with Kevin and Andrew in attendance, will ever have to vote on, say, whether or not Amy should be allowed to compete the rest of the year. It is the USEF who will decide what it will do if Amy is suspended. The USEA simply has no control over those issues.

Finally, for those bringing up incidents with other riders, and those who are saying it's not the same thing (for instance, Karen pulling up Biko, when Amy did not pull up). To me the point is that while it is completely clear in hindsight that her not pulling up was a terrible mistake, some folks here, and many/most of the ULR I've spoken with do understand how in that moment it could have happened. Sort of a "There but for the grace of God go I," type of feeling.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. We can all hope and pray that we would make a different choice given the circumstnaces, but not a single one of us can KNOW, until it happens to us (or until you develop psyhcic powers). But I suspect it feels safer to make Amy into some sort of monster, thus allowing the rest of us to go out of the startbox thinking, "I'm not like her, I love my horse, so it'll never happen to me."

If only.:cry:

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:40 PM
and many/most of the ULR I've spoken with do understand how in that moment it could have happened. Sort of a "There but for the grace of God go I," type of feeling.

That would be 100% of professional/ULR riders I've spoken to about it. Apparently the ones who are convinced THEY would've done much better are non-eventers. :no:

Paks
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:44 PM
Okay yes many people have gotten away with many things. Does that mean we keep letting them get away with it? Next time you are pulled over for speeding see how well giving the cop and the judge a list of names of other people who speed.

Though I as a potential client do find the list enlightening.

As far as I am concerned the penalty needs to be hash enough so anyone who has a question in there mind as to if their horse is fit to continue, pulls up. That will probably take a combination of suspension and fine. Apparently conern for the horse really isn't enough for alot of people.

To those who feel only ULR should be able to judge her. Again take a look at the judicial system. If someone is accused of robbing a bank are only people with the same background, education level and economic status allowed on the jury? Does the judge have to be poor to judge a poor person? A multimillionaire to judge ENRON executives?

I will be interested to see the FEI rulling I will also be interested to see the summary of the testomonies.

Until then all we have is speculation. Which tends to happen in an information drought.

snoopy
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:45 PM
That would be 100% of professional/ULR riders I've spoken to about it. Apparently the ones who are convinced THEY would've done much better are non-eventers. :no:


Well I have spoken to quite a few who share a different point of view.

annikak
Jun. 26, 2007, 09:47 PM
[quote=PhoenixFarm;2525921
If only.:cry:[/quote]

Indeed- and as DW has said, and others that I have spoken to, ones that I respect and trust, they have said the same thing...who knows until they are actually THERE in that moment? I think that bad decisions are much different then poor horsemanship/sportsmanship.

sofiethewonderhorse
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:02 PM
Reluctantly, I dropped on this very, very very long thread regarding Amy Tryon's hearing. Unfortunately, I found a couple of "thoughts" which have not been addressed (if they were addressed in the first 3 pages, forgive me...they need to be brought up again).

Kevin Baumgardner is an attorney, I do not know Mr. Temkin personally, however...he is also an attorney.

In my experience, attorneys do not jeapordize their professionalism....for any reason, cause, question etc (unless you happen to work for the Fed's ;)).

In questioning these attorneys involvement with Amy, USEA, FEI etc. you are questioning their professional ethics....dangerous ground..."me thinks you might want to re-think".

>> think it is great BUT it appears to be simply ineffective at publicity and image control<<

Why does a public association, payed for with dues from members who choose to "join" need image control?

Amy is an individual, Mr. Baugardner and Temkin are also individuals. They are professionals involved in a process, they also happen to belong to USEA.

>>USEA looks to me like an organization that does not take sufficient consideration of public perception and as an organization that cannot survive without public support, that is short-sided and ultimately could be very unfortunate for the eventers that need the USEA.<<

USEA...United States Eventing Association....is an association, made up of volunteers and people who love the sport.

Think back not too far in the distant past, the entire eventing community was up in arms over the "format change"....follow that trail, the format change went back to FEI.

Unless every nay sayer on the AT threads is willing to pony up 1 million? 2 million? 3 million? try 10, 20 30 or 100, 200 300

USEA does not have the where with all to overthrow the FEI.

As to your final comment about not posting your thoughts....I think it is awesome you post your thoughts, please continue, I would hope that the more experienced people in this sport (far more experienced than me, with far more knowledge, history, etc) will help educate EVERYONE who has legitimate questions.

Regards



While Mr. Baumgardner and Mr. Temkin are indeed probably US citizens, that is irrelevant. If you think there are no limitations on who attorneys can represent just because they are citizens, you are sadly mistaken. Board members of organizations can absolutely be limited in who they represent and the code of professional conduct for attorneys also limits who they can represent (although as I said, from what I know it does not look like there is a problem there). Regardless, I am not saying they cannot legally represent her, but from the USEA point of view, they should not.
I do not think that the USEA is responsible for all things bad- quite the opposite. I have defended the USEA numerous times both on this board and in real life. I think it is great BUT it appears to be simply ineffective at publicity and image control- it comes up again and again and while it is not limited to the USEA, since eventing is where my heart is, that is the organization that I care about. USEA looks to me like an organization that does not take sufficient consideration of public perception and as an organization that cannot survive without public support, that is short-sided and ultimately could be very unfortunate for the eventers that need the USEA.

flyingchange
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:04 PM
oh WHATEVER!!! Is think now a pissing contest on how many ULR's we know who are on the side we think is right? Give me a BREAK!!!!

Paks
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:12 PM
Indeed- and as DW has said, and others that I have spoken to, ones that I respect and trust, they have said the same thing...who knows until they are actually THERE in that moment? I think that bad decisions are much different then poor horsemanship/sportsmanship.

I think they are the same thing. If someone makes a bad decsision with reguards to a horse if is poor horsemanship. if they chronically make bad decisions with reguards to a horse it is chronic poor horsemanship.

To my mind Amy made 25 bad decsions that day. Every stride she didn't pull up after the stumble was a bad decision, was bad horsemanship.

And really it doesn't matter what I would have done or CMP would have done or Karen OConner would have done. What matters is what should have been done no who or how big a name you are or what level you are riding at.

deltawave
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:22 PM
No decision by the FEI is going to change any individual's mind about this situation. It may, however, offer a little bit of (I hate to use such a trite term) "closure". I certainly hope so!

Paks
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:28 PM
No decision by the FEI is going to change any individual's mind about this situation. It may, however, offer a little bit of (I hate to use such a trite term) "closure". I certainly hope so!

That is most likely true but there is a good chance it may change people's mind about the FEI, Eventing and horse sports in general.

snoopy
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:32 PM
No decision by the FEI is going to change any individual's mind about this situation. It may, however, offer a little bit of (I hate to use such a trite term) "closure". I certainly hope so!


Agreed

snoopy
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:33 PM
That is most likely true but there is a good chance it may change people's mind about the FEI, Eventing and horse sports in general.



ditto

useventers
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:54 PM
Question? If AT is suspended by the FEI, does that mean she can still compete nationally since the USEA is not involved?

ideayoda
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:55 PM
With all this speculation about where your dues $$ are going.....I know as a judge that my (judging) dues pay an automatic 1M insurance policy for anything that might happen at a show (likely never used). I would presume that any team member and their dues also goes to the same sort of policy (which of course is rarely, if ever, needed.) And one takes an attorney to any sort of court case where the letter of the law needs to be interpreted...the rules=laws.

Carol Ames
Jun. 26, 2007, 10:55 PM
I am sick of this rumor :mad:mongering, and slinging of arrows at AT; please folks let's remember the old proverb ",,, until you've walked in anothers' shoes..., none of us was in her skin or on the horse that day, and we have no idea what she thought or felt; Kerry Milikin pointed out several times in the the course of her round that Sparky was "puling /,taking her to the fences on his own; One of the USA groups should certainly come to her aid, after all, she has contributed to several medal winning teams :); and. please remember , no matter what punishment/fine she receives it will never be as severe as the one she already received , having her horse break down underneath her; If she has friends in "high places " use them! No one should have to face su ch a hearing on their own. ie., without counsel; I realize that most on this forum have already tried her or, come to a decision on their own; One of the unfortunate habits we , as humans as well as horsemen have is to "blame the victim"; Lucinda got lots heaped on her after wideawake dropped dead at Badminton, after the victory gallop:(; and, even Karen got it after losing mr. Maxwell at /Badminton; and thrn there was Kerry , taking her case to arbitration; she was ascertainly attacked though what she was trying to do was to broaden the selection criteria but, I'm afraid many people never heard her point because they were so busy attacking her; please folks, let's let this hearing play out as it will; sooner or later everyone here, will find item selves in a similar situation and remember "What goes around comes aroundlOne of the worst cases of this ugly sniping was in connection with a barn fire in the Midwest; There had been a fire , the result of a propane gas leak, combined with a particular water heater; I tried to help them , physically with the horse care , allowing them to get on with other areas of their lives; Shortly after the fire in which 12 horses died they received a message from someone blaming them for the fire, and saying that they had known for years about the gas leak, and hot waiter heater problems; The following year that particular water heater was recalled after being implicated in other the fires/explosions but, the "boo bird " hsd to have their say

Janet
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:11 PM
Question? If AT is suspended by the FEI, does that mean she can still compete nationally since the USEA is not involved?
The point is that it is the USEF, not the USEA, that determines whether or not she can compete nationally.

LexInVA
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:12 PM
Kevin Baumgardner is an attorney, I do not know Mr. Temkin personally, however...he is also an attorney.

In my experience, attorneys do not jeapordize their professionalism....for any reason, cause, question etc (unless you happen to work for the Fed's ;)).

In questioning these attorneys involvement with Amy, USEA, FEI etc. you are questioning their professional ethics....dangerous ground..."me thinks you might want to re-think".


I beg to differ. :)

Gnep
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:30 PM
The people I have talked to and who know AT, consider her a first class person and horsewoman and I trust their judgement with out question. They are all stunt by what has happend.
We all make mistakes and missjudgement in our professional live and we have to take the penalty for it.
Did she make a mistake and missjudgement, by all means, a very bad one, does that make her an evil person, absolutly no, should she be punished, absolutly yes, should it be a career ending punishement no, but it should be sever.

I think the question of interest of conflict by the lawyers has been answered by lawyers, or legal pros, very well.

Concerning K OC, I think it shows that she is realy a class act person. If a friend is in need friends respond. In a case like this most friends just run and standing up for a friend shows real qualities.

useventers
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:35 PM
So will the USEF uphold whatever the FEI decides?

JAM
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:40 PM
....

As far as all the hoopla over Andrew and Kevin, and a "conflict of interest" it should be pointed out that the USEA has no power to restrict or punish Amy. All of that falls in to the wheelhouse of the USEF. So, it's not like the Executive Commitee, with Kevin and Andrew in attendance, will ever have to vote on, say, whether or not Amy should be allowed to compete the rest of the year. It is the USEF who will decide what it will do if Amy is suspended. The USEA simply has no control over those issues.



Just a question, really, just a question -- does the USEA not have the power to suspend or terminate a member's membership in the Association? (If it doesn't, it would be the only association I've ever heard of that doesn't.) Or must it take and keep all comers? If it can boot members out, it does have the power to restrict / punish, since only members can ride at USEA recognized events; no?

And, if USEA does not have power to punish, it doesn't make it any more palatable that it has taken a public stance of neutrality while failing to disclose that two of its Exec. Comm. members are representing her. Just my $.02.




In my experience, attorneys do not jeapordize their professionalism....for any reason, cause, question etc (unless you happen to work for the Fed's ;)).

I guess you are too young to have lived through Watergate. (Won't get into Whitewater.) I could go on with many more examples, but I would be typing till 4 in the morning.

*EventRider*
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:47 PM
Why is only the death of LS being looked into? Why not the death of Laine's horse? Or the 2 horses that died at Badminton. Not saying that anyone has even done anything wrong. Why are all horse deaths not considered equal in the eyes of the FEI? Shouldn't any death of a horse be taken as seriously as that of LS? For that matter, what about the horse that died in the Intermediate at the Fork? Why should it have to be under the FEI to be taken seriously? Just because these other deaths have not been on video does not mean that their riders have done nothing wrong. Also just because a death happened at a horse trials does not keep it from being serious. Why does the rider of the horse from the Fork not have to go to a hearing? I realize this was not an international competition, but only a small group of riders make it to a CCI or a CIC. If we learn nothing from a death of a horse, then how do we prevent it from happening again in the future? We not only need to prevent death at the international level, but in our own horse trials in our own country. We need to protect our own, and we need to do that but taking each and every death seriously.

Janet
Jun. 26, 2007, 11:52 PM
All the horse deaths ARE investigated. Deaths at FEI competitions and deaths at USEA competitions. Each and every death IS taken seriously.

But it is a DIFFERENT process from the process for investigating abuse.

LexInVA
Jun. 27, 2007, 12:27 AM
Just a question, really, just a question -- does the USEA not have the power to suspend or terminate a member's membership in the Association? (If it doesn't, it would be the only association I've ever heard of that doesn't.) Or must it take and keep all comers? If it can boot members out, it does have the power to restrict / punish, since only members can ride at USEA recognized events; no?

And, if USEA does not have power to punish, it doesn't make it any more palatable that it has taken a public stance of neutrality while failing to disclose that two of its Exec. Comm. members are representing her. Just my $.02.

The USEA can revoke membership at any time but it requires a meeting of the BOG for that to happen which means it takes some effort on their behalf to do so. According to their by-laws, they can only suspend, censure, or expel members after the BOG meets and they must notify the member no less than 21 days before the meeting so they can attend and speak on their own behalf. In this instance, a lawyer only serves two purposes, to advise her in what to say and to work out an appeal to the FEI if they decide to ban her from competition which may occur. It certainly is in the interest of the USEF/USEA muckety mucks, the big name donors and obviously her sponsors, which I think both of the lawyers are, to do whatever they can to keep her competing internationally. Otherwise her career as an eventer and their investments in resources will have been wasted.

Ellie K
Jun. 27, 2007, 01:07 AM
The point is that it is the USEF, not the USEA, that determines whether or not she can compete nationally.No, it is the FEI. THe USEF, as the FEI's member for the US, functions as its "arm" or extension (or is supposed to, if it chose to fulfill its membership obligations).

FEI Art. 174.5.1. Suspension must be for a stated period and during that period the person, Horse or body suspended may take no part in Competitions or Events as a competitor, Horse or Official or in the organisation of, or participation in, any Event under the jurisdiction of the FEI or any Event under the jurisdiction of an NF in accordance with Statutes Art. 37.Although not a member of the FEI and thus not directly governed by them as the USEF is, the USEA like all national associations is also required to uphold FEI rules. It would be the USEF's responsibility to ensure that any affiliated org underneath its umbrella also upheld the suspension. If the USEF didn't do this, they would be violating their membership agreement in the FEI, and they could be sanctioned by it. NFs can also be fined and suspended, even expelled from the FEI. The NF is both governed by, and is a governing arm of, the IF.

canterlope
Jun. 27, 2007, 05:36 AM
Ellie K, you need to read a bit further to get the full meaning of FEI Art. 174.5.1. Statutes Art. 37 limits the scope of suspension by a NF to international events and activities under the jurisdiction of the FEI. National competitions fall outside of this jurisdiction. As a result, while the FEI and/or NFs have the power to suspend a rider from international competitions, only the NF has the right to suspend a rider from national competitions.

In addition, the scope of the FEI's governing power over the USEF is limited to only those international activities that fall within the jurisdiction of the FEI. While it is true that the NF is both governed by, and is the governing arm of, the IF (FEI), the extent of this governance does not include the national activities engaged in by the NF.

belambi
Jun. 27, 2007, 06:19 AM
Just to clarify. The reason that i started this post in the first place was simply due to time differences..You guys were all going to bed..We were all getting up.and it was everywhere, Even discussed on out local news radio. Eventing is very seriously taken here)
All reports actually go to great lengths to mention the 'you tube' and TV coverage, and the outrage that this has caused.I hope this will not increase the likely hood of her being made a scapegoat?..

To the poster who sent me very accusatory emails.. Thanks..but I will not justify those sort of messages by replying.

BarbB
Jun. 27, 2007, 08:17 AM
One thing I have learned this year, that I have suspected for years previously, but now I KNOW, is that if God forbid something should ever happen to one of my horses at an event, I will scream, and weep, and wail, and rend clothing and fling myself to the ground and make a scene.

I am not that kind of emotional outburst in public type of person, but it seems extremely clear to me if you behave in the above manner, the way the public thinks you ought to, "if you really love your horse", they will forgive and support you, and feel bad for you. If you are stiff upper lip type who would rather go cry quietly in the porta potty out of view, or who would rather focus on the horse than make a scene, they will *#^$%*#ing crucify you.
..........
..... But I suspect it feels safer to make Amy into some sort of monster, thus allowing the rest of us to go out of the startbox thinking, "I'm not like her, I love my horse, so it'll never happen to me."

If only.:cry:


:yes:

LLDM
Jun. 27, 2007, 08:26 AM
Why is only the death of LS being looked into? Why not the death of Laine's horse? Or the 2 horses that died at Badminton. Not saying that anyone has even done anything wrong. Why are all horse deaths not considered equal in the eyes of the FEI? Shouldn't any death of a horse be taken as seriously as that of LS? <snip>

Just wanted to point out that the Ground Jury & Appeals Committee Decision (and the resulting referral up to the FEI Tribunal process) happened long before La Samurai was put down. It was not, technically, an investigation into the death of a horse. It is about the actions (or inactions) of the rider.

As was said above, all horse deaths at FEI competitions are automatically investigated. So the horses' deaths you mention above are being investigated, however their riders are not automatically charged with anything.

It is a very interesting question though. La Samurai did not die at Rolex. He was put down 5 or 6 days later. So, I honestly don't know if there is a separate, specific investigation into the circumstances of his death. I have no idea how that window of FEI jurisdiction would work in this case.

SCFarm

Weatherford
Jun. 27, 2007, 08:44 AM
Madeline,

When Amy rode through severe pain to finish a team score in Jerez, you all applauded her physical courage and willingness to sacrifice for the team. When she rode that startlingly unconventional show jumping round in Athens, you all cheered her horsemanship and ability to allow her brilliant, idiosyncratic horse to do things his way. The fact that she was one of you, from humble background (ignoring that she is a brilliant, dedicated horseman) validated your own yearnings to excel. But now you have found that she is capable of error, and the mob seldom forgives it's idols when they fail to live up to expection. Cato knew why the mob was to be feared and the manner in which the mob was so easily manipulated by the Caesars gave proof to his fears.

France, and many of the European nations works under the Napoleonic Code which presumes guilt. Be thankful that this country adopted English common law, with its presumption of innocence, and have the decency to honor that choice.

Tulkas

Thank you, Tulkas!

bambam
Jun. 27, 2007, 09:31 AM
As to your final comment about not posting your thoughts....I think it is awesome you post your thoughts, please continue, I would hope that the more experienced people in this sport (far more experienced than me, with far more knowledge, history, etc) will help educate EVERYONE who has legitimate questions.
While I appreciate the sentiment, softie, the reason I said that about not posting is because people misconstrue what you say and it seems to happen a LOT in these AT threads.
You say "I have said "In questioning these attorneys involvement with Amy, USEA, FEI etc. you are questioning their professional ethics....dangerous ground..."me thinks you might want to re-think"."
I have stated quite clearly (at least I thought) that I did not think that the attorneys have any legal/ethical conflict here and that the problem is for the USEA. I have not questioned the attorneys' ethics so please do not imply otherwise and I do not appreciate your stating that I did. In fact I had been so clear about my position on this that until I got to your quote of me I assumed you were not addressing my comments.
I simply disagree that the USEA does not need to worry about its image. It needs both credibility within the eventing community and the larger equestrian community to be an effective organization. Its image is directly and inextricably linked with that.
The USEA, along with any organization with a BOG or BOD, can and should limit activities of the Board member that will adversely affect the organization.
If I am incorrect that the USEA has any involvement in or discretion concerning a rider's ability to compete in nationally run competitions, then that obviously is one thing off my list of concerns. I am not convinced however that they have no such involvement.

LisaB
Jun. 27, 2007, 10:18 AM
Nope, tulkas, she is not one of me. I have a geek job and the hubby is a cop. So we have rather average earnings. There's no way in hell we can afford half of what she's able to afford. It's always been a bit of a bug up my butt about that. She's a worker, true, but thinking that she can afford what she can on the public servant budget is silly. I don't have her tax return in front of me so that's why I kinda don't bring it up. But nope, sorry, she has funds elsewhere. She has to.
On the other note about her continuing with an injury. Great for her. But horses are stupid. They have absolutely no idea what's exactly wrong with themselves in order to make an informed decision to continue on with the competition. They will listen to the lead mare (in this case the rider) in order to stay with the herd and survive. That's why it's imperative that we absolutely know the horse and know when they are hurting and pull up.

BTW, LLDM's post is totally spot on.

vineyridge
Jun. 27, 2007, 10:48 AM
Could someone who understands politics discuss or clarify this for me.

Say the FEI suspends AT through the 2008 Olympics. That will be a true punishment and one that the international community will probably find acceptable.

We have already had a statement from the USEF that they will support AT throughout the process, and the USEA has said it's neutral.

Once the FEI has made its ruling, assuming it's suspension through the next Olympics, will the USEF and USEA be likely to pile on to affect her abilities to show nationally? I'm thinking of USEA suspension of membership and USEF suspension of showing rights. Or willl they simply say that the FEI suspension is enough punishment?

Anyone have ideas on this? And on what would be the "best" position PR wise for the Organizations to take?

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:18 AM
Nope, tulkas, she is not one of me. I have a geek job and the hubby is a cop. So we have rather average earnings. There's no way in hell we can afford half of what she's able to afford. It's always been a bit of a bug up my butt about that. She's a worker, true, but thinking that she can afford what she can on the public servant budget is silly. I don't have her tax return in front of me so that's why I kinda don't bring it up. But nope, sorry, she has funds elsewhere. She has to.


Wow. So in addition to being a horse abuser, she's now liar? She's secretly a trust fund baby who has hatched an elaborate plot to appear as "one of the little people?" Wait. I know. It's even worse than I imagined. Amy is actually . . . .

PARIS HILTON.

Of course. How could I not see through the elaborate disguise. I can't be the only one who's noticed that Amy and Paris have never appeared in public together.

It's all so clear now! How could I have been so blind!

:lol::lol::rolleyes::lol::rolleyes::rolleyes::lol: :rolleyes::lol::rolleyes:

Janet
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:21 AM
Nope, tulkas, she is not one of me. I have a geek job and the hubby is a cop. So we have rather average earnings. There's no way in hell we can afford half of what she's able to afford. It's always been a bit of a bug up my butt about that. She's a worker, true, but thinking that she can afford what she can on the public servant budget is silly. I don't have her tax return in front of me so that's why I kinda don't bring it up. But nope, sorry, she has funds elsewhere. She has to. My understanding is that she has extensive support from sponsors and owners, who pay the competition costs for specific horses.

ravenclaw
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:32 AM
This might be common knowledge, but Amy has had a couple of articles in recent issues of Practical Horseman (cancel your subscriptions, everyone! :rolleyes:) and it said that she retired from her firefighting job. Not that she made a lot of money as a firefighter, but she is now riding and training full-time. I would imagine that her sponsors and owners help out a lot.

gr8fulrider
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:42 AM
Writing as a lawyer, and not as anyone particularly qualified to judge AT's actions or litigate an FEI disciplinary action:

First, "conflict of interest." For a conflict of interest to exist, the attorneys would have to take a position that is potentially adverse to a client whom they represent. As far as I know, (a) AT's attorneys do not represent the USEA or USEF as clients; (b) due to the organizations' positions of support or neutrality, representing AT is not "adverse" to their interests; and (c) there does not seem to be even a potential adversary action between AT and the other organizations.

Also, if there down the road there were an USEA/USEF action against her, there are ways to avoid a conflict. These attorneys would obviously have to recuse themselves from any board duties re: determining the outcome (don't know whether the board is even involved in this), and possibly-- depending upon the board's judgment-- step down from the board to avoid a perception that they are not acting in the best interests of the organization. Board members have a fiduciary duty to the corporation/organization; acting adversely to the USEA would create such a perception-- even if they ceased to represent AT for this (hypothetical) proceeding.

Second, USEA/USEF dues. As stated in the email, no dues are being used for these attorneys to represent AT. I have not read the fine print on USEA's rules, but generally organizations have fairly broad discretion w/r/t how to spend membership fees. They cannot appropriate them for personal use but their leeway to determine what is in the org's interest is fairly broad.

This might not be a popular thing to say because lawyers are not always respected (until you need one), but bar associations have strict standards for professional conduct, with conflict of interest rules at the heart of them. Litigation can get ugly just like football gets ugly-- but that doesn't mean that people aren't playing by the rules. It's simply a tough game. The consequences for playing fast and loose with professional conduct standards are fairly severe; attorneys are generally careful about this because our licenses to practice and our reputations are our major assets.

Finally, as an attorney for a membership organization (not a horse-related one) I can say that member communications are taken quite seriously. Members who are sincerely concerned about their organization's posture w/r/t AT or the fact that Board members are representing her should make their opinions known. It might not have the result that you are hoping for-- almost certainly not in a case where this round is already down range-- but your involvement in the process can help guide the organizations in the future.

Best of luck coming to terms with whatever the FEI decides.

deltawave
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:48 AM
It's about time somebody began to lighten things up. :)

beeblebrox
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:48 AM
"ravenclaw
This might be common knowledge, but Amy has had a couple of articles in recent issues of Practical Horseman (cancel your subscriptions, everyone! )"

What the hell is wrong with you!

If you bothered to open the magazine up you would have seen a note from the editor (full page note), who unlike the slobbering pitch fork holding mob is waiting like the rest of us to see what the outcome will be.

I see you had nothing relevant to add to the discussion and needed to pop off with cancel your subscription. who-rah

As for those who raised their own blood pressure and ran around posting about the sky falling and to the usea thinking the usea paid for those lawyers come on have you fallen on your own pitch forks? The whole lynch mentality is starting to affect the judgment of some posters I had respect for in the past. Having a great deal of trouble connecting intelligent people to some of the crap that is being written here. Go back and read some of it, it has nothing to do with the care of the horse or feelings about the rider but senseless projecting venom from unhappy people who have found a cause to have their 2 seconds of fame on this board for being nastier than the last!

Of course there will be some consequence but my god the nastiness is well rather scary and I am being serious. The whole thread is being laughed at in many circles (not because of the seriousness of the whole AT issue) because of the chicken little and maniac behavior of many of the posters. check around ladies.. YOU ARE ALL FAMOUS! who-rah to the cron hen house.

Lisa Cook
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:53 AM
Um, Beeblebrox - I believe ravenclaw was being sarcastic with the cancel the subscription comment. You and her are really on the same page. :)

kkate
Jun. 27, 2007, 12:00 PM
I think they are the same thing. If someone makes a bad decsision with reguards to a horse if is poor horsemanship. if they chronically make bad decisions with reguards to a horse it is chronic poor horsemanship.

To my mind Amy made 25 bad decsions that day. Every stride she didn't pull up after the stumble was a bad decision, was bad horsemanship.

And really it doesn't matter what I would have done or CMP would have done or Karen OConner would have done. What matters is what should have been done no who or how big a name you are or what level you are riding at.

Thank you! I couldn't have said it any better.

beeblebrox
Jun. 27, 2007, 12:03 PM
your posts are some of the special ones

ok

your my idol

Lisa Cook
Jun. 27, 2007, 12:08 PM
Me? Special posts?! Why thank you!

Actually, if you have actually read my posts, you will see that I have not stated what I think of Amy Tryon or her actions.

My posts on this topic have all been revolving around whether the USEA is paying for her lawyers. I was curious about the funding, and whether the USEA was paying - which is my right as a member. I always want to know how organizations I belong to spend their money. I never said I would quit the USEA if they were funding Amy's lawyers, or anything crazy like that - I simply wanted to know their role. Which turns out to be neutral. Fine.

Show me one "special" post of mine where I have attacked or disparaged Amy in any way. You wont' find one. Reading for comprehension is a wonderful thing.

ravenclaw
Jun. 27, 2007, 12:08 PM
Um, Beeblebrox - I believe ravenclaw was being sarcastic with the cancel the subscription comment.
Yes, that's right. Beeblebrox, did you not see the rolling eyes next to my comment?

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

And I did open the magazine. I even read some of the articles. That's how I knew Amy isn't a firefighter anymore.

:p

hb
Jun. 27, 2007, 12:15 PM
One thing I have learned this year, that I have suspected for years previously, but now I KNOW, is that if God forbid something should ever happen to one of my horses at an event, I will scream, and weep, and wail, and rend clothing and fling myself to the ground and make a scene.

I am not that kind of emotional outburst in public type of person, but it seems extremely clear to me if you behave in the above manner, the way the public thinks you ought to, "if you really love your horse", they will forgive and support you, and feel bad for you. If you are stiff upper lip type who would rather go cry quietly in the porta potty out of view, or who would rather focus on the horse than make a scene, they will *#^$%*#ing crucify you.

Okay, this reminds me of something that I was going to comment about on one of the other AT threads but never got around to.

One thing that I have learned not to imagine that I can know what is going on inside someone's head by evaluating how they express themselves compared to how I or other people express themselves. Some people are more reserved, some are more emotionally expressive, but that doesn't mean that the reserved people have no feelings or that the expressive people are better people.

For example, I work with someone who will start crying if she finds out two or three other people went to lunch and didn't invite her, then completely forget about it the next day. The way she reacts you'd think it was very important to her but it's really not, she's just very expressive. I work with someone else who didn't even tell his coworkers that his mother died, just took time off and said it was "personal". I know this guy pretty well and he is one of the kindest and most caring people I know, he's just quiet and very private.

Regarding this specific person, Amy seems to be a more reserved person. She's also got years of training and practice in keeping an even keel while things are going very badly; she was a fireman for several years.

Let's say your house was on fire and you or your family was injured. Would you expect the firemen that showed up to start screaming "oh my god! look at that fire!" and start crying when they saw how badly you were hurt? Would you think they weren't taking the situation seriously if they were acting calm and non-emotional? Hope not.

Paks
Jun. 27, 2007, 02:51 PM
Okay, this reminds me of something that I was going to comment about on one of the other AT threads but never got around to.

One thing that I have learned not to imagine that I can know what is going on inside someone's head by evaluating how they express themselves compared to how I or other people express themselves. Some people are more reserved, some are more emotionally expressive, but that doesn't mean that the reserved people have no feelings or that the expressive people are better people.

For example, I work with someone who will start crying if she finds out two or three other people went to lunch and didn't invite her, then completely forget about it the next day. The way she reacts you'd think it was very important to her but it's really not, she's just very expressive. I work with someone else who didn't even tell his coworkers that his mother died, just took time off and said it was "personal". I know this guy pretty well and he is one of the kindest and most caring people I know, he's just quiet and very private.

Regarding this specific person, Amy seems to be a more reserved person. She's also got years of training and practice in keeping an even keel while things are going very badly; she was a fireman for several years.

Let's say your house was on fire and you or your family was injured. Would you expect the firemen that showed up to start screaming "oh my god! look at that fire!" and start crying when they saw how badly you were hurt? Would you think they weren't taking the situation seriously if they were acting calm and non-emotional? Hope not.

As far as I can tell it's only the people who support Amy on this thread who have been bringing up her lack of an emotional reaction. The only reaction I felt was needed was for her to stop the horse before the fence. Really don't care if she cried, screamed, looked annoyed,got drunk etc etc when she finished the course.

Speedy
Jun. 27, 2007, 02:58 PM
As far as I can tell it's only the people who support Amy on this thread who have been bringing up her lack of an emotional reaction. The only reaction I felt was needed was for her to stop the horse before the fence. Really don't care if she cried, screamed, looked annoyed,got drunk etc etc when she finished the course.

I don't know about this thread in particular, but certainly there have been comments on other threads about her apparent lack of emotion at the finish.

shea'smom
Jun. 27, 2007, 03:08 PM
There have been quite a few comments by people about Amy's reaction. It is obviously very open to interpretation. People see what they want to see in that regard.

AliBus
Jun. 27, 2007, 04:26 PM
Amen Deltawave


Since when is it immoral, unreasonable or even the least bit suspicious to have an attorney? Or to avail oneself of the services of an attorney that is on retainer for an organization of which one is a member? Jump to conclusions much? Jeez. Not every attorney is something from a television trial drama. More often than not their job is less "LA Law" and more interpreting the law, deciphering contractual language, etc. Plus Kevin Baumgardner is a high-level USEA official whose job description is far wider than "legal counsel". It didn't say anyone was "representing her", only that they were present.

Carol Ames
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:08 PM
A question just occurred to me; Were Barney Ward and or any of the other lowlife scumbags , :mad:George Lindemann for instance ever censured or punished by the FEI? in the horse killing scandal sever censured or suspended by the FEI?

BarbB
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:14 PM
A question just occurred to me; Were Barney Ward and or any of the other lowlife scumbags , :mad:George Lindemann for instance ever censured or punished by the FEI? in the horse killing scandal sever censured or suspended by the FEI?

Barney Ward is not allowed on a horse show grounds. I believe Lindemann was also banned. If you are really interested in them, do a search on the H/J forums. There have been dozens of threads that went on FOREVER about them.

vineyridge
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:37 PM
Barney Ward is not allowed on a horse show grounds. I believe Lindemann was also banned. These people are criminals who killed horses in cold blood and defrauded insurance companies; what has this got to do with AT?

If you are really interested in Ward and Lindemann, do a search on the H/J forums. There have been dozens of threads that went on FOREVER about them.

The bans in the US are AHSA/USEF. Is BW equally FEI banned? I know Paul V is/was still USEF banned, but don't know if he is equally FEI banned?

Question--if the USEF does a life time ban or even a suspension on someone, are they automatically FEI banned as well?

I'm still really confused about how all this works.

BarbB
Jun. 27, 2007, 11:42 PM
I believe that in order to compete at a FEI competition you have to be a member in good standing of your national organization. So, whether the FEI took action or not, the effect is the same.

Here is the form to register with the FEI, the USEF member number is mandatory:
http://www.mauijimhorsetrials.org/CompetitorInfo/2007-fei-rider-regis.pdf

Ellie K
Jun. 28, 2007, 12:36 AM
Ellie K, you need to read a bit further to get the full meaning of FEI Art. 174.5.1.I did not quote your entire post so as to not further the flow of misinformation contained therein.

I am quite well-versed in the FEI GRs and Statutes, not just what they SAY but what they MEAN, what is intended, and how they are to be (and have historically been) interpreted and applied, which is WHY I posted the correct information the first time. Having logged countless hours labouring over these documents (across umpteen sports and too many years now) in providing my professional opinion on them during development/revision phases...most definitely--no, I don't "…need to read a bit further to get the full meaning…". I already KNOW the full meaning backwards and forwards, it's sort of...my job. That is why, when I (frequently) see international misinformation posted here, I am compelled to correct it, and refer people to the appropriate sources for *accurate* information. Don't believe me? Ask the FEI, they can explain to you what you do not understand and thus verify that my understanding is in fact quite correct. But then, I already knew that…again, that's WHY I posted it the FIRST time.

The Statute in question is tripartite, but only the first 2 of the 3 subarticles are applicable to this case. The third subarticle of the Statute (art 37.3, which you strangely referenced despite its obvious irrelevance to this situation) addresses a scenario completely OPPOSITE to the one in question here: that of an NF's sanction trickling upwards and outwards for enforcement by the FEI and other NFs. That is not at issue here, so I'm not even going into that one and what it *actually* means in application because it would just add further confusion for those who genuinely want the correct information (which so far seems to be only vineyridge :lol: but hey, at least it beats another round of Amy-flogging!).

FEI Art. 37 Penalties and Enforcement

37.1: The regime of penalties is set forth in the General Regulations and/or applicable Sport Rules.This first subarticle shouldn't require further explanation. It in no way refutes or limits what is in the GRs/SRs but simply refers you to them to find what penalties are possible and their parameters (who may impose them and for what reasons).

37.2: All penalties imposed by a competent body of the FEI or the CAS shall be accepted by all National Federations and enforced by the FEI and the National Federations concerned.The second subarticle also in no way refutes or limits the GRs/SRs. It addresses one of two possible scenarios: an international (FEI/CAS) penalty, and all NFs being statutorily bound to uphold it. Again, just like the GR in question, quite unambiguous. What is accepted and enforced? The penalty. But it doesn't say anything specific about the penalty, so hmmm…it can't possibly be restricting or limiting the reach of that penalty then, can it? No, because it doesn't say that. There's no logic in that. Read what is there--it says ALL international penalties must be enforced by ALL. So where do you find information on what penalties those might be? The GRs, as already stated in Art. 37.1. That tells the competitor, and the NFs, what he may not do during his suspension, and he is bound to that, but he is not the "enforcer." The Federations (inclusive of the FEI) are the "enforcers" and in such an important matter the role of the Statutes is to bind them all statutorily to that responsibility. There is nothing in these two articles which in any way refutes or limits what is already outlined in the GRs. And these are the two subarticles which refer to *international* penalties trickling downwards to other bodies, NOT the reverse. The third one is about something altogether different--again, not applicable here.

There is no ambiguity in either the rule or statute that I can see so I really don't see why this should be confusing. Once again, for the cheap seats in the back:

FEI Art. 174.5.1. Suspension must be for a stated period and during that period the person…[who is] suspended may take no part in Competitions or Events as a competitor…or Official or in the organisation of, or participation in, any Event under the jurisdiction of the FEI OR any Event under the jurisdiction of an NF, in accordance with Statutes Art. 37.In other words, this entire rule is what must happen and the Statutes provide the "weight" to ensure it happens--because it is so important. The suspension applies equally to all FEI AND all NF events, and all this absolutely must be enforced by all and thus is "guaranteed" by the Statutory obligation of all NFs to uphold all FEI penalties. That's what it means.

Again, the FEI is always available for clarification of things not understood.

canterlope
Jun. 28, 2007, 06:13 AM
Ellie K, it's funny you should direct me to contact the FEI for clarification of things not understood. Before I posted my "misinformation", I contacted them for clarification because I understood neither the rule you posted nor how it was possible that the FEI had the power to restrict competitors from competing in national events not under their jurisdiction.

The clarification I received back was what I previously posted. More specifically I was told that the "or any Event under the jurisdiction of the NF" was limited by Statutes Art. 37.3 to be international events and that national events fall outside of the FEI's jurisdiction. I was also told that, while a NF was duty bound to uphold any penalty imposed by a competent body of the FEI in accordance with Statutes Art,. 37.1 and .2, said penalty would only be the result of a rule infraction committed at an international event, be applicable to only international events, and it was up to the NF to determine if they wished to impose penalties applicable to national events.

So, if you have a problem with my previous post, you need to take the issue up with the FEI. The information it contained came straight from them and, while I see no obvious reason to question whether or not they correctly interpreted their own rules and provided clarrification that is accurate, maybe you know something that they don't.

Further, I find your implication that I lack desire for correct information and that only vineyridge is genuine in this quest rather insulting to me and others on this board who have stayed focused on the facts and have not engaged in "Amy-flogging". With regards to myself and this issue, I challenge you to find any post of mine on this board where I've strayed from the facts or unfairly spoken out against Amy.

ideayoda
Jun. 28, 2007, 10:17 AM
Certainly fei rulings apply to fei events, but I am going in search of the usef rule on the subject about how that effects how the usef acts on national shows, I just can never find these things. But I am pretty sure that it does.

As far as the horse taking a rider to a fence as an indication of soundness, Jacinto had to wrestle Ruffian to stop in her match race. The horse did break to a trot several times and cross canter even more. As someone who has galloped racehorses, unless the horse did this regularly, it's a big red flag.

cteventing
Jun. 28, 2007, 09:05 PM
There is an expression that comes to mind when I read the comments posted about Amy. I have heard it attributed to Abe Lincoln, Mark Twain, Will Rogers and Winston Churchill. Regardless of the source, everyone who intends to share their opinion about Amy's situation should keep it in mind. It advises all of us that "it is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and be known a fool."

On a separate note, it also seems to me incredibly unfair that users of this bulleting board are quick to make uneducated, mean spirited statements about decent, hard working people but won't even attach their own name to their statements. My name is Craig Thompson and not only will I stand behind my observations, I'll put my name on them.

snoopy
Jun. 28, 2007, 09:22 PM
Thanks craig for your comments...as you may have your opinion on the matter, others have theirs. Just because you signed your name does not make yours any more valid then the rest.

bosox
Jun. 28, 2007, 09:36 PM
NICE OPENING POST! Looks like you posted after a long lurking session and only came out when it was really important to you. Cheers!

annikak
Jun. 28, 2007, 09:40 PM
Thanks, Craig- Its nice to see that there are people out there, ones that she considers peers, supporting her. Its a small group of elite riders- and there have not been many that have stated their support for Amy out loud. Not because what happened is the right thing, but because anyone knows that it just might have been them. I am sure that she has been a friend to many, and before all this happened, I had only heard great things about her from many people. I hope that more of her friends are there for her. I am not her friend, and have only met her in passing, but support her during this horribly difficult time.

I am nobody, but my name is Annika Kramer :-)

sofiethewonderhorse
Jun. 28, 2007, 09:41 PM
>>My name is Craig Thompson and not only will I stand behind my observations, I'll put my name on them.<<

Hi Craig, you are awesome!

Thank you

Kathryn Sullivan

deltawave
Jun. 28, 2007, 09:49 PM
Actually, IMO Mr. Thompson's opinions are a LOT more valid than many others I've heard expressed. If you walk the walk, then you can talk the talk. If you just sit there and b*tch but don't compete in the sport, well, you're still entitled to even a very strong and passionate opinion, but that doesn't mean I have to value it.

I think AT did the wrong thing and demonstrated the very human sin of making a bad decision. I'm not assigned to mete out her punishment. Another old saying comes to mind: "there but for the grace of God go I". If and when the day comes that I make a terrible mistake (been there, done that) I hope to benefit from the forgiveness and understanding of my peers, because I know I'll be plenty hard enough on myself.

PS...sign me Lynn Cronin, area 8, typical demographic USEA member, total and perpetual amateur and never going to be otherwise. :)

snoopy
Jun. 28, 2007, 10:18 PM
Actually, IMO Mr. Thompson's opinions are a LOT more valid than many others I've heard expressed.


YES...in your opinion....which everyone is entitled to whether you agree with them or not...they are just that...someone's opinion...and all are valid..at least to the person(s) expressing them. People should not be crucified because they do not share yours or do not sign their names.

BarbB
Jun. 28, 2007, 10:35 PM
People should not be crucified because they do not share yours or do not sign their names.

No one is being crucified for not signing their name.
Being anonymous is the norm on bbs.
However, anonymous statements have never and will never carry the same weight as the statements of someone who steps up and says 'Here I am and this is what I have to say.'

No where in these threads have I voiced my opinion of the whole mess.
Mostly because I am not in a position to judge. Nor are, IMHO, the majority of the posters on this bb.
I have stated repeatedly and will continue to state that the lynch mob mentality is highly disturbing. We have systems for handling real or perceived transgressions in our society at all levels. It is important to let those systems work.

shea'smom
Jun. 28, 2007, 10:40 PM
I am with you Craig.
I have competed thru the two star level, I sympathize with Amy, though she made a huge error.
My name is Kathi Hines from Area II.

fergie
Jun. 29, 2007, 12:06 AM
YES...in your opinion....which everyone is entitled to whether you agree with them or not...they are just that...someone's opinion...and all are valid..at least to the person(s) expressing them. People should not be crucified because they do not share yours or do not sign their names.
Nor is an opinion about the welfare of a horse less worthy because does not come from a Rolex **** rider. Statements that carry such a pompous undertone make me value a rider's opinion very little, in fact, regardless of the signature. In fact, it makes me think that the signed ULR also cares more for himself than for the horse... and is not the rider I'd want riding any of my horses.

RiverBendPol
Jun. 29, 2007, 06:37 AM
Check your PMs:D

shea'smom
Jun. 29, 2007, 07:05 AM
Fergie,
Your post seems to sum up everything that is wrong about this attitude we are seeing.
No one said only 4* riders should have an opinion.
I think it is confrontational to lable someone's post "pompous", what does that gain?
Then you proceed to damn someone and say they don't care about their horses and you would never let them ride your's. Again, why make that kind of sweeping, rather ugly, statement?
that is the side of these discussions that distresses me, that we are all supposedly horse people and eventers and can't have a civil discussion.
I think we should have more respect for each other.
Notice, I haven't said anything about the actual situation?!
Just trying to make a point.
Kathi

LisaB
Jun. 29, 2007, 08:36 AM
Take a look on Page 6 for LLDM's post. She was right on the mark as to why some of us keep posting about it.
I sincerely hope that if I ever (hopefully never) make a bad decision that costs my horse's life, that I will be punished.
And think of the greater picture here. If she doesn't get punished, it will sky rocket a flurry of crap from the animal rights activists and the public at large. Remember, this was on NBC and I had non-horse friends watch and ask me about that horse. Guess what? I had to tell them. I also had to tell them that there's a full investigation going on. They were also asking if the local humane society was getting involved and pressing charges.
Guess what Craig? Since I'm 'out there' in regular schmoe land, I have to answer the questions.
While I will support our team because they are incredible athletes with incredible athletes under them, I still don't think they are above the rules.

deltawave
Jun. 29, 2007, 08:43 AM
I think the VAST majority of people would agree that AT should be held responsible for her actions and NOBODY (other than Mark Phillips) thinks she should be "above the rules". That doesn't mean these same people don't sympathize with her and support her otherwise. One CAN feel that she is responsible and ought to be held accountable and yet empathize with her and still support her.

LisaB
Jun. 29, 2007, 08:50 AM
DW, are you ever wrong?:D
I sometimes read some of these posts and they don't see what the rest of us saw. That's frightening. And then I also see the blatant personal bashing. Gawd, check out the horse and hound forum! That's frightening as well.
I'm worried with some dipsh-ts as CMP that she'll 'get off'. I think that would be such a severe detriment to the sport, to her, and to the horse community. I guess I don't trust the FEI and then the USEF at all. They have been repeatedly stupid and blind on different things.

KellyS
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:21 AM
One CAN feel that she is responsible and ought to be held accountable and yet empathize with her and still support her.

I agree...BUT I believe the crux of the matter and what bothers me the most is that there has been no admittance that a mistake was made from her camp at all.

Instead, we got statements from CMP and Amy's husband telling us that the horse was "locked on," that she couldn't pull the horse up, etc. That is what angers me because it was pretty blantantly obvious from both the YouTube video and what spectators saw that the horse was ready to pull up way before that final fence, but Amy pushed him on.

I would have a lot more respect for her if she (or those surrounding her) had come out from the get go and admitted that it was a terrible lapse in judgement. It's easy to make excuses and justify what you did, but it a heck of a lot harder (and a much greater display of character) to admit when you've done something wrong.

We've all made mistakes, but I can say that when I've made a mistake or bad judgement call, I've been the first to say, "I'm wrong and I will make sure it never happens again."

I don't know if Amy hasn't said anything because of the FEI investigation, but the BS excuses/justifications that have been offered in the meantime leave a bad taste in my mouth. I still can't get the image of that horse being asked to keep going despite his obvious discomfort and unsoundness.

magnolia73
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:24 AM
Geez- you people wanted an ULR's opinion (or someone did). I seem to remember cries of "Why don't the upper level speak up?". And the ULR does- posts a generic "support" of Amy Tryon, posts his name, offers a good quote that explains why she might not speak up.... why other riders might not speak up and is called arrogant. Pompous. For having an opinion? And some of you posters are not pompous and arrogant?

I'll admit- when this first happened, I was upset and probably would have thrown mud at Amy Tryon. I really hate it when horses suffer for our whims. I probably will never go to another big event for amusement. But you know what, she's a pro rider, it's what she does for a living, many others do it, many others make mistakes. In our society, we have deemed it acceptable to push horses to their limits even if it endangers their lives.

It's like people are looking for some ULR to come out and crucify Amy Tryon. Call her a horrible monster. That's the only thing acceptable. But why would they do that- open themselves to that? Part of being a Craig Thompson, Karen O'Connor or Amy Tryon is a willingness to shoulder a whole lot more risk and responsibilty for an animal. Why would they crucify someone for accepting risk and having it backfire, big time? Probably because they know that someday they could be there from one lack of judgement.

magnolia73
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:27 AM
KellyS-
One thing- on no comments from her camp- I'm sure with the hearings, and potential lawsuit from the horses owner (or insurance company), it is not in AT's best interest to say "My mistake". If you went out and ran over someone's child, the last thing you would do is say my mistake....if you had an attorney.

I think that silence is less about AT's moral character and more about our society as a whole.

bambam
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:28 AM
offers a good quote that explains why she might not speak up...
pretty sure Craig was calling us the fools for opening our mouths and not referring to AT

Ja Da Dee
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:29 AM
It's interesting because on another board, a person is complaining because her horse tripped in the dressage ring, and was DQ'ed after taking several uneven steps. Of course, her horse was fine, but she certainly didnt leap off her horse at the first mis-step and hollar for the vet.

KellyS
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:29 AM
KellyS-
One thing- on no comments from her camp- I'm sure with the hearings, and potential lawsuit from the horses owner (or insurance company), it is not in AT's best interest to say "My mistake". If you went out and ran over someone's child, the last thing you would do is say my mistake....if you had an attorney.

I think that silence is less about AT's moral character and more about our society as a whole.

I understand that, but if that is the case (and I'm sure it plays a big part), it would have been better for CMP and Amy's husband to not say anything at all.

And if they are trying to present this case before the FEI and say it wasn't a "mistake" or "lapse in judgement," that angers me as well. How do you justify asking a very lame horse to gallop over another fence and across the finish?

Ja Da Dee
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:31 AM
I
And if they are trying to present this case before the FEI and say it wasn't a "mistake" or "lapse in judgement," that angers me as well. How do you justify asking a very lame horse to gallop over another fence and across the finish?

Are they? You don't know how they are representing it to the FEI, so why are you wasting your energy getting angry over something that may just be in your head? This thread started with people getting all up in arms because the USEA lawyers were there, USEA funds might be used to defend her. Well, it was confirmed that no USEA funds were being used. Seems like a lot of energy wasted on supposition.

deltawave
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:33 AM
DW, are you ever wrong?:D

I missed the "?" at first and thought it was a "!". :D

But heck yes, I think I'm wrong about something at least once a day. :lol:

KellyS
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:34 AM
Are they? You don't know how they are representing it to the FEI, so why are you wasting your energy getting angry over something that may just be in your head?

I'm not sitting here wasting energy and getting angry...I will be curious to see how the case unfolded before the FEI.

snoopy
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:37 AM
How do you justify asking a very lame horse to gallop over another fence and across the finish?


You don't...:confused::mad:

sofiethewonderhorse
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:42 AM
Are they? BUT I believe the crux of the matter and what bothers me the most is that there has been no admittance that a mistake was made from her camp at all.

I'm going to wade into this quagmire one more time,

Those in the AT "CAMP" including myself, have stated that a mistake was made, a horrible, horrible mistake; which those of you who speculate your hearts out, but do not know Amy, could not possibly imagine those first few hours and days (and now weeks) of being in her shoes.

If any of you tried to put yourself in AT "CAMP" and then read the posts on this BB, H & H (by the way, COTH are 100% more civil) then you probably wouldn't want to say anything either.

We don't get "heard"....just "crucified"

Regards

Kathryn

magnolia73
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:46 AM
And if they are trying to present this case before the FEI and say it wasn't a "mistake" or "lapse in judgement," that angers me as well. How do you justify asking a very lame horse to gallop over another fence and across the finish?

We don't know what they said in front of the FEI. I imagine they did present it as a mistake or lapse on judgement. Otherwise they were taking credit for greedy abuse.

To be certain, CMP has not done her any favors with his comments. I'm rather suprised he spoke up....but I guess damned if you do, damned if you don't.

spina
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:57 AM
...They were also asking if the local humane society was getting involved and pressing charges.

Interesting point. Does anyone know the answer to this?
It makes me think that we're all just sort of sitting back, content to let one organization do any investigative work. It would be nice to feel that other organizations that might have the power to keep animal welfare a priority in sporting and entertainment events would step up here.

Speedy
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:08 AM
Thanks for posting Craig. I appreciate hearing from an ULR.

With regard to what others outside of the eventing community think - they don't. Those of us who are a part of the community have friends who may take an interest in what we do, and they therefore have some awareness of what is happening in the sport. But that's it. The vast majority of the American public has no idea what eventing even is (despite the fact that NBC aired a bit of Rolex), let alone what AT did or didn't do while competing there. I see American Gladiator and Skateboarding on TV all the time and, trust me, as disturbing as it is to me, the American public is far more educated about those "sports" than it is about eventing.

And, I should add, the involvement of animal welfare organizations in a case like this, which involves questionable professional judgement, rather than intentional cruelty/abuse of the traditional variety, will bring an end to the sport. One could make an argument that eventing is, in and of itself, abusive, or potentially abusive, given the risk that we require horses to take each and every time we go out there to school or compete. There are tons of animal lovers out there who would be pretty appalled by that if they became aware of it.

snoopy
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:15 AM
Thanks for posting Craig. I appreciate hearing from an ULR.

With regard to what others outside of the eventing community think - they don't. Those of us who are a part of the community have friends who may take an interest in what we do, and they therefore have some awareness of what is happening in the sport. But that's it. The vast majority of the American public has no idea what eventing even is (despite the fact that NBC aired a bit of Rolex), let alone what AT did or didn't do while competing there. I see American Gladiator and Skateboarding on TV all the time and, trust me, as disturbing as it is to me, the American public is far more educated about those "sports" than it is about eventing.


They do!!! One does not need to know about eventing to know that a horse was critically injured, in pain, and being asked to continue in this state. I do not play tennis but I know when a ball is out!!

This incident is not just about AMERICAN eventing...evident by BB's in other countries and publications...this has far reaching consequences. This is about the sport as a whole and the welfare of the horse.

vineyridge
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:16 AM
Interesting point. Does anyone know the answer to this?
It makes me think that we're all just sort of sitting back, content to let one organization do any investigative work. It would be nice to feel that other organizations that might have the power to keep animal welfare a priority in sporting and entertainment events would step up here.

I was actually just thinking the same thing yesterday. Not so much about the PETA/ASPCA/Humane Society people getting involved, but about the USEF response to all this to date. Don't want to sound like part of a lynch mob, but the USEF position reminds me a lot of Pontius Pilate's position a couple of thousand years ago. I can understand them waiting until after the FEI rules, but does anyone remember that the German Federation was all over the place when Rusty was DQ'ed for steroids, and the Irish Federation was very active with Cian O'Conor's DQ after the Olympic games.

Although it's been determined that USEA funds didn't go toward the defense, what about USEF funds? What is the USEf DOING? What has the USEF done? What will the USEF do?

To put it very bluntly, I'm disappointed in the USEF reaction.

Been thinking too, to go back to the beginning of the thread, that K O'C and MP were probaby witnesses to testify that riding a broken down horse can happen to anyone in a competition at the very highest levels in the press of competition. Remember that one of the factors that was identified in the British study of falls with a positive correlation was "being in the lead". Apparently that factor is known to cloud judgment.

snoopy
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:29 AM
. Remember that one of the factors that was identified in the British study of falls with a positive correlation was "being in the lead". Apparently that factor is known to cloud judgment.


Interesting...would a rider who was not in with a chance at winning or placing or seeking qualification for an Olympics have done differently in THIS situation? If I were schooling one of my horses and this very thing happened, I doubt I would think, hey lets jump this last jump and I will look at the leg later. One wonders what the motivation would be to contiue riding a horse that was clearly in a bad way. Even if it were "Only a few strides and the horse was locked on to the fence".

spina
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:41 AM
The vast majority of the American public has no idea what eventing even is (despite the fact that NBC aired a bit of Rolex), let alone what AT did or didn't do while competing there.


...the involvement of animal welfare organizations in a case like this, which involves questionable professional judgement, rather than intentional cruelty/abuse of the traditional variety, will bring an end to the sport. One could make an argument that what we ask of horses in eventing is, in and of itself, abusive, or potentially abusive, given the risk that we require horses to take each and every time we go out there to school or compete. There are tons of animal lovers out there who would be pretty appalled by that if they became aware of it.

I agree with your point about the majority of the american public having no idea what eventing is - but I honestly think that is also what is at the crux of this incident to begin with. It really doesn't matter what eventing is - or that this happened during an FEI sanctioned event, or that the rider a member of the US team or is a wonderful person. (although all those things kind of make it worse)
In its most basic form, what matters is that a horse died because of what a person forced it to do. Despite (unintentionally) sounding a bit PETA, that's what not only the "american public" sees - but all of us who own and train and compete - and love - our horses sees. No one wants it to happen again.

I don't believe that having the ASPCA investigate this would mean an end to horse sports, but I do think it could help facilitate some changes in rules to prevent this from happening again. Their oversight and presence is felt on movie sets, at circuses, etc. and has brought about many positive changes to what was formerly a rather "accident prone" status quo.
If we're so afraid that "the public" would be "apalled" (as you say) if they knew what we did on a regular basis to our competion horses, then maybe we need to rethink some of our practices.

Janet
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:55 AM
Remember that one of the factors that was identified in the British study of falls with a positive correlation was "being in the lead". Apparently that factor is known to cloud judgment.

Interesting...would a rider who was not in with a chance at winning or placing or seeking qualification for an Olympics have done differently in THIS situation? If I were schooling one of my horses and this very thing happened, I doubt I would think, hey lets jump this last jump and I will look at the leg later. One wonders what the motivation would be to contiue riding a horse that was clearly in a bad way. Even if it were "Only a few strides and the horse was locked on to the fence".

I don't think it is a question of a conscious decision process. It is a question of the subconscious and the focus.

For instance, LOTS of people (including me) have a tendency to have a "crappy" last fence. I don't THINK " oh, it is the last fence, I don't have to take it seriously". But I am AWARE (if not actually thinking it) that "the course is nearly over, I survived all the hard bits, life is good". And as a RESULT, I am not as focused on the technicalities of the jump as I should be. If I PRETEND that the last jump is the "biggest, nastyest" jump on course, I jump it much better.

Another for instance. For a while, at big events where show jumping goes last, and in reverse order of placing, my sister had a tendency, when she was sitting "in the ribbons" to mess up in the second half of the course. And then she wouldn't be in the ribbons any more. It wasn't anything she was consciously THINKING that "made" her mess up. But a little tiny piece of her brain was thinking "only 3 more jumps and we will get Third" or whatever. Instead of focusing 100% on the course. Luckily, the only consequence of this distraction was a rail or two down.

I am sure that THAT kind of thing is what the study is referring to as "clouded judgement".

spina
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:11 AM
I was actually just thinking... about the USEF response to all this to date. Don't want to sound like part of a lynch mob, but the USEF position reminds me a lot of Pontius Pilate's position a couple of thousand years ago. I can understand them waiting until after the FEI rules...

Although it's been determined that USEA funds didn't go toward the defense, what about USEF funds? What is the USEf DOING? What has the USEF done? What will the USEF do?

To put it very bluntly, I'm disappointed in the USEF reaction.



Me too. AND especially the USEA reaction. The BOG should be meeting NOW to have a plan in place for what the process will be AFTER the FEI ruling.

JAM
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:24 AM
... Although it's been determined that USEA funds didn't go toward the defense, what about USEF funds? What is the USEf DOING? What has the USEF done? What will the USEF do?

To put it very bluntly, I'm disappointed in the USEF reaction. ...

I don't know that the USEA has been that much if any better than the USEF in this instance. Though we are told that no USEA funds went to the defense, we do know from the FEI that two USEA Exec. Comm. members are the defense lawyers (a fact the USEA was apparently too embarrassed to disclose on its own). And we still don't have the answers to the various conflict or appearance of conflict questions that have been raised (Why didn't USEA disclose that two of its Exec. Comm. members are advocating for the defense? Were these Exec. Comm. members involved in any decisions on statements to make, actions to take, actions not to take, whether to permit the rider to participate in USEA recognized events pending the outcome of the FEI investigation, etc., after they were retained by (or had been asked to represent) the defense? What is the protocol for involvement or non-involvement by these Exec. Comm. members in future decisions that may be required as a result of the FEI decision? Etc.)

I don't mean to bash the USEA, because my own experience with it has been positive. The administrative people have been incredibly helpful, accessible and generous with their time and attention. And I do believe the leadership generally has its heart and mind in the right place and tries in general to do the right thing to make the sport more enjoyable for everyone. But this has not been its most shining moment.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:28 AM
The USEA will not need to have a plan because (say it with me kids) it is NOT the National Goverining Body for equine sports in the US. They do not have any authority as relates to any potential suspension or ruling from the FEI. It will be up to the USEF to uphold or add to any penalty from the FEI.

I realize what many of you want is to see every public organization and person screaming "off with her head," but the only organization officially sanctioned by the FEI to do any beheadings is the USEF. ;););)

nirvana002
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:35 AM
I think it was great for Craig to speak his mind. After all, no one else seems to have a problem doing that on this. I think what people need to keep in mind is regardless of whether someone chooses to stand by Amy or not, none of them are thinking, "wow, what a fabulous thing!" People in our sport have very close friendships that develop over a long period of time. I can not imagine that anyone couldn't understand people simply supporting their friend. After all, thats what good friends do for one another, even if they don't agree with decisions and would never make the same ones. Just some food for thought!

Jill Henneberg

JAM
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:35 AM
Does the USEA not have the ability to suspend or terminate her membership and thus her ability to participate in events that are USEA recognized but that do not fall under the umbrella of the USEF? I asked this question before, and the only answer I got was yes. If some poor schlep at BN, N, or T did the same thing, would the USEA be powerless to investigate or take action?

And, even assuming the USEA has no independent authority of its own, it doesn't make it any less disturbing that the the USEA comes out -- and sticks -- with an official position of neutrality while failing to disclose that 1/4 of its Executive Committee are zealously representing her interests in this proceeding.

LLDM
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:46 AM
There's a HUGE difference between wanting to hear "off with her head" and "this is not okay".

Nor do I think that it is inappropriate for people/members to want to understand the process - even in detail.

Ya know what? I don't think anyone here is a "mob", wants a lynching or is crucifying anyone - anymore than I think anyone here is "pompous", thinks what happened to just peachy, or is nominating anyone for sainthood.

I think everyone here cares a great deal about eventing and is very concerned about the outcome of all this and what it means to eventing, the horses, and everyone else involved.

So why don't we ALL back off the name calling and knee-jerk reactions and try to A) make our points more clearly and in context, B) be a little less defensive and C) try to honest about our real concerns for the sport.

And for crying out load - if anyone has a problem with the H&H people - go address it over there. THIS discussion is trying to mature - and might just get to some real issues if everyone would take a deep breath.

People have a right to ask questions. And people have a right to stick up for their friends.

SCFarm

Janet
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:46 AM
events that are USEA recognized but that do not fall under the umbrella of the USEF? There are NO "events" that are "USEA recognized" but not "under the USEF umbrella" BN, N and T are all "USEF endorsed" and under the USEF umbrella.

USEA DOES have a number of other activities (clinics, tests, training programs, YEH, etc) that may not be "under the USEF umbrella".

But all the USEA RECOGNIZED events/horse trials fall under USEF as well.

JAM
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:57 AM
There are NO "events" that are "USEA recognized" but not "under the USEF umbrella" BN, N and T are all "USEF endorsed" and under the USEF umbrella.

USEA DOES have a number of other activities (clinics, tests, training programs, YEH, etc) that may not be "under the USEF umbrella".

But all the USEA RECOGNIZED events/horse trials fall under USEF as well.

Thank you, Janet. A very informative response. One more set of questions, then (and with the emphasis I made when I asked this question the first time around, i.e., I'm not advocating this, just want to know what the rules allow): Can the USEA do anything on its own, w/o USEF approval, in the nature of discipline? (Let's say I'm a USEA but not USEF member competing at N or T and I am found to have severely abused my horse as the rules define that term. Can the USEA on its own terminate my USEA membership or prevent me from competing at USEA recognized competitions, or does the USEF issue those ultimate sanctions?) And, can the USEA initiate or request institution of proceedings as to which the USEF will be the ultimate decider of sanctions?

Janet
Jun. 29, 2007, 12:03 PM
Thank you, Janet. A very informative response. One more set of questions, then (and with the emphasis I made when I asked this question the first time around, i.e., I'm not advocating this, just want to know what the rules allow): Can the USEA do anything on its own, w/o USEF approval, in the nature of discipline? (Let's say I'm a USEA but not USEF member competing at N or T and I am found to have severely abused my horse as the rules define that term. Can the USEA on its own terminate my USEA membership or prevent me from competing at USEA recognized competitions, or does the USEF issue those ultimate sanctions?) And, can the USEA initiate or request institution of proceedings as to which the USEF will be the ultimate decider of sanctions?
Someone who is on the BoG would have to reply about whether they CAN (or cannot) terminate someone's USEA membership. But I have never heard of it happening.

My UNDERSTANDING is that the USEA defers all "enforcement" activities to the USEF (and pays a pretty penny for it).

It is also my understanding that ANY USEF MEMBER can "initiate proceedings" with the USEF.

spina
Jun. 29, 2007, 12:03 PM
The USEA will not need to have a plan because (say it with me kids) it is NOT the National Goverining Body for equine sports in the US. They do not have any authority as relates to any potential suspension or ruling from the FEI. It will be up to the USEF to uphold or add to any penalty from the FEI.

I realize what many of you want is to see every public organization and person screaming "off with her head," but the only organization officially sanctioned by the FEI to do any beheadings is the USEF. ;););)

First of all, I disagree that the USEA does not need to have a plan. As the main organization for all eventers in this country they should have a plan.
It doesn't matter if they have no authority over FEI suspensions or rulings, they don't need to override the FEI to establish their own rulings and suspensions.
I don't know of anyone screaming "off with her head", although there seems to be a lot of that sentiment amongst our international competitors. I think what many would like to see is due diligence of the organizations that have been established allegedly for the good of the sport and the people and animals involved. We need to realize that this is not a local issue.

bambam
Jun. 29, 2007, 12:10 PM
But doesn't the USEA have representatives at USEF? I admit I know very little about how the USEF works and could not find diddly about what committees existed and who was on them on the USEF website so I do not know if there is a discipline committee and who sits on it and how this type of decision is made at USEF. Does the USEF really make a decision on suspension of a rider without consulting/involving the organization of the relevant discipline whether formally or informally?
Maybe they do but I would hope not (and I am talking as a general proposition- AT and FEI aside I hope our organization has some input on that type of decision).

Janet
Jun. 29, 2007, 12:27 PM
But doesn't the USEA have representatives at USEF? I admit I know very little about how the USEF works and could not find diddly about what committees existed and who was on them on the USEF website so I do not know if there is a discipline committee and who sits on it and how this type of decision is made at USEF. Does the USEF really make a decision on suspension of a rider without consulting/involving the organization of the relevant discipline whether formally or informally?
Maybe they do but I would hope not (and I am talking as a general proposition- AT and FEI aside I hope our organization has some input on that type of decision). Yes. USEF has an EVENTING Committee. All the members of the Eventing Committee (AFAIK) are USEF members, and many of them are on the USEA Board of Governors.

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 29, 2007, 05:08 PM
First of all, I disagree that the USEA does not need to have a plan. As the main organization for all eventers in this country they should have a plan.
It doesn't matter if they have no authority over FEI suspensions or rulings, they don't need to override the FEI to establish their own rulings and suspensions.

But because of USOC rules (under the Ted Stevens Act), they are NOT ALLOWED to have their own rulings and suspensions. Or, more to the point, USEF is not allowed, to allow them to.

Remember the big governance war between the then AHSA and USET? It was precisely because the USEF had allowed it's satellite organizations to have jurisdiction over these types of isses, that the case even went before the USOC in the first place. The governing body for ANY sport that is an Olympic sport MUST be the sole proprietor and responsible party for a certain list of items and actions, among them team funding and selection, rules, regulations (and punsihments), and others.

Though the finding was ultimately made for the AHSA, they were warned by the USOC that in fact their practice of "abdicating responsibility" for these types of functions was not acceptable, and would open them up to penalties in the future if it continued.

So, there is no way to "allow" for lack of a better word the USEA (or the USDF or the USHJA or what have you) the USEA to establish their own penalties, rules or suspensions. The USEF would be left liable to penelties from the USOC.

As Janet said though, it is in many ways moot. There are no events that are not in someway under the USEF umbrella. Therefore, any penalty the USEF may impose in the wake of the FEI ruling will be applicable to any horse trials.

canyonoak
Jun. 29, 2007, 06:22 PM
15,000+ views, nearing 250 replies...this is sort of equivalent to the rest of the output for this entire Forum.

Sobering.

I think the reason those of us who support Amy do so is at least in part because of one very basic, non-negotiable difference in outlook between those-who-hope-she-gets punished and those-who-are-the- rest- of- us.

The former group believe Amy acted in a consciously negligent manner, sacrificing her horse for some...non-comprehnsible reason, as there was no reward for her to cross the X-C finish line.

There are those of us who believe that her decision and the resulting tragedy have deprived her of a great horse, a great partner, a great future.

There are those of us who believe that her punishment, in part, started the second she realized what a mistake had been made and what the price of that mistake was and continues to be.

Horses like Le Samurai are rare creatures, not much more common than the unicorn. Part artist, part athlete, their gifts come from within and can be somewhat shaped, somewhat harnessed--but never enlarged.

If you do the dance, you have to have a partner.

Amy has lost a partner in the worst way imaginable--she caused the loss.

if you love the dance...the nightmare has already begun.

You can say Im just playing on emotion, you can say whatever you want.

I will only say that I truly believe that Amy has already started 'the punishment phase'.

shea'smom
Jun. 29, 2007, 07:03 PM
Well said, Canyon oak.

flutie1
Jun. 29, 2007, 07:36 PM
" ... I will only say that I truly believe that Amy has already started 'the punishment phase'."

How true - and how sad. I truly believe that no punishment any legislative body will hand out can be a quarter as painful as the horrors that wake this individual up at 3 AM every day.

boppin along
Jun. 29, 2007, 08:01 PM
well said flutie.

,I.... hate to say this....I am an Amy fan, ...but I too was there and it is not her as a person that is in question , but her BAD DECISION to go on when people were yelling at her to "pull up!!". It was SOOOO clear!!!!
The video also shows it, and it was sickening.
There is no way that she didn't know he was three legged head bobbing lame . Jockeys pull up a horse at a full out gallop if it feels off, so please don't tell me that she couldn't pull him up because he was"locked on" the fence. He didn't even see the fence when he went lame up the hill. duh!
PLEASE!!!! (That is to CMP, BTW)! That was embarrassing to even SAY, CMP.

yes, I am sure she is suffering now to and for that I am truly sorry for her since she is a good person.

BUT, I do feel that she has to be sanctioned.
As an ulr especially, she has to be not only a role model for our sport, but " set an example" for the young kids coming up.
That message was not a good one to send, c ross the finish line at all costs, just in case you can do the jog the next day, OR.... still be considered for the all important and politically motivated chosing of all our teams.
I am dissapointed in our sport lately

AlwaysHopeful
Jun. 29, 2007, 08:21 PM
Well said canyonoak, except this:

Amy has lost a partner in the worst way imaginable--she caused the loss.

I don't know if this has already been answered, but I still haven't heard someone confidently say that Le Samurai would not have had to be put down if Amy had pulled up before she did. Does anyone know?

NeverTime
Jun. 29, 2007, 08:51 PM
Liza, That's the same info posted on the first page of this thread. ;)

annikak
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:44 PM
Nirvana002 And CanyonOak-
well said on all counts.

I am more then sure that each day is horrible, and that our supporting her as a human who does what we do, loves what we love, and is human as we are, is small relief each day to her. Whatever the FEI hands out will pale in comparison.

There are some ULR's that I would never support, but that's because to them, the horses they ride just mean money in the bank. Maybe its not that way, but it seems that way to me. Therefore I don't ride with them, I don't support them in any way. But I don't go on this BB and scream their names either- some of you have PM'd me, and we share the same feelings. So, that is that for me.

I feel as If I am being judged because I support her... not because of what happened but because she is a fellow eventer.

Lori T
Jun. 29, 2007, 09:47 PM
Well said, CanyonOak.

Madeline
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:05 PM
I think the reason those of us who support Amy do so is at least in part because of one very basic, non-negotiable difference in outlook between those-who-hope-she-gets punished and those-who-are-the- rest- of- us.

The former group believe Amy acted in a consciously negligent manner, sacrificing her horse for some...non-comprehnsible reason, as there was no reward for her to cross the X-C finish line.

There are those of us who believe that her decision and the resulting tragedy have deprived her of a great horse, a great partner, a great future.

I think there is a third group out there. Let me rephrase, I don't think I fit into either of those groups.

Not: "Consciously negligent"- I've gotta win at any cost to the horse. This implies malice and selfishness, which I don't see as players in this case.

Not: "Tragedy- she's suffering enough." Tough beans. One must take responsibility for one's actions.

But rather "Obliviously incompetent." A rider competing at the **** level should be able to tell when a horse is 3-legged lame and know enough to pull up RIGHT THEN. This wasn't a monentary lapse, it was a series of 25-30 individual bad decisions. One for every stride. Sorta like Paris Hilton. She should have known better.

SparklePlenty
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:36 PM
Just wondering..

Has anyone actually heard how the hearing is going??

Not trying to be annoying, just looking for information.

Allie Pal
Jun. 29, 2007, 10:53 PM
I have not seen a video or have any know of this situation other that what has be posted on this forum or what I have read in the COTH; but I cannot believe that a horseman/woman would ever want to have something happen to their partner. I believe that some people lose sight the inherent dangers of the sport in which we participate, dressage, hunter/jumper, hunting, racing, pleasure riding and driving. It is a dangerous sport, tragedy can occur at any moment for any reason because we are interacting with a animal. We all have to remember that we all spend a huge amount of time and money to be with horses, because of the way it makes us feel, usually really good about ourselves. Please don't point fingers at anyone until you know the whole story, which many of us never will, just become better horsemen/women for it. Everyone has suffered enough, AT and family, LS's connections, the equine world, especially in these litiguous times, someone someplace is looking to end our sport everyday! Could you imagine what it would be like not to ride/drive your horse because it was illegal? We, the equine world, should be mourning the death of a great athlete not pointing fingers.

FLnurseRN07
Jun. 29, 2007, 11:37 PM
Horses like Le Samurai are rare creatures, not much more common than the unicorn. Part artist, part athlete, their gifts come from within and can be somewhat shaped, somewhat harnessed--but never enlarged.
If you do the dance, you have to have a partner.

Amy has lost a partner in the worst way imaginable--she caused the loss.

if you love the dance...the nightmare has already begun.

You can say Im just playing on emotion, you can say whatever you want.

I will only say that I truly believe that Amy has already started 'the punishment phase'.

well said... I want to cry all over again. But I do support Amy as we all know how she is suffering like you said... It was a horrible tragic mistake. She has suffered enough.

God Bless her. God Bless Sparky. May he rest in peace. He's probably up there in heaven jumping those jumps over and over again... Saying we did it.:yes:

Please don't beat me up over saying this. It's how I feel.
LH
Connemara's do it all...

Firefox
Jun. 30, 2007, 10:10 AM
Well said canyonoak, except this:

I don't know if this has already been answered, but I still haven't heard someone confidently say that Le Samurai would not have had to be put down if Amy had pulled up before she did. Does anyone know?

I have wondered this too, not sure if we will ever know that continuing to gallop on that leg hurt it worst than the intial injury, would the result be the same if she had pulled up or not?? Any experts out there with an answer to that and would we be attacking her still if she had pulled up and the result was the same or what if Sparky didnt have to be put down and could have recovered what would be our thinking then????

PhoenixFarm
Jun. 30, 2007, 11:41 AM
I'm not an expert nor a vet, and I haven't spoken to anyone who knows 100%. However, I did speak to one who watched the video and who has dealt with the same injury in racehorses. Also, as mentioned in another thread, I also lost a horse to this same injury, though mine did it while in the pasture. In that vet's opinion and in my expereince of going through it, this type of injury is "catastrophic" in the instant that it happens.

My guy's scans were completely black. No visiable viable tissue anywhere. But as I said, he was in the field, and wasn't prone to silliness or hysterics, so I can't imagine he kept running around on the leg after it happened. But we couldn't save him even so.

Similarly, the vet I was chatting with said he'd never been able to save a racehorse with this injury, whether they were pulled up quickly or not. It's this vet's opinion and my own based on our own experinces, that, sadly, Sparky was lost in one brief and terrible moment.

canterlope
Jun. 30, 2007, 12:02 PM
Someone who is on the BoG would have to reply about whether they CAN (or cannot) terminate someone's USEA membership. But I have never heard of it happening.Article II.10 of the USEA By-Laws states, "The Board of Governors may censure, suspend or expel any member for cause after a hearing at any meeting of the Board of Governors, provided such member has been given twenty-one (21) calendar days notice of such hearing in the manner set forth in Article VIII, herein. Any member suspended, expelled or dropped from membership pursuant to this paragraph may only be reinstated by the affirmative vote of the majority of the Board of Governors at any regular or special meeting." This is the only penalty the USEA could impose in this situation and no approval from either the FEI or the USEF would be necessary.

The USEF, in addition to being required to impose any international penalties that may result from the FEI hearing, may impose further penalties on a national level including monetary fines and bans from participating in USEF licensed/endorsed national competitions. Approval from the FEI would not be necessary to impose these national penalties.

JAM
Jun. 30, 2007, 01:11 PM
Thank you, Canterlope. That answers my question.

arnika
Jun. 30, 2007, 01:33 PM
Firefox, just speaking for myself, I would have had nothing but sympathy for AT if she had been trying her best to pull up Le Samurai after he went lame. An injury of that sort can occur to any horse at any time and I would never blame the rider for it. I agree that he most likely would not have been able to be saved, quite frankly I was pretty certain of that in the first 5-10 seconds of watching, it looked that severe.

The only blame I place squarely at AT's feet is from pushing him on to finish the course and causing the horse continuing great pain. If she couldn't or didn't identify that he was 3-legged lame, she needs to back off the levels until she can feel what is going on underneath her. If she felt it but pushed him on regardless, she deserves severe sanction. IMO of course.

vineyridge
Jun. 30, 2007, 05:45 PM
Thank you, Canterlope. That's exactly what I've been wondering for days.

Seems to me that the USEF has already determined that the FEI penalty, whatever it is, will be IT as far as this is concerned. Reason I speculate this is that AT has one horse on the A Training Squad and 2 on the B Training Squad.

If there were a snowball's chance in H*ll that the USEF would take independent action, do you think they would have announced that a couple of weeks ago?

Sannois
Jun. 30, 2007, 06:01 PM
Thank you, Canterlope. That's exactly what I've been wondering for days.

Seems to me that the USEF has already determined that the FEI penalty, whatever it is, will be IT as far as this is concerned. Reason I speculate this is that AT has one horse on the A Training Squad and 2 on the B Training Squad.

If there were a snowball's chance in H*ll that the USEF would take independent action, do you think they would have announced that a couple of weeks ago?
Who learns from this? No one as I can see. And a really poor example to lower level riders and young riders in my opinion. I think I had better shut up.
:no:

AlwaysHopeful
Jul. 1, 2007, 03:28 AM
I'm not an expert nor a vet, and I haven't spoken to anyone who knows 100%. However, I did speak to one who watched the video and who has dealt with the same injury in racehorses. Also, as mentioned in another thread, I also lost a horse to this same injury, though mine did it while in the pasture. In that vet's opinion and in my expereince of going through it, this type of injury is "catastrophic" in the instant that it happens.

My guy's scans were completely black. No visiable viable tissue anywhere. But as I said, he was in the field, and wasn't prone to silliness or hysterics, so I can't imagine he kept running around on the leg after it happened. But we couldn't save him even so.

Similarly, the vet I was chatting with said he'd never been able to save a racehorse with this injury, whether they were pulled up quickly or not. It's this vet's opinion and my own based on our own experinces, that, sadly, Sparky was lost in one brief and terrible moment.

I'm sorry to hear that you've had experience with this :( but thanks for the info

canterlope
Jul. 1, 2007, 07:59 AM
Thank you, Canterlope. That's exactly what I've been wondering for days.

Seems to me that the USEF has already determined that the FEI penalty, whatever it is, will be IT as far as this is concerned. Reason I speculate this is that AT has one horse on the A Training Squad and 2 on the B Training Squad.

If there were a snowball's chance in H*ll that the USEF would take independent action, do you think they would have announced that a couple of weeks ago?Not necessarily, vineyridge. I know that a lot of people have been unhappy with the USEF and the USEA in terms of how each organization has responded to this issue up to this point, but, given the circumstances, I think both have acted in the only manner available to them at this time.

When an event is recognized by the FEI, the USEF, and the USEA, these three organizations are not equal in their authority over it. The FEI holds the top position with the USEF and the USEA falling beneath. When a situation occurs during the course of the event that requires action by the any of the organizations, any further proceedings should follow this hierarchy.

Each organization has the right to independently decide whether or not to pursue a situation. In other words, just because the FEI decides to or not to pursue a situation does not automatically mean that the USEF and USEA will do likewise. In any given situation, the FEI and USEA may decide to pursue and the USEF may decide not to pursue. Or, the USEF and the USEA may decide to pursue and the FEI may decide not to pursue.

If all three organization decide to pursue the situation, the FEI is the first to act. To avoid influencing the FEI proceedings and possibly biasing the final outcome, the appropriate course of action for the USEF and USEA is to withhold from any proceedings on their part until the FEI has concluded its work. Once the FEI has finished, then the USEF and the USEA may or may not take the decision of the FEI into consideration as they pursue the situation. In addition, because the scope of authority of these two organizations vary (USEA only has the right to revoke USEA membership while the USEF has the right to revoke USEF membership, ban from nationally recognized/endorsed competition, impose monetary fines, etc) either organization may act next or at the same time.

With regards to this specific situation, we are seeing exactly what should happen. The FEI is pursuing the course of action set down by its rules that govern this situation. Meanwhile, the USEF and the USEA are staying out of the way and allowing the FEI to freely conduct its business and make its final decision based on the facts before them.

At this point in time, neither the USEF nor the USEA have revealed any plans to pursue or not this issue once the FEI has reached a final decision. I don't, however, take this to mean that these organizations are not planning on pursuing the matter or vice versa. More that they are wisely keeping their business quiet until it is the appropriate time to take action. Given that this has not been a popular stance with many members of both organizations and each have received a fair amount of criticism as a result, I applaud both the USEF and the USEA for their resolve to hold fast to proper courses of action and not be coerced into premature action by the less than complimentary opinions of others.

Firefox
Jul. 1, 2007, 09:26 AM
Thank you Canterlope!!!

pwynnnorman
Jul. 1, 2007, 04:40 PM
No one thanked Jill for expressing another ULR perspective?

Thanks, Jill.

nirvana002
Jul. 1, 2007, 05:25 PM
No thanks necessary, but always appreciated! I think being passionate about a subject is a good thing. I just worry that it gets taken too far sometimes and the subject itself is lost. The outcome of this is out of everyone's hands and only time will tell what it will be. I just encourage everyone to take a bit of a deep breathe. My only point was that no one knows what relationships Amy has with other riders and why they may be standing by her side. I would hate to think that a riders reputation as a fantastic horseman or woman would be so easily tarnished by others just because they are being a good friend. The thought that people might assume someone would abuse their horse just because they stood by someone's side seems hasty to me, to say the least. I would think that everyone would realize that regardless of the outcome of the hearing, Amy's career is extremely damaged already. The support and cheering of your fans is invaluable. She has lost alot of that. It is a very sad situation all around.

Jill Henneberg

Pat Ness
Jul. 1, 2007, 07:28 PM
I found Amy's ride at the third water at Rolex very disappointing. How close to the end of the course was this jump?
The video shows several rides, many nice ones and some rough ones.