PDA

View Full Version : The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14

Erin
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:52 PM
They may be, HunterJumperLuv, but no one is debating whether BW's wife should be reinstated.

This thread needs to keep to FACTS. I don't think scathing personal judgments are really going to get anyone anywhere. So keep it factual, not personal.

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:53 PM
BW gets credit...

"For second place finisher Cayce Harrison, it was a big step up. “I just got this horse in late July in Europe and I rode him at a couple of shows in Holland and it didn’t really go very well,” Harrison said. “I had a rough couple of shows and I was doubting our partnership a little bit. But I credit all the help that Barney and McLain Ward have been giving me. They really believed in me and believed in the horse and our relationship,” she said. “We’ve really come a long way since the summer. I’m ecstatic. This is almost surreal for me,” Harrison smiled. “But I can see why people get addicted to this and want to go in the ring every Sunday and I’m thrilled. This is my first year doing the big classes and only my third Sunday in the ring at Wellington,” admitted Harrison. “I never really thought I could get to this level, but I’ve got so many people behind me and supporting me that I feel I can go on. I’m very excited about it and can’t wait to keep going.”

http://www.horsetackreview.com/article-display/1146.html

Renn/aissance
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:15 PM
Boberry, unless I'm missing a point, that's not McLain crediting anyone... that's Cayce Harrison thanking the Wards for the help that they have given her.

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:15 PM
BW credit...

"On a cold Friday night in South Florida, Molly Ashe and Jane Clark’s Neuville were on fire, racing to victory in the $100,000 Lexus National Horse Show Jumper Championship, presented by Chesapeake Petroleum.

The Friday night class, part of the “Jumping Under the Stars” presentation, was the big money event of an Open Jumper Division that offers over $366,000 in total prize money. The $100,000 Lexus National Horse Show Jumper Championship, CSI-W presented by Chesapeake Petroleum, a World Cup Qualifier, was scored FEI Art. 238.2.2, Time First Jump-Off.

Ashe was thrilled to get to the winner’s circle so early in her partnership with Neuville. “It’s my first win with Neuville,” she said. “Jane Clark bought him at the World Cup Finals from McLain and Barney Ward. So, it’s a bit of a transition from McLain’s style of riding to my style of riding. In fact, McLain told me that my whole body equals his left thigh,” laughed Ashe. “We’ve been close though. But it’s been four faults here, four faults there. I haven’t done many jump-offs with him,” she said. “This was my second one. So I didn’t know if I had shot or not, but I just thought I’d do the best I could. I thought, he’s got enough experience, so I just trusted his bravery.”

http://horsedirect.cowboy.com/newsstories/ahpnewsgroup/horsenews021.shtml

SCRM, I suggest reading the entire thread before you post in order to understand the most recent posts. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Renn/aissance : Aefvue's Pharmacist:
Boberry, unless I'm missing a point, that's not McLain crediting anyone... that's Cayce Harrison thanking the Wards for the help that they have given her.

The issue is "Wards". Barney is getting credit although he is suspended.

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:25 PM
“I had a rough couple of shows and I was doubting our partnership a little bit. But I credit all the help that Barney and McLain Ward have been giving me" -Cayce Harrison. By the rules of the USEF this is a vioaltion?

Erin
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:33 PM
SCRM: nice, polite, respectful, adult discussion. No snarking.

I get tired of deleting very quickly and will just hit the "ban" button if it gets too tedious.

SCRM
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:33 PM
If it is, the courts that upheld the AHSA ruling have contradicted the AHSA.

Renn/aissance
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:34 PM
Gotcha.

SCRM
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:37 PM
I'd say so.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:55 PM
Originally posted by Boberry:
“I had a rough couple of shows and I was doubting our partnership a little bit. But I credit all the help that Barney and McLain Ward have been giving me" -Cayce Harrison. By the rules of the USEF this is a vioaltion?

This is no more of a violation than PV training people. What is the difference? BW can own horses. He can buy and sell horses. He can train horses and he can teach people how to ride horses.

The only thing(s) he cannot do is show horses or perform any of the above acts on the grounds of USEF events.

Erin
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:56 PM
I would seriously doubt that the "credit" in the rule is intended to include giving someone credit for helping a person win. That's got violation of the First Amendment written all over it.

SCRM
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:59 PM
Just like I said in my post that went bye-bye!

Boberry
Feb. 22, 2006, 07:32 AM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
GR702 Violations
1. A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the Federation, including but not limited to the following:

i. Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit , credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person.

What do you all think is TRULY the INTENT of this rule???

Erin, can you help to explain why PV and BW are not in violation?

War Admiral
Feb. 22, 2006, 07:53 AM
Nutshell version:

Nothing prevents them from training, selling, conducting business, etc. on their own property - or in fact ANYWHERE other than the grounds of rated shows.

And again just as a general observation, it's very easy to make it look on paper like you don't own a horse that you DO own. You can, for example, set up an LLC (or a series of LLC's, or a combination of LLC's and trusts, or whatever) to own it for you, or "sell" it to someone for a dollar but under the terms of a sale contract that's more like a lease... All kinds of stuff you can do, really, if so inclined. And that's all perfectly legal, as well. Loads of people do it for reasons that are NOT necessarily nefarious - to get a tax break for example.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 22, 2006, 07:53 AM
This rule seems to me to have been created to have some form of control over the people who are doing exactly what PV & BW's clients are doing. So why is it not being enforced? Does it HAVE to be from a protest? If so, does there need to be a fund to help with the protest fee?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 22, 2006, 07:58 AM
Fairview, this is not meant to be inflamatory. But where is it not being enforced? This must all be provable in a court of law. If no one has actual documents, then it would be hear say. Not admissable.

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:05 AM
Boberry, I am not a rules maven... in fact, I don't think ANY of us are. But it is just not logical to think that the USEF can pass a rule that would, in effect, prohibit people from giving credit to a suspended person -- as in, "I credit Bob Smith with helping me learn to ride."

Looking at the rule, and totally guessing here, I would think "credit" would be intended to prevent someone showing a horse to earn points for a suspended person or something like that. THAT is something that would be under USEF's jurisdiction.

I do think the rule sounds like it's intended to apply to the kind of situation that PV is in, and there are other aspects of the situation where it might apply. I seriously, seriously doubt that thanking someone in a magazine article is one of them, however.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Boberry:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
GR702 Violations
1. A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the Federation, including but not limited to the following:

i. Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit , credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person.

What do you all think is TRULY the INTENT of this rule???

Erin, can you help to explain why PV and BW are not in violation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>It isn't PV and BW who would be in violation. It is the person who is "Riding, exhibiting... for the ... credit, reputation or satisfaction of" PV or BW.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:06 AM
I think it is one of those rules that although well intended, is not specific, and thus difficult to enforce.

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:11 AM
Janet, you're probably the most rules-maveny person on the thread. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Any educated guesses as to what the rule might have been intended to apply to?

Boberry
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:11 AM
Just talking this out, so under gR702H. "Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer." You can have a horse in your care on a farm you do not own but if a person publicly thanks the you (suspended trainer) for training, isn't that a violation? Doesn't reflect on your success as a trainer to have someone speak highly of your skills and enhance your reputation? Is that not an admission to having a ST as your trainer when you thank them?

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:15 AM
I would guess that the care/custody part just means a suspended trainer can't sign your entry blank.

It's not against the rules to train with a suspended person. It can't be -- the USEF has no authority to govern what people do off show grounds.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:16 AM
Possibly, but as long as they are not on USEF grounds, and the horse in question is not on paper owned by said parties, there wouldn't be an infraction. You can be trained by anyone. Thanking someone, is not having them on paper as your trainer. IE: entry blank.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:16 AM
I think you need to go to GR704, which effectively expands what is meant by 702.1.i.

It appears to be aimed at the person acting as a surrogate for the suspended person- as trainer, coach, (professional) rider, etc., ratehr than being aimed at the "clients".

For instance, the closest part I can see to "for the credit of" is
4. Any person who assumes the responsibility for the care, custody or control of an
unsuspended horse completely or in part owned, leased, trained by or coached by a
suspended person, must not:
a. Be paid a salary directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the suspended person; or
b. Receive a bonus or any other form of compensation in cash, property or other
remuneration or consideration such as to make up for any such lost salary; or
c. Make any payments of any kind, or give any remuneration or other compensation or
consideration, to the suspended person, his/her spouse or companion, any corporation,
partnership or other entity owned or controlled by said suspended person or to any
other person for transfer to any of said individuals or entities for the right to ride, exhibit,
coach or train for the suspended person or any of the suspended person’s customers
during Federation Licensed Competitions; or BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
d. Use the farm or individual name of the suspended person. Remember that, in USEF-speak, "assumes responsibility for the care, custody or control of a horse" means "signs as trainer on the entry blank."

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:20 AM
Well, what about riding for the reputation of a suspended person?

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:23 AM
Exhibitors ARE on USEF showgrounds, and they are claiming he is their trainer, and thanking him for their success. Is that not for his reputation?

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:24 AM
Surely there is a reason the rule has so many descriptive words in it. Seems to be trying to cover as much ground as possible to me.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:26 AM
Your points are well taken Fariview. But believe the intent of the rule is to stop suspended person from being on, showing or training at a USEF event. Thanking someone doesn't fall into these catagories. No matter how distasteful it is.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:29 AM
Doesn't the rule banning him from showgrounds do just that? Why add all this if they can just make them not be present?

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:30 AM
FHC, I think you are trying to take this way too literally.

You could train with Al Capone if you wanted to. USEF can only govern what happens on its show grounds. As long as old Al doesn't sign your entry blank and doesn't try to come onto the show grounds, USEF can't do anything.

I believe that USEF defines "your trainer" only as the person who signs your entry blank.

As War Admiral mentioned earlier, there are lots of ways to adhere to the letter of a rule while not necessarily adhering to its spirit. (A suspended person "selling" a horse to someone for a dollar, etc.) But the USEF can only ENFORCE the "letter of the rule" part.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:32 AM
Darlyn,

From the way I read 704, a rider who was paid to ride the horse (i.e., a "pro") who either paid the suspended person, or was paid by the suspended person, to do that, would be in violation.

Nothin in the wording of 704 makes it look as if the (current or former) customers of the suspended person are in violation.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
Doesn't the rule banning him from showgrounds do just that? Why add all this if they can just make them not be present? I am pretty sure that this rule is intended to address the "surrogate/assistant" trainer situation.

For instance, "suspended person" Sam runs a training business , but doesn't set foot on the show grounds, nor does he sign the entry as "trainer".

But Sam has an assistant, Al (who is not yet suspended). Al signs the entry blank as trainer, and goes on the show grounds with the clients, rides the horses in the "pro" classes, and trains/coaches the clients.

The intent of 702.1.h and i (IMHO), as expanded in 704, is to say that _Al_ is in violation if he has ANY kind of financial realtionship with Sam.

Boberry
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:40 AM
What about GR704.6 and7? The USEF can request records and decide on their own if the rules were "frustrated"? Doesn't that leave it open for the USEF to decide if the best interests of the USEF were upheld?

Snowbird
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:44 AM
Erin I'm not sure that's true there was a violation that was fined a trainer by USEF that didn't happen at a horse show at all. Apparently a client left a barn owing money and there was a nasty phone call from a private phone to a private phone having only reference to horse shows.

Care and custody is also a matter of insurance. All the horses on my farm are insured under care and custody and that could apply at shows there is no exemption that says it doesn't. All barns have a liability and that's what it covers. If as suggested the horse he lent for the Macaly was a Sales Horse it would be covered under that policy but the entry form should indicate not owner but agent.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:45 AM
But Sam has an assistant, Al (who is not yet suspended). Al signs the entry blank as trainer, and goes on the show grounds with the clients, rides the horses in the "pro" classes, and trains/coaches the clients.


I am gently sticking out my neck and asking doesn't PV have people going to the shows and doing that. I thought I saw that David O. was hired to train PV clients at the shows and sign their entry blanks. If not him someone is.

I could be completly wrong and I apoligize upfront and will be like a turtle and put my neck back in.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:47 AM
I would say that 704.6 and .7 leave it open to the USEF to deciding if the intent of 702 and 704 was violated, even if the letter of 704 was followed. I don't think it is as broad as "the best interests of the USEF".

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:49 AM
Originally posted by Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But Sam has an assistant, Al (who is not yet suspended). Al signs the entry blank as trainer, and goes on the show grounds with the clients, rides the horses in the "pro" classes, and trains/coaches the clients.


I am gently sticking out my neck and asking doesn't PV have people going to the shows and doing that. I thought I saw that David O. was hired to train PV clients at the shows and sign their entry blanks. If not him someone is.

I could be completly wrong and I apoligize upfront and will be like a turtle and put my neck back in. </div></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes, that was my understanding also. THAT is where someone needs to file a protest. Not for someone thanking him in an article.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 22, 2006, 08:52 AM
Janet, exactly! Everyone is saying I train with him and there is nothing we can do about that and it is their right. But who is taking them to the shows and schooling them and signing paperwork? Are they saying that they are their own trainer?

You can thank anyone you want and give them credit . That is the beauty of free speech in our country.

PineTreeFarm
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:09 AM
But doesn't 704.5 spell out exactly what needs to be done to turn clients over to another trainer without a violation?
And Snowy don't jump on me, I'm on your side,I'm just asking a question.

Duffy
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:14 AM
I asked these questions of Anthem many pages ago. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:15 AM
The USEF also has two wonderful catch alls when they choose to use them.

"in the best interests of the sport and the Federation"

I think the reason no compaints are filed is because they don't want to penalize some innocent soul who hasn't a clue and believes what they have been told. This makes the wrong person guilty.

The issue is PV can apply to be re-instated and is technically probably sitting just on the line with lots of legal advice. Does he have to prove he has reformed? And, how does someone who disagrees get the oppotunity to produce the evidence?

Snowbird
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:20 AM
Like any legal situation it can be a matter of interpretation. For example as RNB said regarding the Judge and DA in her Virginia case. If these two culprits have been banned during their parole to be in the horse business will USEF support that and ban them from shows and membership?

If we understood the legal status of the USEF why are they not available to assist with advice in cases as above.

Yours Truly
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Does he have to prove he has reformed? And, how does someone who disagrees get the oppotunity to produce the evidence?

And how would he prove that? Just curious. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

SGray
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:22 AM
Originally posted by SGray:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jane:
Harry, now you're getting dramatic. I have not read any posts, especially recently, that stated PV should be reinstated. What I read were people defending PV's right to reapply, SHOULD HE DECIDES to even go there, as well as those who know him challenging the alligations that he's been breaking rules, nothing more.

surely the thread about the folks (I'll go look for it to get the names) that are going to work for PV would indicate that a) PV is planning on applying for reinstatement soon and b) the soon-to-be employees are assuming that he will be reinstated - otherwise, under the rules that went in to effect in Dec. '05 these folks would not be able to go to rated shows while working for PV (or am I misreading the rules?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the name that I was looking for is David Olynik from this thread (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/7076024331/m/388205708/r/164206708#164206708) back in November

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:28 AM
Sgray Thank you find that thread. It just reinforces that something MIGHT be amiss. Still would like to know who is signing the entry blanks.

Snowbird
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:34 AM
That is our paradox to solve. It's why we keep going round in circles.

1. We know there is a wrong that's been done. (Persons indivually not important.

2. The Rules imply that innocent people who have been used by the guilty one can be penalized even thought it was not their intention to do wrong.

3. The Federation is an Educational NonProfit Corporation does anyone know the responsibilities of such under new York Law in a situation like this?

4. We are aware of the fact that MONEY matters; how can the vast majority who cannot be described as the "money" class be protected under this Federation?

One thought would be if those who sponsor and supply the money were equally unhappy because their image could be tarnished. SO! how do we reach them and make them care?

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:38 AM
Snowbird, let's please not make factual statements as to anyone's intention or lack thereof. We have no idea what anyone's intention was.

Snowbird
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:47 AM
I'm sorry; I was using an abstraction with no names just a hypothesis and nothing factual.

Just trying to put forward a logical sequence with logical definitions that can usually led to a solution if you leave out the personalities which cause the antognism. Sort of like looking at the issue from arm's length as an observer.

SGray
Feb. 22, 2006, 10:00 AM
Originally posted by Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division:
Sgray Thank you find that thread. It just reinforces that something MIGHT be amiss. Still would like to know who is signing the entry blanks.

from same thread same thread page 3 (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/7076024331/m/388205708/p/3) "Paul V also has a young pro-rider named Carrie Sortor (sp) from RI. Recent college grad."

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 11:01 AM
Originally posted by PineTreeFarm:
But doesn't 704.5 spell out exactly what needs to be done to turn clients over to another trainer without a violation?
And Snowy don't jump on me, I'm on your side,I'm just asking a question. Yes it does, and 704.4 basically says that the new trainer can NOT be paid (directly or indirectly) by the suspended person.

The statement on the other threads certainly make it sound as if PV is paying them. Someone would have to file a protest, and the USEF would have to invoke 704.6 to see the financial records.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 22, 2006, 11:04 AM
And how would he prove that? Just curious.

Too bad they can't "catch" one of the clients, and convince them to wear a wire

hmmm THAT sounds familiar

Andrew
Feb. 22, 2006, 11:36 AM
Too bad they can't "catch" one of the clients, and convince them to wear a wire

hmmm THAT sounds familiar
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Yours Truly
Feb. 22, 2006, 12:32 PM
I meant how would PV prove that he is reformed?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 22, 2006, 01:05 PM
In order to file a protest, you need hard facts. Not so and so is training for him. You need documentation. Even canceled checks can be gotten around. I got paid for selling a horse, legal. I took so & so to a show, legal. Feeling that a rule has been misused is not enough.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
In order to file a protest, you need hard facts. Not so and so is training for him. You need documentation. Even canceled checks can be gotten around. I got paid for selling a horse, legal. I took so & so to a show, legal. Feeling that a rule has been misused is not enough. The difference is that, in THIS rule, the USEF can demand to SEE the financial records. So you don't have to already have them. but you would have to have enough "circumstantial evidence" to convince the USEF to use that option.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 22, 2006, 01:32 PM
Janet both you and I know it would be one helluva fight to see those records. And could go on for years. Or if they decide to show them, who's to say they are accurate? The legal eagles at the USEF aren't extremely happy with circumstantial evidence. They know the percentages when it comes to court hearings on those. Documented facts are what's needed.

Uberraschung
Feb. 22, 2006, 01:34 PM
How come my reply got deleted? I really didn't think it was anything out of line...

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 01:35 PM
Agreed.

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 01:54 PM
Be nice, be respectful, be polite... and no snarking allowed. That's why.

Snowbird
Feb. 22, 2006, 02:27 PM
That's our Catch 22! USEF doesn't have supeona power.We could use some help from a Legal as to how the Membership would require the information if there was a protest.

I apologize for any misspelling but the Doctor says I have some Macular Degeneration so it is hard to focus and I see the key next to the key I want to type where the other key is supposed to be.

Hopeful Hunter
Feb. 22, 2006, 02:47 PM
a question....

If a legal entity - such as a corporation - paid both PV and OTHER TRAINERS, would the other trainers be in violation of the rules if they took students/horses to the ring who usually trained with PV?

I suspect it would NOT be illegal under any of the rules as I read them, and wonder if this might not be how everything is arranged. After all, if there is a holding company/corporation, PV could simply be a stockholder and/or employee, and anyone else could be, too. Could be a nifty way to keep it technically legal but still make a healthy living.

Just trying to understand how this works...

Anthem, perhaps you can share whether checks are made out to PV or to a different legal name?

EDITED TO FURTHER WONDER: If the legal entity did not come into existence until AFTER suspensions were handed down, would it be bound by any suspensions? Is there any rule to prevent hiring PV (I can't imagine there is) as long as he's not participating in rated shows? And is there any rule that would prevent that entity from hiring a trainer in good standing and allowing THAT person to handle PV's regular horses/clients in the ring? After all, both PV and the other trainer would be working for the benefit/credit/etc OF THE LEGAL ENTITY, not of PV per se.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 22, 2006, 03:23 PM
I do not think that is a fair question to ask Anthem. She is his customer, not his bookkeeper, and even if she knew the answer, it somehow just doesn't seem proper to ask her such a question.

Jane
Feb. 22, 2006, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by SGray:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SGray:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jane:
Harry, now you're getting dramatic. I have not read any posts, especially recently, that stated PV should be reinstated. What I read were people defending PV's right to reapply, SHOULD HE DECIDES to even go there, as well as those who know him challenging the alligations that he's been breaking rules, nothing more.

surely the thread about the folks (I'll go look for it to get the names) that are going to work for PV would indicate that a) PV is planning on applying for reinstatement soon and b) the soon-to-be employees are assuming that he will be reinstated - otherwise, under the rules that went in to effect in Dec. '05 these folks would not be able to go to rated shows while working for PV (or am I misreading the rules?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the name that I was looking for is David Olynik from this thread (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/7076024331/m/388205708/r/164206708#164206708) back in November </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe you're reading the rules correctly, if you're referring to GR704. According to that rule, if David Olynik is indeed working FOR P.V., then it would indeed be a violation.

Jane
Feb. 22, 2006, 03:34 PM
I'm not answering FOR Anthem, but I would like to point out that she has mentioned many times, on and off the BB, that she trains with more than one trainer, regularly.

Sherry
Feb. 22, 2006, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by Janet:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
In order to file a protest, you need hard facts. Not so and so is training for him. You need documentation. Even canceled checks can be gotten around. I got paid for selling a horse, legal. I took so & so to a show, legal. Feeling that a rule has been misused is not enough. The difference is that, in THIS rule, the USEF can demand to SEE the financial records. So you don't have to already have them. but you would have to have enough "circumstantial evidence" to convince the USEF to use that option. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And which set of financial records do you think would be produced....the real ones or the ones made just for the USEF http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Boberry
Feb. 22, 2006, 04:26 PM
What if a family member took over? I saw wording for a companion or spouse, would that include children?

Hopeful Hunter
Feb. 22, 2006, 04:39 PM
Actually, the reason I asked Anthem (or anyone who might want to answer) about the checks is that...IF I'm reading this correctly...if a legal entity is the recipient of the checks (Acres Wild Farm II, for example), then neither she nor anyone is doing anything for the "credit/benefit/etc" of PV.

IF the bills and checks are not to PV, her support and money are going to a legal entity, which, as I read the rules, IS allowed to employ trainers, show, own horses, etc. Yes?

In that case, I can't see that any of the riders who thank PV - in ads or articles - can be considered in actual violation of the rules. Now, can the legal entity be considered in violation, though?

I'm really NOT trying to pick on anyone, but to understand the legality of all of this. As I've stated, I don't agree with the morality, but that is not something that is really IMO going to carry any weight. Just as PV has a RIGHT within the law (if not within some of our views of ethics) to apply for reinstatement, and others have the right to express their opposition, there may well be a legal right for him to work with other trainers if it's structured in a way that is careful. If so, then there is no actual violation of the rules as they now stand, and if we don't like that, we need to see about changing the rule.

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 05:01 PM
Hint: if there is a http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif in your post, you're being snarky, and your post is going to get deleted.

Janet
Feb. 22, 2006, 05:14 PM
Hopeful Hunter, I think it would depend on who owned/controlled the "legal entity".
704.4 says that the "new trainer" may not " Be paid a salary directly or indirectly by or on behalf of the suspended person."
If the suspended person owns or controls the "legal entity", and the "legal eneitiy" pays the new trainer, I think that would constitute being paid a salary "indirectly.

705.5 syas that the new trainer must "Bill customers directly on his/her own bill forms for any services rendered at or in
connection with any Federation Licensed Competitions"
and then 704.4 says thatthe new trainer must not "Make any payments of any kind, or give any remuneration or other compensation or
consideration, to the suspended person, ... any corporation,
partnership or other entity owned or controlled by said suspended person or to any
other person for transfer to any of said individuals or entities for the right to ride, exhibit,
coach or train for the suspended person or any of the suspended person’s customers
during Federation Licensed Competitions;"

So I don't think the new trainer would be permitted to transfer any of the training income to the "legal entity owned or controlled by the suspended person".

But it is definitely gray.

FuzzyLogic
Feb. 22, 2006, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:

And which set of financial records do you think would be produced....the real ones or the ones made just for the USEF http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Do you know this for a fact? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif or was that pure speculation? I thought that's not allow here? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

BTW, can TPTB tell me what the difference is between http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif and http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ? and no I'm not being snarky http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Erin
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:37 PM
Fuzzy Logic, notice that Sherry is not speaking of any particular person, but just a general situation in which records would be requested. Which is why I left the post alone.

So howzabout you leave the moderating to me, eh?

FuzzyLogic
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:46 PM
I wasn't playing moderator. I was simply participating in an ongoing discussion. I'm sorry if that was not how you interpreted it.

Hopeful Hunter
Feb. 22, 2006, 09:52 PM
Thanks, Janet.

So...I guess the answer is a resounding "dunno." *sigh* If I understand - and I'm far from sure I do - one would need to know who controlled the corporation/firm/etc to know if the rule was being violated or merely neatly circumvented. Confusing....

War Admiral
Feb. 23, 2006, 07:26 AM
Y'know... Keep crossposting, people. It's just amazing the number of people in our industry that don't know this happened. I just heard from another one, GHJA member no less, who had never heard about it. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

Silk
Feb. 23, 2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:

"in the best interests of the sport and the Federation"



ROFL! Well, those two words are definitely mutually exclusive http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

anthem35
Feb. 23, 2006, 09:47 AM
Sorry, had to get back to the frozen tundra...

Read back the past few pages...and I do have only one thing to say for those who seem to feel that the financial matters of AWF are any of MY business whatsoever.
I will say this-

Being under such scrutiny these days, I can guarantee you that 100% of that business is conducted way above board.

Why would Paul, as an extremely talented trainer who is trying to earn back at least some credibility, or his wife, the brain behind the 'brawn' do anything so unbelieveably stupid as to 'create records' for the benfit of the USEF?

WHy is it so difficult to comprehend that he IS actually trying to do EXACTLY what the committee is looking for, while trying to salvage a futire for himself and his family?

Please, just stop creating ideas of these wildly elaborate schemes concocted to try and 'trick' the USEF, and consider for a second, that his effors MIGHT just be in earnest...

Vverlooking the obvious ( although I'm sure SOMEONE if not all will insist on restating it..)Paul is NOT stupid.

anthem35
Feb. 23, 2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Duffy, CFO, Aefvue Farm LLC:
I asked these questions of Anthem many pages ago. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sorry, Duffy, I must have missed your question amidst the personal attacks on me..

What was the question?

Duffy
Feb. 23, 2006, 10:00 AM
The answers were none of my business, anthem. Please disregard. (The questions had to do with who signs the entries as trainer for Acres Wild clients, who owns Acres Wild, etc.)

anthem35
Feb. 23, 2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Duffy, CFO, Aefvue Farm LLC:
The answers were none of my business, anthem. Please disregard. (The questions had to do with who signs the entries as trainer for Acres Wild clients, who owns Acres Wild, etc.)

Ah, no harm...


While I understand why people are so interested, Pls understand it is nore of my business either.

I do know that every action that is even considered at the farm is done is with consideration of the rules, and the law.

After 17 years of paying the price, they would never be so stupid as to ruin in with falsified documents.

anthem35
Feb. 23, 2006, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
I myself have no interest in his finances, books, or business records. One can be certain that everything is to the letter of the law, and certainly no one's business other than his own.

As always, Harry..Thank You.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 23, 2006, 10:17 AM
You caught me on that one Anthem, I rethought what I said, and didn't like it a bit.

anthem35
Feb. 23, 2006, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
You caught me on that one Anthem, I rethought what I said, and didn't like it a bit.

Well, what did you not like?
You are correct, btw---

The finances of anyone at all is their business, AND the IRS of course.

N&B&T
Feb. 23, 2006, 11:55 AM
So despite the USEF rule, they would not be able to examine books if it were determined that the information is necessary in a hearing? Of anyone?

Many of you exhibit quite fine feelings in this particular exchange. However, I think given the circumstances, interest in who all the players are, and how the rules are supposed to work, is justifiable, so don't be too hard on yourselves. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'm surprised so much discussion of what to do or not do is necessary, although it's nice for anthem to be made aware of it. Surprised, because it seems to me that it would be quite simple, to decide what to do: avoid even the appearance of impropriety.

Also curious--weren't the convictions in the mid-90's?


.

Sherry
Feb. 23, 2006, 01:35 PM
Many businesses keep 2 sets of "books" (financial records). One set is the actual financial records of that business. The other set is the not-so-actual financial records.

The USEF would have no way of knowing for sure which set of "books" they were seeing, should they ask for financial records. I'm sure they and their legal team are well aware of this practice.

VirginiaBred
Feb. 23, 2006, 01:37 PM
Many businesses keep 2 sets of "books"
So true. So true!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 23, 2006, 02:21 PM
OK! so a synopsis please.

Is it possible to gain enough information for the USEF to be compelled to take action against anyone suspected of Rules Violation or not?

If not then in what sense are they a regulatory Federation? If they are not a Regulatory body then why do we belong? In other words if the point of a Federation is to make a Level Playing Field and there is no way to prove there are violations of the rules it seems to me it is a waste of time to have a Rule Book and have the rest of us punished with fines.

Essentially, there is very little interest in the Divisions Rated by USEF at the "grassroots" level. We have no vote and our opions don;t mean spit.

Perhaps that is our answer.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 23, 2006, 03:11 PM
Snowy, that is what I have been saying all along. As much as I would not like to see him reinstated, he will be back and embraced.

Snowbird
Feb. 23, 2006, 03:39 PM
I know that is the logical conclusion. I have not yet become delusional.

But! damn if I can stop trying to bring back honor and good sport. I'm just too old a dog to learn new tricks.

Like Einstein, I know there is way and an answer and I just haven't found it yet. Maybe if you twist the arguments around long enough we can make it work for us.

For example USEF has no supeona powers but every show is required to produce all of its records and every entry form for three years.

People have been convicted by the Hearing Board because they couldn't prove their innocence in the past. So maybe, we won't win the point but maybe it's like catching the flasher in the subway with his fly open. Maybe we can expose the holes in the system.

Sherry
Feb. 23, 2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
I know that is the logical conclusion. I have not yet become delusional.

But! damn if I can stop trying to bring back honor and good sport. I'm just too old a dog to learn new tricks.

Like Einstein, I know there is way and an answer and I just haven't found it yet. Maybe if you twist the arguments around long enough we can make it work for us.

For example USEF has no supeona powers but every show is required to produce all of its records and every entry form for three years.

People have been convicted by the Hearing Board because they couldn't prove their innocence in the past. So maybe, we won't win the point but maybe it's like catching the flasher in the subway with his fly open. Maybe we can expose the holes in the system.

Interesting analogy, Snowy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 23, 2006, 04:15 PM
Which one there are three!

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 23, 2006, 04:36 PM
Personally I like the flasher in the subway one. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 23, 2006, 08:23 PM
It's genetic you know; we Hungarians can't help exageration and the use of extravagant analogy. It is in the blood we all inherited from Attila the Hun. Personally that was my favorite as well. You know one time in the New York subway I did just that. This creep was sitting next to me and hiding his activity behind a newspaper.

I grabbed his newspaper and ran as fast as I could leaving him sitting there exposed to the world. So in essence it was not an exaggeration but a truism.

meadow lark
Feb. 24, 2006, 12:33 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
Many businesses keep 2 sets of "books" (financial records). One set is the actual financial records of that business. The other set is the not-so-actual financial records.

The USEF would have no way of knowing for sure which set of "books" they were seeing, should they ask for financial records. I'm sure they and their legal team are well aware of this practice.

I think someone has been watching too much television...

Silk
Feb. 24, 2006, 05:48 AM
Originally posted by meadow lark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
Many businesses keep 2 sets of "books" (financial records). One set is the actual financial records of that business. The other set is the not-so-actual financial records.

The USEF would have no way of knowing for sure which set of "books" they were seeing, should they ask for financial records. I'm sure they and their legal team are well aware of this practice.

I think someone has been watching too much television... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope...not too much TV. It does happen. Same with truckers - they keep two log books - one for their boss, the other for the state http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anthem35
Feb. 24, 2006, 06:46 AM
Originally posted by VirginiaBred, Aefvue Farm, VA Chapter:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Many businesses keep 2 sets of "books"
So true. So true!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...would this be the case of my ex-co-worker would had 'her own set of books'?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 24, 2006, 11:37 AM
Snowy, I lost the the address of where to send money for the bracelets, I am going to see some people tomorrow who will want some.

Snowbird
Feb. 24, 2006, 11:51 AM
Oh! Good...Im down to les than 50 which is good I can re-order soon. Let them multiply and chase PV around the world.
OOPS! fixed it


http://www.usAHSA.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm

meadow lark
Feb. 24, 2006, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by Silk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by meadow lark:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
Many businesses keep 2 sets of "books" (financial records). One set is the actual financial records of that business. The other set is the not-so-actual financial records.

The USEF would have no way of knowing for sure which set of "books" they were seeing, should they ask for financial records. I'm sure they and their legal team are well aware of this practice.

I think someone has been watching too much television... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope...not too much TV. It does happen. Same with truckers - they keep two log books - one for their boss, the other for the state http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

But not as much as you think---I have a transport business, and I don't know of anyone who keeps two log books...fines, etc. are too high if you get caught...same is true for your "two sets of books" thing. that may happen at some low levels of folks who aren't borrowing money or filing any taxes, but among the regular business owners, you are really misrepresenting things by the above statements. Might as well say 'everyone' is doping their horse, don't ya know...

Snowbird
Feb. 24, 2006, 07:42 PM
I think this dialog is a side track and a tangent to get us off course. The facts are simple and clear. We have people who have been convicted in a court of law as felons with regard to horse activity

We want the USEF to know there are a lot of Members who do not want them beck rubbing shoulders with us at our competitions.

They can be as devious and manipulative as they can with those who think winning is more important than what is a moral principle.

The simple fact has to be that we of the "grassroots" object. It is a poor example for the children. The "children" includes young unsophisticated trainers who will think that such goings on are an acceptable behavior because it makes the likes of PV and BW rich.

I don't think we are required to prove his guilt that is admitted and what is open is whether or not he has sufficently suffered by his penalty.

Our bracelets are to remind everyone about the innocent horses that suffered a premature end to satisfy greed and ego.

meadow lark
Feb. 25, 2006, 10:00 AM
yes, but also some of us grass roots folks believe in forgiveness and reparation and further believe in second chances--those who committed these crimes have already served their society penalties...they deserve to be able to get on with their lives without the singular view-point folks chasing them around forever...at some point, some of you need to find a new cause celeb, so to speak.

Snowbird
Feb. 25, 2006, 10:22 AM
meadowlark if you only look at them and what they need and deserve you could be right. The biggest social problem today is "me-ism".

However, if you look at what is in the best interests of our sport and our industry, and those young trainers and the children who may become trainers it is a disastrous premise.

For the sake of the future I think they should be prepared to make the sacrifices that their horses made for ego and greed. Not death of course but if they really have remorse then they should be able to see what a horrid example it is for someone so talented and intelligent to have resorted to a quick fix.

The better the horseman, the more talented and dedicated multiplies the effects of the damage done by maybe 100 x or even a 1000 x.

When you have been gifted that much you owe back to the those less fortunate. That doesn't mean writing a check to clear your conscience.

The equation will balance out as if then those less talented and less able to be successful can do even more and worse things to satisfy their own needs with more quick fixes.

N&B&T
Feb. 25, 2006, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by meadow lark:
yes, but also some of us grass roots folks believe in forgiveness and reparation and further believe in second chances

You are welcome to believe in whatever you like. Everyone may choose to assess and analyze situations and draw their own conclusions. If you express an opinion, people may voice disagreement with you. That is true of any issue, anywhere, yes?

I agree with the language on the website, and the language of the petition. That's why I signed it. Anything other is my personal feeling. I don't owe anyone an explanation of my personal feelings.

Perhaps you should create a petition. But only if you include a description of exactly what happened to the horses. And see below.

--those who committed these crimes have already served their society penalties...they deserve to be able to get on with their lives

One more time--6 months probation and $5k fine from the courts, and suspension from AHSA/USEF. Has never been prevented from teaching, training, sales etc. To me, he has long ago gotten on with his life. However, while the terms of his suspension allow him to apply for it, reinstatement is not an entitlement. Poeple are free to be opposed to it and to make their views known to whomever they choose to share them with. Deserving chances falls into the same category as entitlement IMO.

without the singular view-point folks chasing them around forever...

What does that mean, "singular view-point folks"? No one is chasing anyone around, simply expressing opinions, positive and negative, on reinstatement.

There are MANY people on this thread. Not everyone agrees with every post, in either camp.

at some point, some of you need to find a new cause celeb, so to speak.

A question for those who feel that PV is somehow being done wrong by the petition...are you all http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif in favor of *all* the suspended parties? Or just PV? Is it possible to forgive PV-or the others-without reinstating him/them? How does he suffer immoderately by not being allowed on the showgrounds?

War Admiral
Feb. 25, 2006, 12:36 PM
It's probably worth re-stating, at this point, that all the suspensions are of indefinite duration. Re-read the language here (http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm).

Suspended individuals were granted different dates after which they may apply for reinstatement, but any talk of anyone having "served his or her term" is NOT accurate.

RNB
Feb. 25, 2006, 01:55 PM
With all due respect meadow lark, unless you have had a situation like this happen to you or your horse then you have no idea the lifetime of damage it causes the victims. I speak from experience and I will continue to do whatever I can to keep horse felons out of the industry!!

VirginiaBred
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:12 PM
they deserve to be able to get on with their lives without the singular view-point folks chasing them around forever.

No, no they don't.
To participate was a choice. Those involved didn't need to. But they did.
I hope this haunts them like a ghost. Forever.

VirginiaBred
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:13 PM
And by the way. This happened to my family. I don't appreciate your saying we have a singular view-point.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:24 PM
For some of you posting, who feel these people should be allowed to go on with their lives, possibly reading the transcripts, detailing the exact acts to the letter, may make you rethink your stand. Hearing bone crack on a horses leg, watching it run thru a parking lot, falling down, hearing it's screams of pain. Yes, that makes perfect sense to allow those people back. I hope for all of you, you never hear that sound. Or have a horse break a leg in a freak accident. It will never leave you, never.

Equit8tor
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:28 PM
And radio- bad enough when it is a real accident. But to premeditate this kind of horrific torture... what kind of moron would do such a thing?

Duffy
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:30 PM
I can think of other words besides "moron". But, I'd like to be able to continue to play on COTH BB...

Equit8tor
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:32 PM
Me too.. Play on McDuff!

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:35 PM
Amen, VB. ...and it indirectly affects many of us and will for years to come. I had to listen to my poor little a/o lady, upon the "real" colic death of her beloved hunter, sobbing into the phone to the insurance companies, asking "Do you want to come dig my "Murphy" UP?!!"..due to the mistrust these people have instilled in the horse insurance industry, not to mention the exorbitant increases in mortality rates and the insulting raft of "cause of death" questions our good vets have to endure. I thank the gods of animal welfare I haven't been through the Hell that VB and her mother have..Believe me, the swath of cruelty, mistrust and ugliness cut through our sport is not going away any time soon.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 25, 2006, 02:41 PM
Spot on Race!!

Snowbird
Feb. 25, 2006, 04:58 PM
I find it difficult to understand anyone however deeply involved with any of these people can make excuses for their sudden reformation when for all these years they continue to fly in the face of the rules while their actions may be technically legal that aye morally reprehensible because it is still the same sin. Self serving, self agrandizement self importance over morality and compassion.

meadow lark
Feb. 26, 2006, 12:36 AM
Originally posted by RNB:
With all due respect meadow lark, unless you have had a situation like this happen to you or your horse then you have no idea the lifetime of damage it causes the victims. I speak from experience and I will continue to do whatever I can to keep horse felons out of the industry!!

What are you talking about? The horses were the victims--you aren't a dead horse are you?

It has been over ten years...go get a life please.

meadow lark
Feb. 26, 2006, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by VirginiaBred, Aefvue Farm, VA Chapter:
And by the way. This happened to my family. I don't appreciate your saying we have a singular view-point.

Was your family one of the horse owners? Did you file for the insurance? Are you one of those involved? You can tell us, we are all forgiving, aren't we?

Limerick
Feb. 26, 2006, 05:20 AM
Meadow Lark, if you go back in this thread, VB describes the horrific death of her mom's wonderful horse at the hands of someone who wanted to buy it and couldn't. I'm not sure why you're being rude to those who do not support re-instatement. We are entitled to our opinion as you are to yours. Being rude will certainly not sway us.

You know telling us "it's been ten years, go get a life" is becoming a very stale attitude. Yes, it's been ten years but I haven't read a public apology from PV. In fact, in his last quote to the press (that I know of) he stated "what do people want me to do? die?" That sounds like he feels he was a victim and people who feel they're victims aren't ready to face up to their mistakes. I have also read on here that PV never apologized to his friends and in fact, hasn't talked about the insurance killings in ten years.

VirginiaBred
Feb. 26, 2006, 05:54 AM
Was your family one of the horse owners? Did you file for the insurance? Are you one of those involved

Why would someone attempt to add an opinion on this thread without the benefit of at least reading the thread, first.

Not only are you showing your lack of understanding, but you are coming across as ignorant of the facts.

Please don't address my family's situation again. You don't have a clue.

Erin
Feb. 26, 2006, 06:16 AM
Ahem... have we forgotten that this thread is on strict probation?

Be nice, be respectful, be polite, no snarking.

meadow lark, obviously you only just started reading (not really a good idea to jump into a 100 page thread uninformed with both barrels blazing, but)... but three people have already been sent on "vacation" for very very small infractions, and I will not hesitate at all to send you to join them.

The rest of you, you know darn well that this thread is on thin ice and should know better than to take the bait. Sit on your hands and stuff a sock in it if you can't respond in a polite manner.

17hTBmare
Feb. 26, 2006, 06:19 AM
For an insider's view, read A Perfect Distance.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 26, 2006, 06:42 AM
For an insider's view, read A Perfect Distance

Where to find?

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 26, 2006, 06:47 AM
Fairview, the book "A Perfect Distance" is available on Amazon.com, however, it is a novel.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:08 AM
I have only found "The Perfect Distance", and the review didn't sound anything like this. I think that is new? A different book?

grey mare
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:28 AM
The reason why PV and other convicted horse felons should not be reinstated has little to do with the willingness to forgive or not forgive these people.
It has everything to do with what is BEST for the horse industry.
We owe it to future generations of horse enthusiasts.
I bet Tanya Harding is sorry too.

RNB
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by grey mare:
The reason why PV and other convicted horse felons should not be reinstated has little to do with the willingness to forgive or not forgive these people.
It has everything to do with what is BEST for the horse industry.
We owe it to future generations of horse enthusiasts.....

Couldn't have said it better grey mare!

N&B&T
Feb. 26, 2006, 08:16 AM
Originally posted by grey mare:
The reason why PV and other convicted horse felons should not be reinstated has little to do with the willingness to forgive or not forgive these people.
It has everything to do with what is BEST for the horse industry.
We owe it to future generations of horse enthusiasts.
I bet Tanya Harding is sorry too.

Yes, this is exactly what I've been trying to say--thank you.

One Star
Feb. 26, 2006, 08:45 AM
The Perfect Distance by Kim Ablon Whitney *is* a work of fiction, but it contains many factual situations and benefits from her insider's perspective. Kim grew up, rode, and competed in New England during PV's flourishing career before and during these incidents. Kim placed at the AHSA Medal Finals and USET East Medal Finals in 1992 and competed in the ASPCA Maclay Finals three times. Her years competing in the equitation gave her the insider knowledge to tell the story and bring several important details about this period of equine history to life. She also is a USEF ‘R’ judge in hunters and equitation. Kim would not write a novel referencing these crimes if it wasn't valuable and important to tell the story, even in a fictionalized way.

meadow lark
Feb. 26, 2006, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Erin:
Ahem... have we forgotten that this thread is on strict probation?

Be nice, be respectful, be polite, no snarking.

meadow lark, obviously you only just started reading (not really a good idea to jump into a 100 page thread uninformed with both barrels blazing, but)... but three people have already been sent on "vacation" for very very small infractions, and I will not hesitate at all to send you to join them.

The rest of you, you know darn well that this thread is on thin ice and should know better than to take the bait. Sit on your hands and stuff a sock in it if you can't respond in a polite manner.

So the person's horse wasn't killed for the insurance profit was my Point--all of our animals die, and that is only partially a matter in the point of this thread...it is supposed to be about inhumane treatment, I thought, and the USEF rules.

Some of you just appear on a rip about this, and the thread keeps going, and going, and going, with no additional info or respect for anyone who has a point of view different than the few who "are driving this bus", when it seems to me it has lost its purpose and should just be shut down..

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 26, 2006, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by meadow lark:
it seems to me it has lost its purpose and should just be shut down..

It's purpose it to keep this fresh in our minds, and make the "powers that be" aware of just how many of us are against reinstatement. It may also act as a deterrent to those who wish to be reinstated to understand that we have NOT forgotten. This thread is still doing that just fine.

Snowbird
Feb. 26, 2006, 10:42 AM
meadowlark please feel free not to tune in if you don't like the subject.

equusrocks
Feb. 26, 2006, 10:48 AM
Ditto what FHC said. I am fairly new to the H/J world, and I wasn't aware of what had happened until I read this thread. I agree with the message, and will keep reading although I have nothing helpful to add to it.

Erin
Feb. 26, 2006, 11:08 AM
meadowlark, any thread has a purpose if people are interested enough to keep it active by discussing things. Threads die on their own when people are no longer interested.

I have no obligation to shut a thread down just because *you* don't think it serves a purpose... sorry, but that's not how it works.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 26, 2006, 11:41 AM
What are you talking about? The horses were the victims--you aren't a dead horse are you?
As I stated earlier..A lot of innocent horse owners are STILL victims:
.and it indirectly affects many of us and will for years to come. I had to listen to my poor little a/o lady, upon the "real" colic death of her beloved hunter, sobbing into the phone to the insurance companies, asking "Do you want to come dig my "Murphy" UP?!!"..due to the mistrust these people have instilled in the horse insurance industry, not to mention the exorbitant increases in mortality rates and the insulting raft of "cause of death" questions our good vets have to endure.

Erin
Feb. 26, 2006, 11:49 AM
Y'all can ignore meadowlark... turns out it was just big dawg, who already got banned once and decided to come back under a new name. Not a very good move...

Nothing to see here, please move along. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 26, 2006, 11:52 AM
NO WAY! Jeez....

Riggs
Feb. 26, 2006, 12:01 PM
You rock Erin! I was sizzling at the callousness of the comments made about the murder of VB's horse.

filly3
Feb. 26, 2006, 12:42 PM
Good detective work Erin!

Centennial Baby
Feb. 26, 2006, 12:53 PM
I hate when people who are banned come back under a different name. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

equusrocks
Feb. 26, 2006, 12:55 PM
I'll bet.

Good job Erin. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif How can you tell if its the same person? I'm kinda lost on that one!

Snowbird
Feb. 26, 2006, 01:31 PM
Equusrocks Do you seriously expect Erin to tell you that? It would be foolish and one thing is for certain Erin is NOT FOOLISH!

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 26, 2006, 01:42 PM
Erin can check their ISPs and stuff and discover that they are sending from the same computer as their original screen name..Take Centennial Baby, for instance http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

RNB
Feb. 26, 2006, 02:26 PM
I figured Big Dawg and Shelia had a child http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Seriously I had a feeling it was him since he was posting on all the same threads and saying the same things he had before.

Thanks Erin!

CBoylen
Feb. 26, 2006, 02:57 PM
I have also read on here that PV never apologized to his friends and in fact, hasn't talked about the insurance killings in ten years.
That is untrue. I cannot speak for anyone else, but I have personally heard Paul apologize and express his remorse to my satisfaction and that of my family. It was many years ago, around the time of the incident, but it's certainly not something I would forget.
I don't know how you can make a statement like that based upon just the contents of a gossip-ridden and speculative thread.

Dancing Lawn
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:17 PM
With all due respect, Chanda, you were what, about 10 yrs old at the time?

I have trouble believing that a ten yr. old could remember accurately anything that was going on in the adult world so many years later.

And I don't know ANY ten yr. olds that would be anything less than horrified to learn that someone with so much influence could stoop to such low actions. They certainly wouldn't be as forgiving as you would seem to have been at that age. Things are a little more black and white to an ordinary ten yr. old.

CBoylen
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:25 PM
With all due respect, Chanda, you were what, about 10 yrs old at the time?
I have trouble believing that a ten yr. old could remember accurately anything that was going on in the adult world so many years later.
And I don't know ANY ten yr. olds that would be anything less than horrified to learn that someone with so much influence could stoop to such low actions. They certainly wouldn't be as forgiving as you would seem to have been at that age. Things are a little more black and white to an ordinary ten yr. old.
My memory is quite accurate; the conversation happened in my driveway. Paul lived across the street at the time.
I doubt anything was as black and white as you want to make it for any child at the time who grew up in the industry and knew everyone involved personally.

ponymom64
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:35 PM
My 12 year old daughter just read "A Perfect Distance" where a similar event was written about - she was HORRIFIED when I told her it really did happen and wanted to know how anyone would intentionally kill a horse...I couldn't explain myself

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:44 PM
Ponymom your daughter had a reaction as most children do when they learn of this event. Horror. It is without explaination.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:45 PM
I was horrified as an adult.

Equit8tor
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:49 PM
How does "growing up in the industry" mediate anything? Andknowing "everyone involved personally" would surely magnify this atrocity.

Kap
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by C.Boylen:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">With all due respect, Chanda, you were what, about 10 yrs old at the time?
I have trouble believing that a ten yr. old could remember accurately anything that was going on in the adult world so many years later.
And I don't know ANY ten yr. olds that would be anything less than horrified to learn that someone with so much influence could stoop to such low actions. They certainly wouldn't be as forgiving as you would seem to have been at that age. Things are a little more black and white to an ordinary ten yr. old.
My memory is quite accurate; the conversation happened in my driveway. Paul lived across the street at the time.
I doubt anything was as black and white as you want to make it for any child at the time who grew up in the industry and knew everyone involved personally. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Knowing "everyone involved personally" probably skews your memory even more, and makes you all the more biased, IMHO.

Dancing Lawn
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:54 PM
I was horrified then, and i am horrified now.
Of course, when I was a child i didn't have horses or ponies in my life at all, i just had a deep love and respect for them.

Maybe that's where the difference lies. Those of us who are horrified are so, because we love them for what they are. To us, they aren't a commodity, to be disposed of when they outlive their usefulness. To most of us, they mean more than a handful of ribbons and the prestige of winning them.

What these people did cheapens the whole "sport" of horse showing. They and their kind are not people I would want to consort with.

Boberry
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:54 PM
Please remember there were many people involved from across the country. It is something that went on for years! Please read the reference posts and court documents. This is an industry issue that has taken years to investigate, prove with evidence, then get convictions. BW made death threats to people http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif PV used BW to get contacts. MW just made a public statement saying his dad has forgiven PV. I would ask PV if he has ever worried about BW? The Sandman links back to Si. Si killed VirginiaBreds horse, (along with a whole host of crimes against people and animals). Cheska grew up with Si. Cheska burnt down a lake house for insurance money. PV, BW, Tommy, Cheska and Si shared the same secret. It really does go on and on. The only defense for these people can use is ignorance. Shutting the thread down and discrediting the petition is an attempt to keep people in the dark.

VirginiaBred
Feb. 26, 2006, 03:58 PM
I doubt anything was as black and white as you want to make it for any child at the time who grew up in the industry

That would describe me, and I see this from all sides.

I'm absolutely AGAINST any form of reinstatement for the pure and simple reason that an atrocity of this magnitude does not deserve forgiveness OR a second chance.

I have seen the destruction first hand, and it's ugly.

ponymom64
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:00 PM
Kill an animal or not? Hmmmm - sounds black and white to me

Dancing Lawn
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:06 PM
i'm sure we all understand that people have different points of view. We have to remember that Miss Boylen is on the horse welfare committee. Given the importance of the position, I''m sure that she can see issues from all sides, and in every shade of grey, and that re-instating anyone involved in the horse killings will impact how the protection of horses in the show community is viewed.

CBoylen
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:07 PM
Knowing "everyone involved personally" probably skews your memory even more, and makes you all the more biased, IMHO.
I said at the beginning of the discussion on these boards that I was biased. That is why I felt that the ultimate legal decision should be left to the legal entities, and was frankly none of my business personally.
I will take offense to the perception that my memory is "skewed", however. As I said, my family and I were both present, and we all remember it quite clearly. I assume my mother is old enough for her memory to be admissible, and not quite old enough yet for it to be suspect as well.
In any case, the point is that my post is not about me, or what I do and do not remember or do and do not forgive.
The point of my post was that the statement made here that Paul has not apologized to anyone or shown remorse to anyone is incorrect.
I have seen him do so, and so I chose to correct that untrue statement.

War Admiral
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:19 PM
Just to let you all know, I'm pleased to report that Avery's art exhibit raised $350 for the campaign. Snowy, I'll be mailing you the checks tomorrow.

Snowbird
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:28 PM
I said at the beginning of the discussion on these boards that I was biased. That is why I felt that the ultimate legal decision should be left to the legal entities, and was frankly none of my business personally.
I will take offense to the perception that my memory is "skewed", however.

I find it interesting that you take offense as a suggestion that your perseptions might be skewed because of your age and your proximity to PV.

Yet, you call us gossip mongers who do not know the facts. The only facts we need to know is that he was convicted and he confessed and the court record confirmed our convictions. An apology is not words it is actions. Technically manipulating the situation to what seems to conform to the rules is against the intention nd the moral respect for the Law denies those superficial verbal apologies. His actions make it appear his only regret is he got caught.


statement made here that Paul has not apologized to anyone or shown remorse to anyone is incorrect.
I have seen him do so, and so I chose to correct that untrue statement

And we understand as you said that you make that statement from your position of bias. Saying the words does not make it so. Actions are what make it so.

Boberry
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:28 PM
How about a silent auction, maybe Ebay style since HarryJ loves it so much.

Erin
Feb. 26, 2006, 04:30 PM
Will you all just lay off already? Chanda was correcting a factual error. That doesn't mean it's open season for you all to debate her recollection of events.

twotrudoc
Feb. 26, 2006, 05:31 PM
I love silent auctions!! Great idea, anyhoo, who can I ask about the cafepress tshirts??

Snowbird
Feb. 26, 2006, 05:47 PM
Just go to

http://www.cafepress.com/norein

And start shopping. I'm excited I just learned how to do that you can take a pick at my one old store http://www.cafepress.com/usAHSA

twotrudoc
Feb. 26, 2006, 06:36 PM
Thanks Snowbird. I was hoping to find a shirt with the names of the horses on the back, but I think I'll just get the tote bag too. This might be a little off topic, but I am a little nerve wracked about how to answer the inevitable "So what does that "no re-instatement" mean on your shirt/bag??". There is so much to it, not even sure how to answer.

grey mare
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:34 PM
Personally, I could care less if he's sorry. This is about his possible reinstatement, which I do not believe would be a good thing for the horse show industry. It is up to the governing body to set and uphold ethical standards, for the best of all.

Snowbird
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:44 PM
What a great idea. I think War Adniral is working on that.

Amen grey mare. And if they don;t see it that's our job to make them understand how we all "grassroots" feel. The ratings were down for the Olympics and they're even beginning to realize that the "grassroots are what make the pasture green.

jn1193
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:56 PM
I've really tried to hold off commenting on this thread because I've commented on similar ones before, but, sorry, Chandra, I was a pro and on the circuit at the time all of this was going on and I heard firsthand these guys talk and joke about what they were doing. It was horrifying standing at the in-gate or being at a bar and hearing them talk about setting up deals to kill horses. PV might have been "sorry" but it was the sorry of a thief who wasn't sorry that he stole, but was very, very sorry he got caught.

None of these guys had the least bit of remorse for killing the horses. They only were upset they got caught for it. For them, it was just business. A horse was a problem, a client was thinking about leaving. The horse dies, no more problem. You find the client a new horse, make another commission, take the new horse in on full training. Bada bing, bada boom.

Once the tax laws changed in 1987, these guys had to find an alternative to the donate scam. And, killing the horses was more efficient and easier. It was a business move. That cold-blooded.

PV may seem to some to be very sincere, but ask yourself if you would trust one of your horses in his hands, particularly if that horse turned out to be less than stellar. Would you trust a man with a history of killing problem horses with your horse? Paul got caught for one, so maybe. But what about Barney? Where should the line on the number of horses killed be drawn where you would say, oops, maybe I shouldn't send my horse to that trainer? Maybe it's kind of like saying, gee, do I want my child taught by someone convicted of being a sexual predator, after all, he was only caught for one offense.

Someone said earlier that reinstatement is not about these people as individuals, it's about what is best for the industry and that's true. it's time to just say no.

twotrudoc
Feb. 26, 2006, 07:58 PM
Thank you, jn, for that very moving post. Wow.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 26, 2006, 08:10 PM
Originally posted by grey mare:
Personally, I could care less if he's sorry. This is about his possible reinstatement, which I do not believe would be a good thing for the horse show industry. It is up to the governing body to set and uphold ethical standards, for the best of all.

Absolutely! The cold callousness of killing a perfectly good horse because it does not live up to expectaions, to pamper the ego, and be greedy enough to lie about it to get money for the killing, is to me someone we should never have to breathe the same air as. Anyone that has ever been that cold hearted, comes from their very core - not something that changes. I have no doubt they are sorry - sorry it didn't work out for them, sorry they got caught, sorry they have to live with the mess they created, sorry everyone knows what they did, etc.

Sorry they made a mistake because they really do value a horse's life and honesty? The "what was I thinking? I can't believe I impulsively did that horrible thing to an animal I love and to a group of people I respect?" Nope, don't buy it in anyone over the age of 16 - and certainly not in an educated, mature adult.

Snowbird
Feb. 26, 2006, 08:22 PM
We're not talking about people who couldn't make a mortgage payment or whose family was almost homeless and starving. Maybe like in Les Miserables there could be such an excuse.

We'e talking about affluent trainers in the premier bracket who didn't NEED the money. They could have sold done and written off the loss; they could have donated and written off the deductions to charity.

These are not people who have remorse for what they did but for getting caught. This is what happens when Competition becomes a vanity show instead of a competition.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 26, 2006, 08:22 PM
I also want to point out to his supporters, that his friendly, attitude is the only way he can be if he wants to maintain a business. What is he going to say, "yeah, I killed them, so what."???

This is a person that was able to play a part to the insurance company, and others to make them think he was shocked and horrified at the loss of a horse - to collect the money. A wonderful actor. A smart actor, that is still playing a part to salvage firendships, clients, business, and ego. Playing a part so that he can get the hero worship he craves. (thanking him because he is such a wonderful trainer, etc.)

filly3
Feb. 26, 2006, 08:31 PM
Well put jn. I too was around during that time and heard the jokes and was as sickened by the cold-heartedness and total lack of all things decent then, as I am today. I still feel a painful knot in my stomach every single time I think about it. I am changed for life and a part of me and a part of my sport died along with those horses. Some will make light of it, think it's no big deal, it's in the past, chalk it up to the cost of doing business, it was a mistake, everyone is sorry, put on you big girl panties and let's get on with things. If you can do that, I envy you. Not all of us can and we shouldn't be forced to or made to feel that we are a bunch of hysterical out of control crazies. I was there, I watched it all unfold and I will always be saddened and deeply affected by it and it is something that no amount of time or apologies will ever be able to erase.

Limerick
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:40 AM
Thank you for sharing your experience too filly 3. I can't imagine being young and witnessing such coldheartedness.

I have a hard time as an adult accepting that such atrocities happened in the sport I love so much. I dread havng to explain such matters to my daughters. My oldest (seven) has a hard enough time when her pony books mention selling horses for meat. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 27, 2006, 06:40 AM
Me too JN..and I remember the jokes...Mikey C and John H were asked to help pull Charisma out her stall the morning after.. when looking at sale horses @ Cellular. We were told she had "colicked" and had no idea...you'd think the old tough guys like Mike would be guilty of this shit..but I give him credit. You would NOT believe some of the owners who asked about a convenient "accident".. to occur to their insured animals. The answer was always a resounding NO..and find a new barn!! RIP Mikey.

War Admiral
Feb. 27, 2006, 07:56 AM
Just as an FYI, some of the Cafe Press stuff ALREADY HAS THE HORSES' NAMES ON IT.

This shirt has them on the back (http://www.cafepress.com/norein.43729626).

So does this one. (http://www.cafepress.com/norein.43729613)

And this one (http://www.cafepress.com/norein.43684315).

And this one (http://www.cafepress.com/norein.43684316).

I'm writing this very hastily 'cause I'm in a mad rush today, so there may be some I've missed. But the trick is to view both the front and the back of the shirt. Horse_Poor is our Cafe Press point person, so PM her if you have any Q's!

Hope that helps.

Edit: We don't have Jatomic Striker on the shirts, b/c at the time they were designed we didn't have the paperwork to prove he was a victim of the insurance scam, but thanks to this thread, we now do - so if/when Horse_Poor gets a chance to add him it'll get done!

Snowbird
Feb. 27, 2006, 08:46 AM
Well Done perhaps the thing to do is show the back of the shirt in the site instead of the front where the horses names are listed. I think they give you that option.

Wonderful great job.

Orders have stalled anyone who wants to attach the link to their sites is welcome to do so for the bracelets.

http://www.usAHSA.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm

Silk
Feb. 27, 2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by C.Boylen:
My memory is quite accurate; the conversation happened in my driveway. Paul lived across the street at the time.

Te fact that this was discussed in front of a ten year old makes me very uncomfortable, and has me questioning the ethics of this whole debacle even more. Not, of course, that any ethics were involved, obviously/.


I doubt anything was as black and white as you want to make it for any child at the time who grew up in the industry and knew everyone involved personally.

I agree with whoever stated that it IS a black and white issue: kill an innocent horse or take the financial loss (and perhaps the loss of a wealthy client - OMG!!!!)?? Yeah....pretty black and white to me.

twotrudoc
Feb. 27, 2006, 09:25 AM
Thanks snow and WA, obviously I wasn't paying enough attention. Expect my order this coming weekend!

anthem35
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by one_star_or_bust at Aefvue Farms South:
The Perfect Distance by Kim Ablon Whitney *is* a work of fiction, but it contains many factual situations and benefits from her insider's perspective. Kim grew up, rode, and competed in New England during PV's flourishing career before and during these incidents. Kim placed at the AHSA Medal Finals and USET East Medal Finals in 1992 and competed in the ASPCA Maclay Finals three times. Her years competing in the equitation gave her the insider knowledge to tell the story and bring several important details about this period of equine history to life. She also is a USEF ‘R’ judge in hunters and equitation. Kim would not write a novel referencing these crimes if it wasn't valuable and important to tell the story, even in a fictionalized way.

During the past two weeks in Wellie,
I have had the pleaseure of having dinner on 3 separate occassions with 3 BIG name judges...
Where I was asked the inevitable question that we all seem get to when meeting newcomers "Who do you train with?"

Each time, upon hearing the I train with Paul, the response was the same.

"Good Man, Great trainer. We will be happy to see him back at the ring".
In two cases, the trainers and either their children, or family, trained with him currently.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:29 PM
War Admiral those T shirts are great. Thank you for doing all of this!!

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:30 PM
Kudos War Admiral!!

Equit8tor
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:31 PM
Just saw those too! Great job!

War Admiral
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:34 PM
Thanks for the kudos, but Lori B. and Horse_Poor get the credit for the Cafe Press stuff! Lori B. did the logo & Horse_Poor did the product design.

As of right now, we aren't making ANY money on the shirts but in the highly unlikely event that we do, it will go to the No Reinstatement fund to be used for stuff like ads and possibly a trophy sponsorship. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

VirginiaBred
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:38 PM
Love the shirts. Great job! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Limerick
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:38 PM
Thanks WA and Snowbird for everything you are doing to promote this worthy cause.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:41 PM
...and don't forget gang. Please post your thanks to all the wonderful horses and horsemen that touched your hearts, not your purse strings, along the way..In "Chicken Soup". They all deserve our hearfelt thanks and recognition for keeping the true spirit of this sport alive and well.

Regal Grace
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:43 PM
Please note the following in the Equestrian periodical "Sidelines" under the H/J Ingate Section:

"We all know there’s been a huge internet move afoot to keep Paul Valliere’s ban in place. However, Marcella has been told that he’s back on the WEF showgrounds...it will be very interesting to see how this all shakes out.

There is a link where USEF members can sign a petition NOT to reinstate Paul: www.PetitionOnline.com/valliere/ (http://www.PetitionOnline.com/valliere/). It is hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service (however you should be aware they send you a confirmation which asks for support).

Here is the link to Sidelines:

http://www.sidelinesnews.com/1803/HIngate.html

http://www.sidelinesnews.com

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:43 PM
Here here, Race!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

anthem35
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Regal Grace:
Please note the following in the Equestrian periodical "Sidelines" under the H/J Ingate Section:

"We all know there’s been a huge internet move afoot to keep Paul Valliere’s ban in place. However, Marcella has been told that he’s back on the WEF showgrounds...it will be very interesting to see how this all shakes out.

There is a link where USEF members can sign a petition NOT to reinstate Paul: www.PetitionOnline.com/valliere/ (http://www.PetitionOnline.com/valliere/). It is hosted on the web by PetitionOnline.com, the free online petition service (however you should be aware they send you a confirmation which asks for support).

Here is the link to Sidelines:

http://www.sidelinesnews.com/1803/HIngate.html

http://www.sidelinesnews.com

Hey, quick question, WHO is this "Marcella'?

Equit8tor
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:50 PM
War Admiral- love the idea of a trophy sponsorship!

17hTBmare
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
During the past two weeks in Wellie,
I have had the pleaseure of having dinner on 3 separate occassions with 3 BIG name judges...
Where I was asked the inevitable question that we all seem get to when meeting newcomers "Who do you train with?"

Each time, upon hearing the I train with Paul, the response was the same.

"Good Man, Great trainer. We will be happy to see him back at the ring".
In two cases, the trainers and either their children, or family, trained with him currently.


Disgraceful, but then you know, birds of a feather flock together...

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:53 PM
Trophy sponsorship would be wonderful. What a great idea.

shade
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:54 PM
WA the shirts are great..great variety also. Thanks to both WA and Snowy for all their efforts.

Snowbird
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:55 PM
I would guess that Marcella is current a contemporary of Hildgaard Frostbite who as far as Sidelines is concerned has been demised.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:56 PM
I love the idea of a trophy.

Snowbird
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:57 PM
They have to support each other because they seem to have the same moral code. "Winning is Everything". At any cost to someone else.

What do you think Harry are the chances they would accept this sponsorship for a HOTY Award at the next Convention?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:58 PM
Yes, Snowy, thank you too. Bracelets were received, people are loving them.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 27, 2006, 12:59 PM
Yes..thank you ALL who have done so much. The unconcern with prestige, and the courage of your convictions, will perhaps keep the spirit of The Spotsman's Charter in horsemens' hearts. Here's to you, sportsmen and women...and every horse that brought you here.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:02 PM
Snowy, I don't have the sort of contacts where I could even speculate.

anthem35
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:03 PM
Marcella = http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:04 PM
Not to be pushy but I have a lot of empty envelopes here waiting for orders of the bracelets. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

http://www.usAHSA.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm

N&B&T
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by War Admiral:
...possibly a trophy sponsorship. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

I remember discussing this with a friend who frequents these boards http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif about 5 years back. I thought it was a good idea for a memorial then and am pleased to hear the idea is on the drawing board again.

OTOH, who would judge? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Silk
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
Each time, upon hearing the I train with Paul, the response was the same.

"Good Man, Great trainer. We will be happy to see him back at the ring".
.

That still does not make it OK in the eyes of his non-supporters. Doesn't matter which BNJ/BNT/BNR thinks he is really neat and cool -- it doesnt change the facts.

It does, however increase my understanding and dislike even more for that whole end of the horse world.

anthem35
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Silk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
Each time, upon hearing the I train with Paul, the response was the same.

"Good Man, Great trainer. We will be happy to see him back at the ring".
.

That still does not make it OK in the eyes of his non-supporters. Doesn't matter which BNJ/BNT/BNR thinks he is really neat and cool -- it doesnt change the facts.

It does, however increase my understanding and dislike even more for that whole end of the horse world. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My reason for relating these experiences is this...

There are many well respected individuals who are very active in the USEF horse show community who are by far the most well informed of the story, and who, by knowing all the facts, are welcoming him back.

As you and we all know, its to 'each his own'.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:24 PM
So Silk, did you receive your bracelets yet? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Whats your feeling on a trophy?

Silk
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:28 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
There are many well respected individuals who are very active in the USEF horse show community who are by far the most well informed of the story, and who, by knowing all the facts, are welcoming him back.

As you and we all know, its to 'each his own'.

Maybe not so well respected after saying that, though. I dont think most people's opinion's will change, regardless of which big names welcome him back. I think just the opposite: those big names will lose the respect of many who once respected them.

And yes, I agree: everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone has the right to honor and state their opinion without being harrassed and treated badly!

I hope Florida is treating you well, and I hope Teddy is doing well - fat and happy!

anthem35
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by Silk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
As you and we all know, its to 'each his own'.


And yes, I agree: everyone is entitled to their opinions, and everyone has the right to honor and state their opinion without being harrassed and treated badly!

I hope Florida is treating you well, and I hope Teddy is doing well - fat and happy! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks, Very much, for your nice words!!!

Ted and Mikey are doing extremely well...
The kid is working VERY hard!!!
AND Teddy seems to really love him... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sadsmile.gif

On a side note-I have found what seems to be the closest thing to actually having a child of my own!
If I have ONE fingernail left by the end of the darned circuit it will be a miracle! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

shade
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:45 PM
There are many well respected individuals who are very active in the USEF horse show community who are by far the most well informed of the story, and who, by knowing all the facts, are welcoming him back.

We are all very well informed of the "story". A horse was killed, the insurance company was lied to, individual received insurance money=fraud.

Equit8tor
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:48 PM
Are you suggesting that by "knowing all the facts" that we too would "welcome him back"???? Please, then, disclose these "facts".

BaliBandido
Feb. 27, 2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
There are many well respected individuals who are very active in the USEF horse show community who are by far the most well informed of the story, and who, by knowing all the facts, are welcoming him back.

I may be misinterpreting this, but that statement seems to say that these well respected individuals might know facts that us lesser informed are unaware of, facts that make what PV did less egregious. Again I may be so far out of that loop- but I thought the facts were pretty well established already?

Is there something else that has come to light to make these well respected folks welcome him back? Like maybe he didn't have the horse killed because of ego, didn't lie to the insurance company, didn't become a turncoat to mititgate his punishment ( I could go on, but that is sufficient), maybe he did these things for some other reason. Maybe it was all a dream like the whole season of Dallas.

However, if there are other or different facts out there that would inform the rest of us so well, maybe we too would welcome him back. We are a very forgiving bunch http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

If as I suspect these people have no facts other than the ones that are documented, then I agree with Silk-

I dont think most people's opinion's will change, regardless of which big names welcome him back. I think just the opposite: those big names will lose the respect of many who once respected them.

War Admiral
Feb. 27, 2006, 02:12 PM
IMPORTANT: Could I please ask everyone - ideally on BOTH sides of the debate - to choose their words carefully and moderate their conduct?

Once again, this thread is in danger of being closed down. So please, everybody, be factual, state your opinions POLITELY, and treat everyone with the respect that they deserve as fellow equestrians.

Also - I have been advised, although not with any proof attached, that Mr. and Mrs. Valliere have been the recipients of some harrassment in the form of phone calls.

NOBODY INVOLVED IN THE NO REINSTATEMENT CAMPAIGN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT, AND WE DO NOT ENDORSE IT IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER. If in fact it is happening, it is disgraceful. If you are an individual who is making such phone calls, please stop. Now.

Again, to us, it is not a matter of "targeting" one individual - we are simply expressing our opinion that NO ONE who killed horses for insurance money should be reinstated.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 27, 2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
During the past two weeks in Wellie,
I have had the pleaseure of having dinner on 3 separate occassions with 3 BIG name judges...
Where I was asked the inevitable question that we all seem get to when meeting newcomers "Who do you train with?"

Each time, upon hearing the I train with Paul, the response was the same.

"Good Man, Great trainer. We will be happy to see him back at the ring".
In two cases, the trainers and either their children, or family, trained with him currently.

If they truly feel that way, then they wouldn't mind attaching their names to that statement. We have attached ours.

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 27, 2006, 02:36 PM
WA, I bet in this day and age, phone calls would be really easy to trace if they are being harassed.

lota
Feb. 27, 2006, 02:38 PM
IF reading every (122) page is required prior to posting I guess this ends here. I admit to skimming as there is so much repetition. but have a few comments, answers, questions: Twice
snowbird said,,,,,"didn't want to rub shoulders" with Paul. What are the chances of that ever happening?

There was the bit about (getting pix of) him on show grounds. Do you know where his barn is? Have you been there? Many years ago he was off in the distance. The show grounds have grown and grown and now abut his property. It is encroaching on HIM. He was there first. How do you suggest he gets down the road?

"Does a steward ever post on these boards" Yes Bev Bedard (among the best stewards) when see sees something she could answer. I doubt she would hunt thru' 100+ pages tho'. She does not use an alias..

AND to even THINK of putting the Jaynes in this thread. OMG! I was in the Chicago(area)
horse world in the '60's...They shot,butchered, blew up PEOPLE!. Horses were a sideline.

Remember a few years back when all those BNT's
got set down? Oh, FLA was going o be so different. Yea right! Nothing changed~ their asst. did the kids, it was business as usual. Who didn't show cuz their trainer was set down? So why is what Paul does different? And wht DO you want him to do? Work at Mc Donalds? And what was he suppose to say over the past 10 years? and to who? He"s suspended!

I realize this thread is a do not reinstate thread and only those who support that are suppose to post. But.."the other side"
sure has helped keep it going and going and going'. so we shall see. I will climb back under my rock now.

mwe
Feb. 27, 2006, 02:41 PM
I have to admit I have not read all 120+ pages word for word, but I absolutely believe in Paul’s right to apply for reinstatement. I think commenting on a subject when you only have a little information is a bad thing. Many people posting have never been to a horse show, nor know what goes on at the upper levels of horse sports (racing, as well as showing)

Growing up in New England, showing at the same shows as Acres Wild students, I was nothing but impressed with Paul, his horses and riders. I would feel extremely privileged to ride with Paul then or even now. I would ABSOLUTELY trust him with the care and custody of my horse. When these ”instances” occurred, believe what you want, it was not uncommon at the time. Today, “useful” horses are still killed, put down, sent to slaughterhouses when the owners no longer find them useful. Horses are donated, for tax deductions when people aren’t willing to accept the financial losses. That is the business.

Targeting Paul is not the solution. If you are trying to teach the young trainers. Making money is still the priority in the horse business, always was, always will be. I don’t know of any trainer that does not send their students to the shows with a “stand in” while they are suspended, unless their “vacation” occurs after the indoor shows before Florida. Again, this is common practice. It is done by the majority of trainers, not just Paul. Do you think your customers would stay with you if they had to stay home too?? Nope, they would be out the door, riding with someone else.

I commend Paul’s ability to produce riders with the confidence and ability to go to the ring with out him. I have been to far too many shows that are willing to hold classes- even under saddle classes so the trainer can watch their horse go around in circles.

I know 99.9% of people on this thread feel what Paul did was wrong and he should suffer forever. I do believe he has a tremendous amount of knowledge and expertise and is an asset to the horse industry. He does have supporters that are just as willing to work hard on his behalf as those working against him

jn1193
Feb. 27, 2006, 02:44 PM
As I said in my post yesterday, I've tried to stay out of this thread, as frankly, the subject brings back too many horrific memories. But after a sleepless night last night, it struck me that perhaps we need to change the arguement slightly, i.e.:

To those who support reinstatement or who currently ride with Paul, I ask the following questions:

How many horses must someone kill before they stop being someone who has "given so much to industry" and become someone who is an embarassment to our industry?

How many national awards must a trainer or owner win before killing any horse for personal gain is acceptable and they are a "great guy who will be welcomed back into the ring"?

To those who ride or do business with these trainers, how many horses may they kill before you stop finding it acceptable to give them money and support?

How many horses may someone kill before they should be barred from participating in any way, shape or form from the horse industry?

For most of us on these forums, the answer is zero. For a number of you, however, there is a quantifiable answer. For those of you who ride with Paul, the minimal answer is "one", perhaps more. If you ride with Barney or buy or sell horses through him, the answer is "more than one."

So, here's my response from now on. Next time someone posts in support of any of those convicted of killing horses or who says they ride with Paul, I am going to ask them to give us an answer, a number which they believe is acceptable: "I think it's okay to kill x number of horses as long as the trainer can help me win."

It's that simple. Really. No debate. Think about it for a minute.

We all have choices. There are trainers out there who are top notch who have not killed horses. You can make a choice to go to one of them.

BaliBandido
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
Do you think your customers would stay with you if they had to stay home too?? Nope, they would be out the door, riding with someone else.
That would be refreshing and dare I say an appropriate response to finding out ones professional had been convicted of a crime that was a result of his actions in his industry. Not say for unpaid parking tickets.



He does have supporters that are just as willing to work hard on his behalf as those working against him
That is our system

War Admiral
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:10 PM
It most certainly is not true that only anti-reinstatement people are permitted to post in this thread. It's for everybody...

Those who are in favor of reinstatement of any of the suspended persons are just as welcome to express their opinions as those who oppose it.

In fact, anyone who would like to express an opinion, for OR against reinstatement of any of the suspended parties, in a way that might make a difference, is welcome to send a letter to USEF as follows:

Ms. Lori Nelson
Hearings Committee Liaison
U.S. Equestrian Federation
4047 Iron Works Parkway
Lexington, KY 40511
U.S.A.

mwe
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:16 PM
my letter has already been sent

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:18 PM
He does have a right to apply for reinstatement. Many of us hope that his application is denied.

Snowbird
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:41 PM
A reminder that I have empty envelopes and just a few of the first batch of bracelets.

For the clothing and other trivia you might enjoy wearing we have some very classy shirts and other products at:

http://www.cafepress.com/norein

and bracelets at:
http://www.usahsa.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm

Sebastian
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:45 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
my letter has already been sent

So has mine.

Seb

BLBGP
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:53 PM
Anthem and others have stated repeatedly that if we knew all the facts, we would understand/forgive. I have asked at least three times on this thread to please share those facts so maybe we would understand and this thread would die. I haven't received a single response.

Linus
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
I also want to point out to his supporters, that his friendly, attitude is the only way he can be if he wants to maintain a business. What is he going to say, "yeah, I killed them, so what."???

This is a person that was able to play a part to the insurance company, and others to make them think he was shocked and horrified at the loss of a horse - to collect the money. A wonderful actor. A smart actor, that is still playing a part to salvage firendships, clients, business, and ego. Playing a part so that he can get the hero worship he craves. (thanking him because he is such a wonderful trainer, etc.)

Do you know him?

mwe
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:56 PM
In response to jn1193 question regarding "number of horses that need to be killed"...I don't think it has anything to do with determining a number... Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.

BLBGP
Feb. 27, 2006, 03:57 PM
Just because everybody else (well, technically not everybody, but some prominent others) was doing it, doesn't make it ok.

ponybreeder
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:01 PM
Hey Iota and MWE. I see you are posting here for the first time. Welcome to the boards.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:15 PM
Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.

Oh I see, it makes it okay and acceptable because that was what was done at the time.

ponymom64
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:17 PM
mwe - that makes NO sense at all! Just because it was done STILL does not make it right - whether it was one or more than one it is still too many

Doobers
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:20 PM
Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.

SOUNDS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF THE ACTS TO ME

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY THESE PEOPLE NEED TO BE SUSPENDED. WHY GIVE ANYONE A CHANCE TO DO IT AGAIN IF IT IS POSSIBLY STILL GOING ON! WE NEED TO STAND UP AND BE THE VOICE FOR THE ANIMALS THAT HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO TRUST US

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:21 PM
Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.

WHAT???!!!

PineTreeFarm
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
Many people posting have never been to a horse show, nor know what goes on at the upper levels of horse sports (racing, as well as showing)

And how would you know that to be true?

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:51 PM
Many people posting have never been to a horse show, nor know what goes on at the upper levels of horse sports (racing, as well as showing)

If you are talking about the people who post on this particular thread, you would be surprised how many show at the big shows and know what goes on.

Do you show at the upper levels?

Many of the posters have had dealing with some of the people who are spoke about on this threads and know them very well.

Do you?

BaliBandido
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:52 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.
See that makes it sound so blase, so like everyone was doing it. No big deal. Kinda like when my child looks at my high school graduation picture and sees the 80's big hair. Well that was what was done at the time- I am so glad I missed out on the kill the horse for the sake of ego and pride fad.

Having been around the horseshow world for a while (as evidenced by the fact that I was graduating high school in the big hair 80's) I have to say that I do not believe it was that common, that so many people were doing it. I recall the horror of many, many people at the time- they certainly were not aware that it was standard practice.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:53 PM
It is not acceptable, period! It is fraud pure and simple. Which several seem unable to comprehend.. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

twotrudoc
Feb. 27, 2006, 04:57 PM
I have been showing my whole life. Granted, not H/J, but I have been at all levels of showing in Morgans, QHs, and Paint. I never knew anything like this to be "just done". We "did" a lot of drinking in the arena after the Morgan shows, but we "didn't" kill our horses who didn't place well for insurance money.

Snowbird
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:04 PM
A moral issue is just that and there is never any excuse to kill a healthy horse. Interesting that doctors have determined that lethal injection is not a merciful way to execute. Yet that is how the majority prefer to dispose of horses.

If a horse is old and in pain and it cannot be fixed; or if there was a legitimate broken leg then it is not immoral. If someone considers it as a business decision to limit the loss and maximize the profit then it is immoral.

That's all we say and believe. PV is not a specific choice he's just next in line because we were not watching. Now we will watch.

Uberraschung
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by twotrudoc:
I have been showing my whole life. Granted, not H/J, but I have been at all levels of showing in Morgans, QHs, and Paint. I never knew anything like this to be "just done". We "did" a lot of drinking in the arena after the Morgan shows, but we "didn't" kill our horses who didn't place well for insurance money.
Honestly you guys, this went and goes on all the time. I definitely know of one very prominant case in the Morgan industry where one of the saddlebreds who was passed as a Morgan *mysteriously* died when sanctions made it so that the mare was supposed to be DNA tested...so it's not a HJ phenomenon by any means.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but whether you are aware of it or not, it does and has been happening all along. PV was unusual in that he got caught. I know of at least 10 others who weren't and who many of you probably would never know that they did something like this (and indeed, they are mentioned on quite a few threads as honest, etc).

Just food for thought, although you probably won't take it as such http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

ponybreeder
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:13 PM
Good point, Ub. I guess I will just look the other way from now on.

twotrudoc
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:13 PM
I get your point. But "we" still didn't "do" that. My point was that. I feel very strongly that even though your BNTs whatever that "do" this got away with it, it should not be something "just done".

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:18 PM
Yes, I have to say, if it is going on all the time, then by all means, let's drop the issue, and petition him back in. This insurance fraud will be as popular as Hermes Birkins and Prada purses in no time at all.

BaliBandido
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Uberraschung:

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but whether you are aware of it or not, it does and has been happening all along. PV was unusual in that he got caught. I know of at least 10 others who weren't and who many of you probably would never know that they did something like this (and indeed, they are mentioned on quite a few threads as honest, etc).

I do believe stuff like this continues to go on, unfortunatly. However the fact that it does go on does not mean you should stop trying to prevent it or stop speaking out against it. Nor does it mean someone who has indeed done this should enjoy all the rights and privledges as the rest of us who would not and have not do something like this.

Put this in the context of other situations that go on all the time- child abuse, elder abuse etc, it goes on all the time as well but thankfully there are those people who feel if they prevent it just one time it will have been worth it.

It was and never will be an excuse- just an indication of weak character following weak character.

just_me
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
In response to jn1193 question regarding "number of horses that need to be killed"...I don't think it has anything to do with determining a number... Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.
Ah, so following your reasoning mwe, we should forgive those who treated their wives as chattel, hanged black men for looking at white women, stoning women in Iran, and all the other disgusting things that people do to each other and to animals all because "it was just what was done at the time?"

I know my examples are extreme, but saying "that's how it was" is ludicrous. Not everyone did it and even if a lot of people did it, it doesn't make it okay.

ponybreeder
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:31 PM
One person who cannot be reinstated is a good place to start. Maybe others will not be so quick to try and get away with this.

jn1193
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:31 PM
So, mwe - you get the question first: what number does your moral compass say is okay to kill? No explanation needed, just let us know where you stand. "It's okay to kill x # of horses and be a member of the horse community in good standing." You fill in the blank.

And, UB is correct: there were a number of horse people out there who were not caught, one of whom is currently on the USEF board. How do I know this? Because Tommy Burns shared it with me and several other people, including the FBI.

And, UB is also correct that killing horses happens in other areas of the industry. The Standardbred people are notorious for it. But if they are caught, they are set down for life with NO reinstatement possible and are not allowed on a track ever again.

Funny thing about those days: when the FBI started subpeoning people, many of those being investigated, those who made jokes at the in-gates and who talked openly about it started trying to cover their tracks. Nothing like being at the in-gate and having one of them come up, lean on the rail next to you and start the conversation with: "So, have you talked to the FBI yet? You know all those things I talked about, I was just joking right?"... Or,
you're not planning to tell the FBI about those things we told you about what happenned to..."

Oh! Those were the fun days!

So, yes, my letter is sent too.

And, yes, Paul and the others have every right to apply for reinstatement.

And, yes, we are all entitled to our opinion. But, if everyone else wanted to jump off a cliff would you do it too?

And, yes, I ordered 3 shirts today and will be wearing them at Lexington next weekend.

I have to close by saying that when I read these defenses of the horse killers, I feel despair. I feel like those who would make our business an unclean, unsafe place might triumph. Maybe, even at my advanced age, I'm naive, but I've got to believe there's still a place for goodness, for moral right in our world. Speaking out against reinstatement is speaking out for those who can't speak for themselves. That's the right, the moral and the good.

mwe
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:33 PM
pony breeder aefvue Pig Farm...thank you.

Showponymom...didn't say it makes it okay...it was acceptable at the time....times do change
Do we list every person that has sent a horse to slaughter on this non-reinstatement list???

Pine Tree: I read through posts..many people said they read posts, are not involved in horse shows...

Show Mom- I di dpony club, 4-H fox hunted, showed at all local levels, judge at benefit shows as well as A shows,I have shown at the biggest, I am on an USEF commitee.



if

ponybreeder
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:39 PM
Hey, MWE, Me too!! Well, actually I'm on two committees.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:44 PM
If you are in fact on a USEF committee, how can you sit there and state, it is okay for re-instatement? Do we no longer follow the Sportsman's Charter? Has that somehow been removed from our rule books? Cause it sure as heck was there when this went down. Just need to know for clarification.

2hsmommy
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:48 PM
...it was acceptable at the time....times do change
Do we list every person that has sent a horse to slaughter on this non-reinstatement list???


if

And who thought this was acceptable? You? Obviously not acceptable to most people on this thread.

Sending a horse to slaughter is legal, unfortunetly. Defrauding insurance companies is not legal. Put a spin on whatever you want and twist things around, but those are facts.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:49 PM
I don't think one needs to show, have judged, or sit on a committee to know that fraud is wrong, that insurance fraud drives the costs up for all horse owners, and that killing a horse to assuage one's ego is wrong.

jn1193
Feb. 27, 2006, 05:51 PM
In re-reading the close of my last post, I thought it sounded a bit self-righteous, and maybe it is. One might also ask, why I didn't do anything about the killings when they were going on if I felt so strongly about them. The answer is: I was terrified of the people who were doing them. Terrified for myself, barn, dog, horses, clients, etc.

Alot of people didn't speak out then. Fear, apathy, not wanting to get "involved", not wanting to believe their friends/trainers/collegues could do such things. It was a huge relief when the FBI did start to investigate and a huge letdown when AHSA/USEF took years and years to set these guys down in the first place. At any rate, we CAN speak out now and I think we must continue to do so.

So, forgive me if I sound like a self-righteous idiot. I am a "trying to do the right thing self righteous idiot."