PDA

View Full Version : The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.



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

ise@ssl
Feb. 28, 2006, 08:56 AM
He does have supporters that are just as willing to work hard on his behalf as those working against him

Well it will be GREAT to have these supporters step up to the microphone - identify themselves and pitch their support and why they feel someone who killed his horse for insurance money should be allowed back in the sport. So far the "supporters" using their legal names has been minimal - let's get those people out in the sunlight with their names on record. I'm sure I'm not the only person in this business who would like to have that list.

And I'm so tired of hearing that the people supporting bans on individuals who have perpetrated certain crimes are "little people" -who have never shown or don't know the "scene" at the upper levels. Those who feel they ARE the Upper Level should get over themselves. Perception IS NOT REALITY.

Snowbird
Feb. 28, 2006, 09:02 AM
I think it is relatively certain that Acres Wild Farm was incorporated and filed a "C" tax form. Since th horse in question was owned by Acres Wild and Paul Valliere was the owner as registered with SEF it is likely he has always run and operated as a business.

I do not agree that most horse owners donot have a farm. There are many incorporated farms that do not own a specific piece of land. The horses themselves represent the farm. I see this on the checks we receive at our shows. Many horse owners also include the horses under PR and advertising as part of their existing business of many varieties.

For example you can be certain the the Friesians owned by Martha Stewart are part of her corporation and they are covered as a business expense.

In New Jersey for the tax advanatge of farmland assessment most horse owners do have farms and are businesses which produce minimum income from breeding and grazing.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 28, 2006, 09:07 AM
For example you can be certain the the Friesians owned by Martha Stewart are part of her corporation and they are covered as a business expense.

Snowy, I bet you are right. I know they do it with race horses all the time.

N&B&T
Feb. 28, 2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Janet:
But CHANDA'S post referred to most horse people. That is the one I was talking about.

Yes, of course, I see what you are saying now. And I was talking about Snowbird's initial post. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

N&B&T
Feb. 28, 2006, 09:59 AM
jn, I most certainly believe your and mwe's accounts of your experiences, among many others.

My post was just a response to the "you have to be at the upper levels to understand or have all the facts, all posters are just gossipers" attitudes that many PV supporters project. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Duffy
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:03 AM
Janet - just wanted to say - great post on the last page.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:06 AM
I had my trainer's license at Belmont Park when I worked with my good friend Maud Frank, before her senseless death...You behave the way our hunter jumper killers did at a NYRA track...you are gone forever.

Janet
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:16 AM
Thanks

shade
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:18 AM
The after affects of these crimes are NOT limited to our small H/J world either. It affected many many areas of the horse business.

mwe
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.:
[dudes,don't even THINK any of you have had the quality horses and wins PB has had]
Relevent to this thread? how?
Accurate? maybe/maybe not...
My name is known to those involved.
I do not think I need to make my e-mail public. If you disagree with me, then the BB are a great place to have a discussion.

Janet
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by mwe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.:
[dudes,don't even THINK any of you have had the quality horses and wins PB has had]
Relevent to this thread? how?
Accurate? maybe/maybe not...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>It is indeed relevant as a direct response to YOUR claim
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)

Sebastian
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by C.Boylen:
Snowbird, no one is disputing the fact that horse businesses can write off losses. The point was that the average horse owner does not operate as a business. The only one making this part of the debate case-specific is you.

And, the specifics of this case do NOT involve the "average horse owner." PV was, and is, a "professional" for tax purposes. Therefore, Snowy's argument is completely valid.

I'm really still amazed at how NONE of Paul's supporters can offer a REAL argument in his favor. So far the only defense seems to be distraction from the facts. PV admitted to paying someone to kill his horse so that he could defraud an insurance company.

This does NOT reconcile with the USEF’s own mission statement:

As the National Governing Body (NGB) of Equestrian Sport in the United States we will inspire, encourage interest in, and regulate equestrian competition by ensuring the safety and well-being of horses, regardless of value or competitive level; ensure the enforcement of fair and equitable rules and procedures up to and including the preparation for the Olympic Games; and, endeavor to advance the level of horsemanship in the United States.

And, never will.

Seb

2hsmommy
Feb. 28, 2006, 10:48 AM
Is known to those involved in what? Area 51? Kennedys' assasination? Give us a hint...
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Jaysus, get over yourself.

grey mare
Feb. 28, 2006, 11:20 AM
Originally posted by mwe:
Like it or not, it was just what was done at the time.

Pretty darn good reason right there for No-reinstatement! Lest history eventually repeat itself!

ponybreeder
Feb. 28, 2006, 01:04 PM
Bingo, JN1193 "Credibility" I always laugh when I read posts from people who have not one shred of ID on their profile, and go on with their proclamations of dinners and relationships with BNTs, who they refuse to name.
Mt name is Robin Greenwood, I live in North Salem, NY, I sit on two USHJA & USEF comittees. (I am the chairman of the Breeding committee).I showed in the A/Os for 10 years, including a HOTY High Score Award in 1976 (Oh, yeah, I'm 54). I was a working professional for 20 years. I grew up with PV, met him when I was 14. Oh, and I've been out to dinner (and more http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gifwith quite a few BNTs! Heck, at the pony ring, I WAS a BNT! The PV supporters on this tthread have convinced me that reinstatement is not a good idea.

ponybreeder
Feb. 28, 2006, 01:07 PM
Janet, very astute posts in the last two pages.

Snowbird
Feb. 28, 2006, 01:14 PM
Good for you Robin. I don't think this has anything to do with levels of competition, it has to do with morality and what we will leave behind for the generations that will follow all of us.

ponybreeder
Feb. 28, 2006, 01:41 PM
Oh, and I should have added. My family believes in retirement. Earlier, I listed a group of retirees that I have now, I also had my show horses, Talisman, Academy Award, and 20th Century, Ltd (bought him back at the end of his career) until they died.

SGray
Feb. 28, 2006, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by ponybreeder Aefvue Pig Farm:
Oh, and I should have added. My family believes in retirement. Earlier, I listed a group of retirees that I have now, I also had my show horses, Talisman, Academy Award, and 20th Century, Ltd (bought him back at the end of his career) until they died.

NIIIIIIICE http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Andrew
Feb. 28, 2006, 01:54 PM
it has to do with morality and what we will leave behind for the generations that will follow all of us.

EXACTLY!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

We are loosing morality and respect in this country quicker than anything. Kids AND adults today need to realize there are consequences that must be paid for thier bad judgement. If UESF would even entertain a thought of Reinstating ANYONE who abused, killed, or contracted to kill these magnificant creatures would be adding to the continued moral decline of our sport and country!

One Star
Feb. 28, 2006, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by ponybreeder Aefvue Pig Farm:
Oh, and I should have added. My family believes in retirement. Earlier, I listed a group of retirees that I have now, I also had my show horses, Talisman, Academy Award, and 20th Century, Ltd (bought him back at the end of his career) until they died.

And there is an absolutely heartwarming picture and caption in the February 24 issue of The Chronicle of The Natural, the FEI World Cup Showjumping Final winner of 1987, in all his 30-year old retirement glory at ponybreeder's farm in North Salem, NY.

That is how our noble equine partner's should end their days after the hard work and glory they have given to their humans -- in good weight, glossy, happy, and loved.

Bravo to you, PB.

anthem35
Feb. 28, 2006, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ponybreeder Aefvue Pig Farm:
I find it of interest that most of PV's supporters on this thread are competely incognito. Now that is certainly their right, and a basic on BBs. Still, most of the No REIN group is well known by everyone. Yes there are some big supporters who have ID'd themselves, but so many more who are showing up lately and suggesting that they know legions of people who are for reinstatement. If anyone wants to throw some names out of people in favor, I will give you 10 for each one of people who are against it.

PB don't you find it interesting that many of these people are "new" posters but they seem to know everything that has been going on and sound so much like some other posters that have "disappeared"?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Is it possible, now just think with me for a second...That perhaps...just perhaps...that they have heard about the attacks on someone whom they know well, and came here specifically to show their support???

Is there some fault with that?

Erin
Feb. 28, 2006, 02:53 PM
Why don't you try that post again, anthem... keeping in mind that you must be nice, polite and respectful.

If you do as poor a job on your next post as you did on the previous one, you'll earn yourself a two-week no-expenses paid vacation OFF the BB. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

anthem35
Feb. 28, 2006, 02:54 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
Why don't you try that post again, anthem... keeping in mind that you must be nice, polite and respectful.

If you do as poor a job on your next post as you did on the previous one, you'll earn yourself a two-week no-expenses paid vacation OFF the BB. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Erin, I do apologize...

Hopeful Hunter
Feb. 28, 2006, 03:03 PM
fwiw, I wrote to lodge my formal concerns about any potential application for reinstatement, and got into an interesting email exchange over the note. This was the last response I got...and honestly I'm not sure HOW to take it. Does it mean that USEF will have a different view of suspensions, or what????
--------
Gina:

As I stated, your concerns have been noted; however, I am not sure if
you realize that the time frame for suspension against Mr. Valliere was
accessed by the AHSA and not USEF. This Federation is simply enforcing
the suspension.

Thanks,
Lori Nelson
Director, Rules Compliance
Secretary to the Hearing Committee
United States Equestrian Federation, Inc.
4047 Iron Works Parkway
Lexington, KY 40511
Direct Dial: 859-225-6957
Fax: 859-258-9792

Snowbird
Feb. 28, 2006, 03:15 PM
That reponse sounds as if the USEF would not have done as AHSA and suspended Paul Valliere.
They are simply enforcing the suspension.

What exactly does than mean? If PV applies for Re-Instatement how does this administration see their position? Proponent for Paul Valliere or for the horses that died? Most of this administration has probably not read the record.

CBoylen
Feb. 28, 2006, 03:18 PM
If PV applies for Re-Instatement how does this administration see their position? Proponent for Paul Valliere or for the horses that died?
I'd imagine this administration can find a few other ways to see their position besides the two options you've offered there.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 28, 2006, 04:50 PM
Snowy, I was wondering if they could make saddlepads with the logo?

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 28, 2006, 04:57 PM
Snowy, I think it means they don't really know what they are going to do, and aren't going to think about it until he applies. They are pretty much bound not to make a public judgement on it before he asks to come back.

Snowbird
Feb. 28, 2006, 05:12 PM
I think you're right! So far the only consistent strategy is if we don't pay attention maybe it will all go away. I have heard that some sponsors are threatening with withold cash because the date rotation train wreck. That got their attention.

I think that's why John Long who hired an assistant to answer his email never answers anyone about anything no matter how serious.

As to your other question Saddlepads would have to be embroidered and they would be I think too expensive but it's very cheap to make patches which can be sewed on almost everything really inexpensively.

We could make them in three sizes depending on where they want to use them. There are the stickers which are available already and can stick on anything especially good for show numbers. The buttons have pin backs so they can go anywhere.

Boberry
Feb. 28, 2006, 05:16 PM
I posted a court synop of BW, the USEF is referred to as the former AHSA. The USEF did stand against BW. I would think they would take a stance against PV otherwise they would need to reverse the BW case. In the BW case GL was noted as a previous case for the denial of BW. If PV goes in BW could sue, then GL...

Silk
Feb. 28, 2006, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.:
[dudes,don't even THINK any of you have had the quality horses and wins PB has had]
Relevent to this thread? how?
Accurate? maybe/maybe not...
My name is known to those involved.
I do not think I need to make my e-mail public. If you disagree with me, then the BB are a great place to have a discussion. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think the relevance here is that there are some well known, BNP(people) who still abhor PV for what he did and do not believe he should be reinstated. Its not just us "little people" as Mason so nicely put it, that feel he should stay banned.

I too would like to know who some of his BNP supporters are. I am more than happy to give my name and stats, but being a little person and all, I am not sure anyone cares http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

You say your name is known to all involved? You mean the BNP who are involved? Or is that a silly bluff? If youa re that proud of who you are and your support of the issue, then by all means, I'd like to know who you are.

Silk
Feb. 28, 2006, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by C.Boylen:

I'd imagine this administration can find a few other ways to see their position besides the two options you've offered there.

I am sure they CAN...however, what true other issues are there?

ponybreeder
Feb. 28, 2006, 05:46 PM
MWE, you certainly are entitled to your privacy. My point is just that it is meaningless to me when a person, who withholds his identity,then goes on about all the other unidentified BN People he knows are in agreement with him. It reminds me of my daughter saying, "But Mom, All the other kids are doing it" I find it humorous.

War Admiral
Feb. 28, 2006, 05:55 PM
Couple quick points:

(1) USEF cannot do anything until such time as any of the suspended parties applies to be reinstated. All they can do is say "thank you for your e-mail and your concerns have been noted". http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's the way the legal mechanism is designed to work.

(2) I'd really like to see this thread redirect itself just a hair. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif The issue is NOT "Valliere or No Valliere", it is "Reinstatement of Horse Killers or No Reinstatement of Horse Killers". They've already readmitted one; some of us feel that's O.K., some of us feel it sets a dangerous precedent for the future of the sport and do NOT feel it's O.K.

By decision of the USEF Hearings Committee, Mr. Valliere happens to be the next one eligible to reapply. In my opinion, that is the ONLY extent to which he should be considered or even mentioned in this thread. There are a couple more of the so-called "horse killers" becoming eligible to apply for reinstatement in 3 years. I *believe* that group to include Mr. Ward but have not received verification on that.

Let's try starting to think long term on this thread and keep the personal stuff out of it as much as possible, please! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Seal Harbor
Feb. 28, 2006, 06:08 PM
I thought Mr. Ward was a permanent suspension when he kept pissing in everyone's cornflakes (figurativly speaking) by ignoring the rules of his suspension and appearing at USEF shows. I could be mistaken.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 28, 2006, 06:09 PM
Thank you War. We should keep to the issue. Which for me, is not an issue. Its plain no. If you felt that killing a horse, then insurance fraud was acceptable behavior, you need not be back. Our charter pretty much covers it.

I did as well Seal. But we both could be wrong on that.. It may have lengthened his suspension.

jn1193
Feb. 28, 2006, 06:18 PM
Yes, War Admiral, I agree that we need to keep the personal stuff out of this to a certain extent, i.e. the insults. Where the personal stuff needs to be kept in, is for those of us who oppose reinstatement to make ourselves and our names known. It is abundantly clear that those who support PV and the other felons will never do so and that weakens their case significantly. Frankly, it is a relief to me to know that they will never show their faces at any reinstatement hearing, while I've already put aside funds for airfare.

But War Admiral is also correct that this is something that needs long-term focus and strategy. Letters not only to USEF, but to The Chronicle and every other horse publication we subscribe to. Op-eds in major market newspapers and even local newspapers. In my area, Middleburg Life, The Middleburg Eccentric, and a couple of Loudon papers. Keep outrage going and sure as heck make it as embarassing as possible for USEF if they even think about reinstating anyone else.

Those of you in the NYC area: do you know any producers for any of the news shows like 60 Minutes, 20/20 or Dateline? It would be worth pitching a story to them.

ponybreeder
Feb. 28, 2006, 06:21 PM
Point well taken, WA. On this thread, PV has become the poster boy for No Reinstatement, but at this point, I feel that anyone who has been suspended for the same crime as PV, should not be reinstated. My arguments, however, remain the same.

Seal Harbor
Feb. 28, 2006, 06:28 PM
Just call Oprah.

Boberry
Feb. 28, 2006, 06:36 PM
In light of previous posts. When the FBI was investigating at the horse shows my opinions of trainers/coaches/friends began to change. Maybe my heroes and mentors were not worthy of the pedestal I had them on. At the shows I schooled in the same rings as MW and watched his classes. He really worked hard and then this came down. Even though I was upset and confused about my own loss of innocence I always thought of how he must have felt. But in the years since I am not sure what if anything was learned from his plight. From the press I have seen, the chips in the boots abroad, his and his father's forgiveness of Paul, I feel now that I was wrong to feel sympathy for MW in an environment where peer pressure and money makes some things seem okay.

I watched the debacle first hand. I live with awful feeling knowing what these people did was true. I also know of people who did not get convicted. I thank the FBI for getting convictions. It wasn't any easy process and took years to get. I feel some people today who support PV or any of those involved are either affected personally by client of family relations or in fact are guilty in some ways themselves by action or their lack of action. For this BB, I am not talking about the right to be reinstated, but for those if they should "happen" to be reinstated. Anyone should have the right to be reinstated. I am talking about standing next to or being judged by a person convicted of these crimes. I would also like to send a message to those who are guilty but were not convicted that these actions result in a life ban from the NGB going forward.

TL
Feb. 28, 2006, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by jn1193:
Those of you in the NYC area: do you know any producers for any of the news shows like 60 Minutes, 20/20 or Dateline? It would be worth pitching a story to them.

I think Dateline may've done show on this waaaay back when. Though it's a lifetime ago in tv land, perhaps still worth trying to pitch as a follow--up?

Linus
Feb. 28, 2006, 07:42 PM
In the interests of a more "general" discussion, http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif can I repeat a question I asked earlier?

In the Star-Ledger article, it was stated by a USEF type that involvement in the horse community while suspended is a prerequisite to reinstatement, not a violation of rules:


Lori Nelson, the USEF's hearing committee liaison, said "there are substantial requirements for reinstatement." Those who apply "must feel remorse and show total rehabilitation and a contribution to the horse community before the hearing." She said the committee also would look at letters from people who want to weigh in on the matter.

I'm confused. Are suspended folks supposed to have nothing to do with horses during suspension, or to actively participate in the community? If you're a trainer -- how else would you make a contribution than by training (within the rules of suspension)?

Erin
Feb. 28, 2006, 07:59 PM
I'm not sure I quite understand your question Linus... but, IMO, I would consider "making a contribution to the horse community" something that someone does for which they DO NOT get paid, first of all. And also that would be for the betterment of the community, not just for ribbons.

A few examples I can think of off the top of my head... Robert Dover's Equestrian AIDS Foundation, the Horses in the Hood program (I think that's Kathy Kusner?), the folks who used their farm semis to shuttle feed, grain and supplies down to the Gulf Coast after Katrina... stuff like that.

I don't really think the intent of the suspension was to say that these people could not be involved in horses AT ALL during their suspensions (although some people here seem to be of the opinion that the suspendees should have done that of their own volition).

I know some think that the suspendees are "contributing to the horse community" by training people and winning... but I have a sneaking suspicion that that's not REALLY what the USEF had in mind. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 28, 2006, 08:15 PM
I was there for the discussions and I believe they were allowed to participate to show their remorse; they would totally comply with no paticipation in horse shows. They needed to contribute in a way that showed their sincere remorse. At that time Jane Clark was President and intended for them to prove they had reformed that they were an example of exemplary behavior and good sportsmanship and that one mistake would never be repeated.

It was a well intentioned purpose to leave the door open in the conviction that it was a "moment of temprary insanity". However, it was not intended that they tread the line and bend the rules to appear compliant. That started later and seemed to be accepted behavior so they felt encouraged.

shiloh
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:13 AM
Okay, answer me this: to this day have any of them ever expressed any remorse? Shown any repentance at all? 'Cause I haven't heard anything.

As for PV being the poster boy - well, it's a title he deserves as he seems to be the most arrogant and certainly the most unrepentant of the offenders.

I wish we had something in this country like they do in the UK where people can be banned for life from horse ownership or particpation in any horse activities.

equusrocks
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:17 AM
Maybe I'm being daft, and maybe I missed a great deal of info (I find the details a bit overwhelming) How did the USEF come up with the 5,10, or 15 year suspension? Looking at the notice from the hearing committee, they all technically voilated the same rules, if I understand it correctly (I know some cooperated with government officials...but still 5 years seems like such a short time).

Are those "designated" minimum/maximum suspensions for such acts? Why not a much larger, more uniform, sentence from the very beginning? Wouldn't that make them more of an example, showing that such acts will not be tolerated? I find it utterly disgusting that someone would have their horse disposed of in such a manner, but it seems the greater of the two evils in the eyes of the law is the fraud part of the scheme(or again maybe I missed something).

What would be considered sufficient proof of rehabilitation and effort in community service?? or...what shiloh said

*How* can it be assumed and/or proven that one can be rehabilitated when something like this is done? Is it assumed that because you have been convicted and "served time", you won't do it again, and so will be safe back in the industry, or is it due to a min/max suspension? I guess I can't grasp or understand that part. I hope I'm not out of line with my questions, sorry if I am, I am sincerely trying to ask in the most tactful way possible.

Snowy I second harryjohnsons request I'd love to have a patch to put on my saddlepads...can you PM me with info or ideas on how to acquire some, or direct me to a link?? Thanks.

Silk
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:50 AM
Originally posted by Erin:
I'm not sure I quite understand your question Linus... but, IMO, I would consider "making a contribution to the horse community" something that someone does for which they DO NOT get paid, first of all. And also that would be for the betterment of the community, not just for ribbons.

A few examples I can think of off the top of my head... Robert Dover's Equestrian AIDS Foundation, the Horses in the Hood program (I think that's Kathy Kusner?), the folks who used their farm semis to shuttle feed, grain and supplies down to the Gulf Coast after Katrina... stuff like that.

I don't really think the intent of the suspension was to say that these people could not be involved in horses AT ALL during their suspensions (although some people here seem to be of the opinion that the suspendees should have done that of their own volition).

I know some think that the suspendees are "contributing to the horse community" by training people and winning... but I have a sneaking suspicion that that's not REALLY what the USEF had in mind. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It seems like most of PV's attempts at "giving" to the animal community has a great deal of self-promotion involvedhttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:30 AM
I wish we had something in this country like they do in the UK where people can be banned for life from horse ownership or particpation in any horse activities.

The standerbred and TB racing do.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by shiloh:
he seems to be the most arrogant and certainly the most unrepentant of the offenders.


Not only was that immature, that was an assumption that really takes the cake. Personal attacks aren't going to get you anywhere and only make you look like you have a foundationless argument. Bravo to you.

Murderers and rapists are allowed back into the community after they serve their time. Is it ethical? That will forever be up for discussion. It's up to the judge, or, in this case, the USEF to make their own decision on Paul's reinstatement. Not to be crude, but you're all beating a dead horse. If he's not reinstated, fine. If he is, there's nothing you can do about it, despite your petition, e-mails to USEF, and attempts at air on national TV.

I'd love to see him reinstated just so that I can indulge myself on the chaos that will happen among all of you. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Seal Harbor
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:26 AM
The USEF is not the general community. They are in the general community.

They have however violated the basic premise of the very association, now federation, that supports showing of horses. That is the issue.

People in other sports violate the code of conduct or sportsmans charter or rules of their governing board and they get permanent life bans from their sport or at least participation at the highest levels. Two that come to mind are Pete Rose and Tonya Harding. Same thing different venue, although no being died in either of those cases. Pete Rose pretty much hurt only himself, but he violated the code of conduct of his sport.

Membership is a privilege not a right.

Duffy
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:55 AM
JJ01 - First, had to say what a GORGEOUS barn that is (Split Creek)! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif (Cute horse too!)

Second, you might want to recommend that someone update Carl's bio on the website. (It has American Horse Show Assoc. all over it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

Third, "Not to be crude, but you're all beating a dead horse." Hmmm...YES, that was crude and inappropriate, imo.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:56 AM
Duffy, I think the "beating a dead horse" was meant to be double entendre.

Duffy
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:58 AM
Well, it was still rude, crude and unattractive, as my mother would say.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 08:24 AM
Duffy, my mother and yours may have been twins! Mine said "Rude, crude, and socially unacceptable"

Duffy
Mar. 1, 2006, 08:31 AM
Yes, harry, but would she say "my mind is a sieve" when she'd forget something? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

hiddenlake
Mar. 1, 2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
Duffy, my mother and yours may have been twins! Mine said "Rude, crude, and socially unacceptable"

Which may be why Harry resorts to Latin to tell us to always wear underwear. Mom taught you well!

As to the rapists, murderers, et al, we've been through this before. Yes, they are allowed back in general society, and so are the horse killers. Your point is lost if you're trying to make a comparison.

Those of us who are against reinstatement are simply referring to denying PV's and other's memberships in an organization that purports to protect the welfare of the very animal they admitted to killing.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 08:36 AM
Duffy, that is where your mother and mine may have differed. Mine never forgot anything, especially if it was something that was personally embarassing to me.

BaliBandido
Mar. 1, 2006, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
Murderers and rapists are allowed back into the community after they serve their time.

This is true, however in many of those target specific crimes like child abuse, molestation etc the one convicted of the crime is prohibited from being around children. Using the same logic why would it be any different to prohibit a person convicted of killing a horse to be allowed back in a horse organization? Also many of these people come out of jail and go into a supervised probation/parole where they are expected to follow the terms of their probation/parole, any violation of these terms gets them back in jail. Violation does not mean they commit another crime, in many cases it means that they are not even to be in the company of certain people.

As I see it, PV has not reoffended by committing another crime, but it does seem that his actions in the interim have violated the terms of his suspension. That does not seem like someone who has truly accepted responsibility and been rehabilitated.

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:14 AM
On behalf of mothers everywhere; we only forgot what was not important and therefore the loss was incidental. We never forgot to remind you all of what was truly important like clean under wear; socks without holes and proper decorum for all situations.

Perfection is expected and therefore not worth discussing only your errors are worth discussing because they shouldn't happen.

equusrocks
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:16 AM
BaliBandido, that's exactly how I feel. You worded it much better than I could have though.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:20 AM
Second that, Equus. Bali can be captain of my debating team anytime http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by Duffy:
JJ01 - First, had to say what a GORGEOUS barn that is

Second, you might want to recommend that someone update Carl's bio on the website. (It has American Horse Show Assoc. all over it. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )


Duffy-Carl isn't teaching out of Split Creek anymore. He's here in Wellington until May 1, but he's doing the whole 'independent traner' thing. Todd Minikus is based at Split Creek now, so the website is out of date on many levels http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

My main issue with people on this board is that you don't seem to realize that personal attacks on Paul are wrong. The issue is as to whether of not someone in violation of a rule should be allowed reinstatement to USEF after serving a suspension. The freedoms he will be gaining are being able to show himself, schooling his students on the showgrounds instead of across the street, and watch his students go. He's already training, selling, teaching, etc. None of that is in violation of his suspension. Going on the showgrounds on "off days" (i.e. unrecognized by USEF) is not in violation of his suspension, so you may want to take that out of your petition. Second and third hand accounts of what he has/has not done to violate the USEF terms is also pretty weak. You're going to need some pretty hard core evidence to have any sort of impact on USEF.

Comparing our sport to other sports is also without grounds, as each governing body of each sport has different rules. If a basketball player violates some rule of the NBA and is consequentially prohibited from ever playing in a recognized basketball game ever again, that's based on the rules of the NBA and its board of directors. Nothing in the rules of the USEF directly states that Paul can not be reinstated after suspension. That is the joy of loopholes, like it or not.

I understand the moral turmoil of it all, but it's not morals or principals that are going to get you anywhere. And the legalities of it are realistically in his favor.

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:26 AM
That depends on how your define "moral".
That depends on how you define "legalities.

If moral means doing what's right and legal means following the intent and purpose of the rules then I humbly disagree.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:29 AM
I wonder how many of the PV defenders would be up at arms if it were Ross Hugo's or George Lindemann's reinstatement being petitioned against. PV has every right in the world to apply for reinstatement, and those against allowing him back also enjoy the right to try to prevent him getting reinstated.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by BaliBandido:
This is true, however in many of those target specific crimes like child abuse, molestation etc the one convicted of the crime is prohibited from being around children. Using the same logic why would it be any different to prohibit a person convicted of killing a horse to be allowed back in a horse organization? Also many of these people come out of jail and go into a supervised probation/parole where they are expected to follow the terms of their probation/parole, any violation of these terms gets them back in jail. Violation does not mean they commit another crime, in many cases it means that they are not even to be in the company of certain people.

As I see it, PV has not reoffended by committing another crime, but it does seem that his actions in the interim have violated the terms of his suspension. That does not seem like someone who has truly accepted responsibility and been rehabilitated.

What about this situation: Someone is on parole for committing a crime; let's say murder for example. His parole comes up, and he is allowed his prior freedoms. Man's neighbors said he was in violation of his parole x number of times. These accusations become relatively insignificant if there is no proof that he has in fact violated the terms of his parole.

Similar case with Paul. Everyone in the world can say he's been on the showgrounds, etc., but if the person making final decisions doesn't have evidence as to whether or not it is true, it really doesn't have any effect. In the worst case, USEF might request a hearing of some sort to examine his time of suspension, just like a man being accused of violating parole might be brought to some sort of trial.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:37 AM
What about this situation, the USEF is a private organization. In truth, they are upholding the suspensions that were in place by the AHSA. A suspension was indefinite, with ability to apply for reinstatement this year. There is nothing that says reinstatement must be granted.

One Star
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Duffy, CFO, Aefvue Farm LLC:
Yes, harry, but would she say "my mind is a sieve" when she'd forget something? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My mother was also cut from this cloth! I still have those words ringing in my ears. Although sometimes she would try to convince me that her mind was like "a steel trap."

In any event, what were we talking about?

shade
Mar. 1, 2006, 10:42 AM
And why should any of them be allowed that privilege again. They threw that privilege away when they hired Tommy Burns.

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">He does have supporters that are just as willing to work hard on his behalf as those working against him

Well it will be GREAT to have these supporters step up to the microphone - identify themselves and pitch their support and why they feel someone who killed his horse for insurance money should be allowed back in the sport. So far the "supporters" using their legal names has been minimal - let's get those people out in the sunlight with their names on record. I'm sure I'm not the only person in this business who would like to have that list.

And I'm so tired of hearing that the people supporting bans on individuals who have perpetrated certain crimes are "little people" -who have never shown or don't know the "scene" at the upper levels. Those who feel they ARE the Upper Level should get over themselves. Perception IS NOT REALITY. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

PLease feel free to PT me for any or all information you would like from me.
I would be more than happy to offer any details about my life that you feel necessary.

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:19 AM
Originally posted by Sebastian:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by C.Boylen:
Snowbird, no one is disputing the fact that horse businesses can write off losses. The point was that the average horse owner does not operate as a business. The only one making this part of the debate case-specific is you.

And, the specifics of this case do NOT involve the "average horse owner." PV was, and is, a "professional" for tax purposes. Therefore, Snowy's argument is completely valid.

I'm really still amazed at how NONE of Paul's supporters can offer a REAL argument in his favor. So far the only defense seems to be distraction from the facts. PV admitted to paying someone to kill his horse so that he could defraud an insurance company.

This does NOT reconcile with the USEF’s own mission statement:

As the National Governing Body (NGB) of Equestrian Sport in the United States we will inspire, encourage interest in, and regulate equestrian competition by ensuring the safety and well-being of horses, regardless of value or competitive level; ensure the enforcement of fair and equitable rules and procedures up to and including the preparation for the Olympic Games; and, endeavor to advance the level of horsemanship in the United States.

And, never will.

Seb </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A 'real arguement'?

First of all, I despise arguing...

My only case is FORGIVENESS.

I just wish people would stop for one second, and take thier feet off this man's neck long enough for him to BE SORRY.

You have to give people a CHANCE.

There is not one person on this board who hasn't screwed upin some way in their life, and not been offered a chance to make amends.

Perhaps our mistakes werent as incomprehensible, or made public, but we have all been granted forgiveness at one point.

Try it folks..it makes YOU a better person. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

mwe
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:20 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anthem35:
PLease feel free to PT me for any or all information you would like from me.
I would be more than happy to offer any details about my life that you feel necessary.[/QUOTE}

Please feel free to PT me as well.
I do not believe any supporter has said what was done was right.I know I did not.

mwe
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:25 AM
I don't understand why it is so important to disclose a name. Reading this Robin is the only name posted.
I know many people have been topics on this BB for things they do...myself included. I have friends call and say "look what they said..."
I will not post my e-mail address so I can be attacked. I do not feel the need to name-drop or list other supporters so their integrity can be attacked.

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
I was there for the discussions and I believe they were allowed to participate to show their remorse; they would totally comply with no paticipation in horse shows. They needed to contribute in a way that showed their sincere remorse. At that time Jane Clark was President and intended for them to prove they had reformed that they were an example of exemplary behavior and good sportsmanship and that one mistake would never be repeated.

It was a well intentioned purpose to leave the door open in the conviction that it was a "moment of temprary insanity". However, it was not intended that they tread the line and bend the rules to appear compliant. That started later and seemed to be accepted behavior so they felt encouraged.

If that is your definition of 'the purpose', can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?

Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was 'an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse'?

mwe
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by ponybreeder Aefvue Pig Farm:
Oh, and I should have added. My family believes in retirement. Earlier, I listed a group of retirees that I have now, I also had my show horses, Talisman, Academy Award, and 20th Century, Ltd (bought him back at the end of his career) until they died.

My family also believes in retirement. My 20 year old is retired after I showed him for 2 years. He was 12 when retired. Was diagnosed with EPM...was not put down...was treated for 6 months and has happily enjoyed his retirement.
We bought back my medium pony at 20 after she went to Chicago (in the 70's), 2 more homes and foundered...presently trying to buy back another..
Because I support someone doesn't make me a bad person...

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:36 AM
Anthem, I do not have my foot on PV's neck, or anyone else's, for that matter. I am against reinstatement. As an individual, I have a choice not to give him any business, directly or indirectly, as well as you have the ability to provide him business, which we both have always agreed upon. I know that you must also be aware of the fact that nothing your or I do is going to have much weight in the larger picture as either of us would like. No one on the USEF has called me and said "Hey Harry, should we let this guy in or not", and I suspect you have not gotten that sort of call either. It should only be that simple for either of us.

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:49 AM
Harry,
As we do both agree, it is a personal decision based on ones own set of beliefs and priorities whether to be pro-Paul, or Anti-Paul.

My only request, as it has not changed, is that people consider that he might actually BE sorry.

I understand that he is not in the company of everyone on this board, but as someone who does see him on a regular basis, and has listen to the facts FIRSTHAND, I know two things.

One, that he IS SORRY>

and 2, that the 'public story' is not entirely the truth, and the media has taken control and sensationalized the story tremendously.

There are facts that have been left out, and untruths been inserted.

It is not my business to disclose anything about what I have learned, as I'm certain there is considerable legal counsel involved.

But what I will say is this...I am intelligent and successful person who has been blessed with a compassionate soul. All truths considered, I forgive this man.

slavegirl
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Snowbird:
I was there for the discussions and I believe they were allowed to participate to show their remorse; they would totally comply with no paticipation in horse shows. They needed to contribute in a way that showed their sincere remorse. At that time Jane Clark was President and intended for them to prove they had reformed that they were an example of exemplary behavior and good sportsmanship and that one mistake would never be repeated.

It was a well intentioned purpose to leave the door open in the conviction that it was a "moment of temprary insanity". However, it was not intended that they tread the line and bend the rules to appear compliant. That started later and seemed to be accepted behavior so they felt encouraged.

If that is your definition of 'the purpose', can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?

Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was 'an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse'? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:55 AM
Anthem, I have no doubt that you are intelligent and succsessful. And I am certain that there is indeed considerable legal counsel involved, that does not suprise me one iota.

I wonder though, if you would be as inclined to forgive if it was Barney Ward's turn to re-apply, or George Lindemann's, or Marion Hulick. Perhaps because I was involved with many of these people before these horrible things happened, I have a different perspective than you.

slavegirl
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:55 AM
Anthem, you cannot try to make any sense with this crowd. Every time you post anything it just gives them a new bone to gnaw on.

HHG-N
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:55 AM
I am confused. Is the fact that he is "sorry" supposed to erase the fact that he is guilty???

Limerick
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:


and 2, that the 'public story' is not entirely the truth, and the media has taken control and sensationalized the story tremendously.

There are facts that have been left out, and untruths been inserted.

It is not my business to disclose anything about what I have learned, as I'm certain there is considerable legal counsel involved.

But what I will say is this...I am intelligent and successful person who has been blessed with a compassionate soul. All truths considered, I forgive this man.

You must realize anthem that it would be in PV's best interest to disclose facts of the case that haven't been revealed. Although I realize there might be legalities to consider, surely it is his right as a human being to get the true story across. I mean, people, including his friend Mason Phelps are comparing his past actions to the actions of a rapist or murderer. Surely, he can hire some lawyers who can help him air the true story if the facts demonstrate that he didn't do such a heinous thing? By heinous I mean the fact that he gave Tommy Burns the go ahead to electrocute Roseau Platiere-is there a different version of these facts that haven't come to light in a decade??

shade
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:03 PM
For ANY of them to be re-instated they would have to do a heck of alot more than "attempt" to contribute. A couple of things come to mind. Maybe taking in a couple of rescue horses, taking on a poor barn rat and giving them the opportunity they would never have had, volunteering at a horse rescue or theraputic facility. I would look for contributions to the horse community that are not in the mainstream, donating your lesson money does not constitute contributing to the horse community. I just don't see where any of them have given back to the horse community. All they have done is make money for themselves. I am not singling out PV, I am talking about ALL of them. But PV is up to APPLY for reinstatement very soon so he unfortunately is at the center of this issue. I do commend PV for his efforts to help the animals of the hurricane. But I also know there are many many other horsemen that gave their time in the effort also.

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by HHG-N:
I am confused. Is the fact that he is "sorry" supposed to erase the fact that he is guilty???

NO! Not at all...hes is absolutely guilty as charged.

I will not ever dispute that, or condone the crime.

I just really wish that people would consider that this man made a huge mistake, and that he is SORRY for it.

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:04 PM
Originally posted by Limerick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:


and 2, that the 'public story' is not entirely the truth, and the media has taken control and sensationalized the story tremendously.

There are facts that have been left out, and untruths been inserted.

It is not my business to disclose anything about what I have learned, as I'm certain there is considerable legal counsel involved.

But what I will say is this...I am intelligent and successful person who has been blessed with a compassionate soul. All truths considered, I forgive this man.

You must realize anthem that it would be in PV's best interest to disclose facts of the case that haven't been revealed. Although I realize there might be legalities to consider, surely it is his right as a human being to get the true story across. I mean, people, including his friend Mason Phelps are comparing his past actions to the actions of a rapist or murderer. Surely, he can hire some lawyers who can help him air the true story if the facts demonstrate that he didn't do such a heinous thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would imagine that at some point, this will happen. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by shade:
For ANY of them to be re-instated they would have to do a heck of alot more than "attempt" to contribute. A couple of things come to mind. Maybe taking in a couple of rescue horses, taking on a poor barn rat and giving them the opportunity they would never have had, volunteering at a horse rescue or theraputic facility. I would look for contributions to the horse community that are not in the mainstream, donating your lesson money does not constitute contributing to the horse community. I just don't see where any of them have given back to the horse community. All they have done is make money for themselves. I am not singling out PV, I am talking about ALL of them. But PV is up to APPLY for reinstatement very soon so he unfortunately is at the center of this issue. I do commend PV for his efforts to help the animals of the hurricane. But I also know there are many many other horsemen that gave their time in the effort also.

Shade-all terrfic ideas...

One thing though...AWF did not travel South as early as planned this year as the barn in FLorida was filled to capacity with equine refugees from the hurricane.

This was neither 'published' or 'promoted' by anyone.

Really, he IS Trying. Only good can come out of his efforts, why not let him keep trying without taking apart and attacking his every attempt?

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:16 PM
Prisons all full of people who are really sorry. I don't think anyone is happy to have done something so anti-social that they are penalized.

We have the two men in Virginia where the Judge has made it their parole sentence that they may not participate in this industry. Will the USEF honor that court order? Will the USEF feel they said they were sorry and the USEF is not responsible. Both men have been members in good standing while in prison.

What exactly is a Federation and what exactly are they responsible for as regulators? If their mission is to do what is in the best interest of the sport. How can those who have been convicted of a crime involving fraud with horses be acceptable? Membership in USEF is not mandatory except at certain shows and it is a privilege for those who honor the horses and care for them and behave in a manner to bring pride to the sport of horses.

Should new people who may have no knowledge of someone's history become innocent victims of anti-social behavior?

SGray
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:18 PM
a) my member name is my name

b) in parallel with the BB - I accept as fact those statements made by reputable media outlets - thus, an anonomous poster stating that "you don't know what really happened" or "all the BNTs and BNRs are for So-and-so" has little weight behind it

c) if said BNTs and BNRs support any particular individual then I would expect them to state such support in public - without said statement then where is the support?

d) if any of the convicted individuals had evidence that would have mitigated the severity of their sentences then surely they would have stated these facts in court

e) as many of the convicted individuals were/are BNTs - the idea the other BNTs support reinstatement is neither a surprise to me nor a compelling arguement in favor of reinstatement

f) as I understand it the (then) AHSA did not have rules in place to address permanent expulsion in response to such acts - thus the indefinate suspension with possibilty of reinstatement after x years

g) an ex-groom for a convicted individual told me of other atrocities - but since there was no conviction for those I cannot speak of them here

h) the reason for discussion specific to Paul on this the anti-reinstatement thread has more to do with friends/students of Paul coming on to defend him than with any animus toward him specifically over and above any and all those convicted - the intent of the thread is to make the public aware of the atrocities and to make the USEF aware of the sentiment against reinstatement

anthem35
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Prisons all full of people who are really sorry. I don't think anyone is happy to have done something so anti-social that they are penalized.

We have the two men in Virginia where the Judge has made it their parole sentence that they may not participate in this industry. Will the USEF honor that court order? Will the USEF feelthey said they were sorry and the USEF is not responsible. Both men have been members in good standing while in prison.

What exactly is a Federation and what exactly are they responsible for as regulators?

They are responsible for knowing ALL the facts and making a decision based on the sentence that they delivered, and the punishment that has been served.

Limerick
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:23 PM
I'm very curious now and a little shocked that anthem, you seem to be implying that there is another side to PV's story? Why on earth can't he tell it??

twotrudoc
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:24 PM
I feel a little entitled to hear this other side too, after reading 133 pages. Please, share!

Erin
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:32 PM
anthem, I know you obviously are close to PV and think highly of him, but I think you're losing sight of something here.

This group of people committed felonies. They KILLED perfectly nice, useful horses because the animals were worth more to them dead than alive. Almost all of them pleaded guilty.

By all rights, these people should absolutely EXPECT the horse industry to scorn and shun them. I think everyone who has posted on this thread has, more or less, agreed that what they all did was pretty goshdarned wrong.

One is not necessarily entitled to forgiveness; one must earn it. And one is not automatically entitled to respect and compliments from their peers; one must earn that as well.

I don't think it's particularly useful to suggest that because certain people might not have "all of the facts," they're in the wrong. Face it, NONE of us have all the facts. Would you want people who knew a suspended person way back in the day coming on here and posting about alleged things he or she did that were NOT covered in the indictments? Because I heard straight from the FBI agents who investigated these cases that there were plenty more who were guilty -- there just wasn't enough evidence to convict, or the statute of limitations had expired. There were a LOT of dirty people involved in this whole saga.

But, when we participate here, we agree to an established set of "facts" as far as these discussions are concerned. And the facts are what has been documented in print or in court cases.

You seem to think PV is being treated unfairly here because of this mysterious "other side of the story." What's kind of ironic is that if any of the posters who are NOT fans of PV claimed the same thing -- that there are "facts" that haven't been told that would paint PV in an unflattering light, rather than the flattering one you seem to alude to -- I'd delete it as soon as I saw it.

shade
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:34 PM
h) the reason for discussion specific to Paul on this the anti-reinstatement thread has more to do with friends/students of Paul coming on to defend him than with any animus toward him specifically over and above any and all those convicted - the intent of the thread is to make the public aware of the atrocities and to make the USEF aware of the sentiment against reinstatement

That is it in a nutshell.

shade
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:41 PM
One is not necessarily entitled to forgiveness; one must earn it. And one is not automatically entitled to respect and compliments from their peers; one must earn that as well.

None of the supporters have been able to tell us what PV has done to earn our forgivenes other than donate his lesson money and help with the hurricane horses. IMO that is not enough, not considering the crime that was committed. I personnally would like to see time and energy donated. But that's just me.

N&B&T
Mar. 1, 2006, 12:43 PM
anthem, where have you gotten these facts?

When did these opinion-altering facts occur? Not before the court case, it appears, since you accept that PV is guilty as charged.

Are they facts that would be accepted in a court of law?

Let us remember that the USEF Hearing Committee is not a court of law. Among other things, courts of law are public records. And I suspect courts of law require more stringent proof of facts.

Indefinite suspension is a revocation of the privilege of membership rights, not a sentence. PV did not serve a sentence. Permission to apply for reinstatement was attached to his suspension but reinstatement is not an entitlement.

The analogy of a "sentence" being "served" and ended is inapt.

With regard to the two men convicted of fraud:
1) Perhaps you should discuss with the judge and jury who convicted them your feelings about facts. Or perhaps you can get a transcript from the bb posters who were at the trial?
2) Unlike PV (and others), their probation precludes ANY involvement with horses. Therefore, unlike PV (and others), their sentence prevents them from earning a livelihood with horses.

I suppose that makes a USEF suspension moot; however, I agree that people in this situation should be suspended for some period at least.

At any rate, anthem, your assertion that you know facts which you will not disclose or prove is, to me, the equivalent of the "gossip" which you find so distasteful.

N&B&T
Mar. 1, 2006, 01:06 PM
Reference to a crime which is a matter of public record is not an "attack". Having and expressing a differing opinion is not an "attack".

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 01:24 PM
but it's not morals or principals that are going to get you anywhere

With a statement like that I truly understand why the world is going down hill! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 01:29 PM
My only case is FORGIVENESS.

I just wish people would stop for one second, and take thier feet off this man's neck long enough for him to BE SORRY.

You have to give people a CHANCE.

There is not one person on this board who hasn't screwed upin some way in their life, and not been offered a chance to make amends.

Perhaps our mistakes werent as incomprehensible, or made public, but we have all been granted forgiveness at one point.

Try it folks..it makes YOU a better person.

How hard is it for anyone to make a public agology for something that has become so public?

I am willing to listen to any one of the convicted horse killers come forward and make a public apology.

I always apolgize if I am wrong whether to my family, friends or co workers. It really isn't hard if you know you have done wrong.

shade
Mar. 1, 2006, 01:34 PM
I also have never heard or read a public apology from any of them. Again none of the supporters will or can tell me what PV has done to earn my forgiveness or anyone's forgiveness. Other than donating money..heck anyone can do that, not much effort in it.

Erin
Mar. 1, 2006, 01:48 PM
I do seem to recall that some of them apologized at their sentencing hearings. (Court sentencing, not USEF hearings.) I think I remember that Barney did, but my recollection might be off. Marion Hulick definitely did. Don't know about PV, I wasn't at his.

shade
Mar. 1, 2006, 01:53 PM
Thank you Erin, that is nice to know.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:24 PM
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 it's not morals or principals that are going to get you anywhere

With a statement like that I truly understand why the world is going down hill! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The truth hurts. Horses are a business at this level, USEF is a business organization, and neither morals nor principals have ever reigned supreme in a truly competitive business. Do you think America is the world's biggest superpower because our government since 1776 has been run by morality? Um, nope. The world has been "going downhill" for quite some time now...

Anthem-I like you. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:26 PM
I think the key to the dilemma is simply this: If the administration at that time wanted they could have said there was automatic Re-Instatement in 15 years unless they had violated the law again. BUT what is interesting is they didn't phrase it that way.

They said that Re-Instatement could be applied for after 15 years if there was evidence of a reformation. So it seems to me it is up to those who wish to prove their virtue and that I think has to be more than writing a few checks.

Certainly if not literally the intent and meaning of the suspension has been ignored. It could be that some of whome we have nothing have been within the spirit of the rules.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:30 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
That depends on how your define "moral".
That depends on how you define "legalities.

If moral means doing what's right and legal means following the intent and purpose of the rules then I humbly disagree.

Well Snowbird, then I guess it also depends on what your definition of "right" is, no? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

If you want to get technical, I can always whip out a dictionary for you...

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:40 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
What about this situation, the USEF is a private organization. In truth, they are upholding the suspensions that were in place by the AHSA. A suspension was indefinite, with ability to apply for reinstatement this year. There is nothing that says reinstatement must be granted.

What's your point? There is also nothing against reinstatement, so I don't know what, exactly, you're trying to refute/prove.

The suspension was definate in its length of time, so again, I'm somewhat confused. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif The only thing that is somewhat subjective is as to whether or not Paul has shown what the AHSA deemed to be a reformation.

It peeves me that those of you who have not met Paul nor know of what he does when the media isn't all over him can come on here, also unidentified, and say that he hasn't done anything for the benefit of the horse community. Consider that when you wonder why he's afraid to talk to the public...

Erin
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:47 PM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
Comparing our sport to other sports is also without grounds, as each governing body of each sport has different rules. If a basketball player violates some rule of the NBA and is consequentially prohibited from ever playing in a recognized basketball game ever again, that's based on the rules of the NBA and its board of directors. Nothing in the rules of the USEF directly states that Paul can not be reinstated after suspension. That is the joy of loopholes, like it or not.

I understand the moral turmoil of it all, but it's not morals or principals that are going to get you anywhere. And the legalities of it are realistically in his favor.

I think you're misinterpreting a good portion of the discussion.

First of all, this isn't really a discussion of legalities or loopholes, when speaking of the reinstatement application. The USEF is the one who handed down the suspension and they set up the rules for it -- they decided the suspendees must APPLY, rather than simply being reinstated, and they set up certain criteria for that reinstatement. Obviously, by doing so, they had some sort of idea in their minds of what kind of behavior they wanted to see from the suspendees during their suspensions, and the idea that they might NOT reinstate them, if their behavior didn't warrant it.

Secondly, obviously the only rules that apply in this situation are the USEF rules, and no one has suggested otherwise. It does seem worthwhile, however, to look at the precedents set by other governing bodies. All of these groups have committees that decide these things, based on their interpretation of their own rules. I doubt the skating federation has written into its rule book that if your husband whacks a competitor on the knee, you'll be booted out of the federation for life. The NBA doesn't have a rule that dictates that you get suspended for an entire season if you climb into the stands and deck a fan. Rather, the committee looks at the offense, looks at what the rules say in a general way about how such offenses should be handled, and then makes a decision.

Hopeful Hunter
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by HHG-N:
I am confused. Is the fact that he is "sorry" supposed to erase the fact that he is guilty???

NO! Not at all...hes is absolutely guilty as charged.

I will not ever dispute that, or condone the crime.

I just really wish that people would consider that this man made a huge mistake, and that he is SORRY for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

anthem, I am absolutely willing to consider that Mr. Valliere may indeed be very sorry for what happened. His contrition or lack thereof really isn't the issue FOR ME here.

What matters is indeed that icky word, principle. I feel that it is inappropriate in principle for the governing body of our sport to allow someone who has committed the crimes we AGREE that he committed to be allowed to enjoy the privileged of membership. That's all there is to it.

Does that mean I don't "forgive?" If forgiveness needs to include allowing him - AND ALL OF THE OTHERS SO CONVICTED - to be USEF members, then I guess I don't.

But see, I don't think that the crime SHOULD be forgiven by the governing body devoted to protecting our equine partners. The crime is of sufficient seriousness to warrant the AHSA/USEF to revoke the right of membership...forever.

By doing what he did, Paul Valliere has made himself a very public figure about whom to debate the appropriateness of extending membership. And the bottom line is, many of us don't think that membership should be given to someone who has shown such profound disregard and disrespect for our equine partners, regardless of what he does in the future.

This doesn't mean the he can't serve as a great example of how to make a horrible choice and yet salvage a life of dignity. But, perhaps because of the choice of words he and Mason Phelps and other supporters have used, perhaps because of the perceived (note: I say perceived) arrogance of his living up to the letter but not spirit of the suspension, that doesn't seem to be happening.

It's interesting...I spent last night at an AA meeting. A friend of ours who screwed up big time (no personal injuries but only through luck - he did do significant jail time) was celebrating his 2 year anniversary of sobriety and wanted us to be there because we had supported him.

He spoke, at length, about what it was like to be a drunk, and the challenges of being sober. He did not paint himself as someone to be admired - quite the contrary, he used his own life to illustrate how someone can live a lie, and how hard it can be to even try to change. He apologized, but more than that, he acknowledged his errors - then, and now as he tries to find a life that's real, and not dulled by substances. He acknowledged our support, but also acknowledged that we call him on his actions, and require his accountability. We never pretended to be OK with his behavior, and he knew it - in fact, he admits hiding much of it from us to "keep" our support.

In his acceptance of his own responsibility, he gained a dignity and a worth that he never had with booze. And he doesn't just do this in the confines of AA - he speaks to all sorts of groups about his path, with brutal honesty. And in doing that, he gains forgiveness - from himself most of all.

I wish Mr. Valliere had done something more on this line. Instead, he has made comments that people unfamiliar with him find at best arrogant. That's not a good approach for someone who truly wants to acknowledge a mistake. Imagine the response if he'd simply said "I'm not going to apply for reinstatement despite being eligible by the terms of the suspension, because what I did was wrong." Powerful, no?

jn1193
Mar. 1, 2006, 03:57 PM
"I don't think it's particularly useful to suggest that because certain people might not have "all of the facts," they're in the wrong. Face it, NONE of us have all the facts. Would you want people who knew a suspended person way back in the day coming on here and posting about alleged things he or she did that were NOT covered in the indictments? Because I heard straight from the FBI agents who investigated these cases that there were plenty more who were guilty -- there just wasn't enough evidence to convict, or the statute of limitations had expired. There were a LOT of dirty people involved in this whole saga.

But, when we participate here, we agree to an established set of "facts" as far as these discussions are concerned. And the facts are what has been documented in print or in court cases.

You seem to think PV is being treated unfairly here because of this mysterious "other side of the story." What's kind of ironic is that if any of the posters who are NOT fans of PV claimed the same thing -- that there are "facts" that haven't been told that would paint PV in an unflattering light, rather than the flattering one you seem to alude to -- I'd delete it as soon as I saw it."

Thanks, Erin. Once again, you are absolutely correct. I've held back talking about things I know to be true because I heard about them from the people who committed the acts because the FBI couldn't get enough evidence to convict the people involved, so on these forums they're just "gossip". If those names ever went public it would shake the USEF to its very roots. Tommy Burns named names and he did in a BIG way, both before he was caught and certainly after. The FBI questioned everyone on the show circuit in the Chicago are who might have been able to help at all and the things they asked about, the people THEY asked about. It still gives me chills and leaves me sitting here wondering why after getting out of horses for so many years do I really want to do this again.

If the facts were truly known. Oh,IF! So many, many people would be singing different tunes and so many BNT's and BNR's would be shrinking from the public spotlight in shame. What is known as "fact", what people were actually convicted on is just a tiny tip of a great big iceberg. A great big scary iceberg.

There are monsters among us. Don't ever doubt it.

I have a friend here in NoVa who's an FBI agent. I've told her about the horse killings and she's gone and looked at the files. She told me once that she has never seen true evil, but that I have. She said, you've looked true evil in the face more than once. And, she's right. And evil face isn't always an ugly one.

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:03 PM
The truth hurts. Horses are a business at this level, USEF is a business organization,

Because you say it is; doesn't make it so. In fact equine are categoried as a recreatinal sport and the USEF is a non-profit Educational Charity according to the government. Horses are "livestock" and horse farms are agriculture and not business. I have had a great deal of difficulty trying to convince the NFIB (Small Business Association) to include farms as a business.


and neither morals nor principals have ever reigned supreme in a truly competitive business.

That's cynical and total untruth. This country was built on free entrepreneurial skills. The fact is the most successfull businesses have happy clients and a happy staff. The USEF doesn't seem to have either.


Do you think America is the world's biggest superpower because our government since 1776 has been run by morality?

Yes! it was a religious country and God was marked on everything.


Um, nope. The world has been "going downhill" for quite some time now...
Only since some have tried follow the Communist example and erase God from our society. Communism failed because it held your convictions.

Silk
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:07 PM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:

The truth hurts. Horses are a business at this level, USEF is a business organization, and neither morals nor principals have ever reigned supreme in a truly competitive business.

Wow...and you are OK with being part of this, AND supporting it? I am sorry for you.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:18 PM
You're intentionally missing my point Snowbird. Look at anyone riding professionally at the top levels and tell me they're doing it for recreation. Open your eyes and get real, lady. I don't care what the government calls it. Bowling is for recreation; riding, training, and selling horses for a living is not. And the fact that USEF is "non-profit" doesn't mean it is not still a business orginazation.

I understand free enterprise. I didn't say anything about a dictatorship with unhappy staff/clients. And again, morals didn't get us where we are today. Unless of course you consider forcing Native Americans off of their land and enslaving Africans for our own economic prosperity moral. I could continue with the injustices of this country, but we can leave it at that for the time being.

And as for the God issue, I will agree with you as a Christian who has gone to a private Baptist school her whole life. However, there is also that little roadblock of mixing church and state...

Janet
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:20 PM
What about this situation: Someone is on parole for committing a crime; let's say murder for example. His parole comes up, and he is allowed his prior freedoms. Man's neighbors said he was in violation of his parole x number of times. These accusations become relatively insignificant if there is no proof that he has in fact violated the terms of his parole.

Similar case with Paul. Everyone in the world can say he's been on the showgrounds, etc., but if the person making final decisions doesn't have evidence as to whether or not it is true, it really doesn't have any effect. In the worst case, USEF might request a hearing of some sort to examine his time of suspension, just like a man being accused of violating parole might be brought to some sort of trial.
Parole is a good analogy. But you seem to have a couple of details wrong (and I am sure our lawyer members will correct me if I get it wrong too).

Typically, when someone is convicted, they are sentenced to a term of X years, with the posibility to apply for parole. This is analogous to a suspension of X years, with the possibility to apply for reinstatement after Y years.

When someone applies for parole, MANY things are taken into consideration (not just whether or not he has violated the terms of the original sentence). This often includes testimony by the victims, and other members of the community. This typically includes some people supporting parole, and others opposed to granting parole. Parole can be denied, even if he has been a model prisoner, and complied will all the terms of the original sentence.

This IS analogous to the application for reinstatment. Complying with the terms of the original suspension is "necessary but not sufficient" for reinstatement. They can deny reinstatement, even if he complied with the letter of the terms of the suspension.

In the criminal justice system, when someone is granted parole, there is a list of things they must do (such as reporting their location) and a list of things the must not do (such as committing even a misdemeanor). There are periodic procedures to check that he is complying with the terms of his parole, and if he violates those terms he goes back to jail. For THOSE hearings, all that is needed is that he comply with the terms of the parole previously granted. (Neccessary AND sufficient.)

This is the process you seem to be referring to. But THAT process is NOT analogous to applying for reinstatement.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:21 PM
I really think you need to calm down Jrjumper and show some respect to Snowy. Whether right or wrong, she probably knows alot more than you do and is always respectful.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division:
Whether right or wrong, she probably knows alot more than you do.

Is that what she's leading you to believe?

Janet, replace my use of "parole" with "probation." You are correct. Parole is granted after having served a jail sentence. Probation is granted after a conviction without having served time.

Janet
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by mwe:
I don't understand why it is so important to disclose a name. Reading this Robin is the only name posted.
I know many people have been topics on this BB for things they do...myself included. I have friends call and say "look what they said..."
I will not post my e-mail address so I can be attacked. I do not feel the need to name-drop or list other supporters so their integrity can be attacked. My name is Janet Gunn (as anyone of normal intelligence can deduce from my user name and my email address in my profile).

Many othe people here have names that are similarly easy to deduce from their profile combined with their postings.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:29 PM
JrJumper, I didn't say I believe, I was saying whether right or wrong she has a lot of information and to be respectful of her opinions as she is with yours.

Janet
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:37 PM
The suspension was definate in its length of time, so again, I'm somewhat confused. The only thing that is somewhat subjective is as to whether or not Paul has shown what the AHSA deemed to be a reformation.
That is NOT what the suspensions say. The suspensions have an indefinite term (i.e. forever) with the possibility to APPLY for reinstatement after X years.

If they (AHSA/USEF) wanted the suspension to have a DEFINITE term (contingent only on complying with the original suspension), they would have said "suspension for X years". Regardless of the length of the suspension, violating the suspension leads to a new charge, a new hearing, and an additional period of suspension. This HAS happened recently with some other suspended persons.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:43 PM
How did this thread go from speaking about the issues to now talking about church & state? Plus being extremely disrespectful to people who have been here forever. And care deeply about this sport/business/national pastime. Whether we like someones input or not, respect is something we need to show. JrJumper, please try to be respectful. Whether you agree or not, it does not matter. Snowy has been here and posted since the BB started. We all have had times when we didn't agree. But, knowing her passion, we posted respectfully.

VirginiaBred
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:44 PM
Is that what she's leading you to believe?
No one has to be lead to believe that. Snowy does know a lot on this subject, and you aren't being respectful or courteous, and actions like yours will get this very important thread closed.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:45 PM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
What about this situation, the USEF is a private organization. In truth, they are upholding the suspensions that were in place by the AHSA. A suspension was indefinite, with ability to apply for reinstatement this year. There is nothing that says reinstatement must be granted.

What's your point? There is also nothing against reinstatement, so I don't know what, exactly, you're trying to refute/prove.

The suspension was definate in its length of time, so again, I'm somewhat confused. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif The only thing that is somewhat subjective is as to whether or not Paul has shown what the AHSA deemed to be a reformation.

It peeves me that those of you who have not met Paul nor know of what he does when the media isn't all over him can come on here, also unidentified, and say that he hasn't done anything for the benefit of the horse community. Consider that when you wonder why he's afraid to talk to the public... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

My point is that he is eligible to APPLY for reinstatement, as are all of the other individuals suspended in conjunction with that incident. Eligible to apply does not mean automatic reinstatement because he has donated money to animal charities, etc. What peeves ME is the fact that some people think that those of us against reinstatement have never met Paul or know what he does when the media isn't all over him. What also peeves me is that there are a number of people on here defending PV's right to be reinstated, yet you don't hear those very same people going to bat for Barney Ward, George Lindeman, or Marion Hulick. If you want one of them back, they should ALL be back.

Janet
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:50 PM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:

Janet, replace my use of "parole" with "probation." You are correct. Parole is granted after having served a jail sentence. Probation is granted after a conviction without having served time.

Agreed. But I stll think "granting parole" is the better analogy.

Janet
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:52 PM
Can we PLEASE keep religion out of this. There are enough differences of opinion (to put it mildly) already without adding another contentious issue which really isn't relevant.

2hsmommy
Mar. 1, 2006, 04:58 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
You're intentionally missing my point Snowbird. Look at anyone riding professionally at the top levels and tell me they're doing it for recreation. Open your eyes and get real, lady. I don't care what the government calls it. Bowling is for recreation; riding, training, and selling horses for a living is not. And the fact that USEF is "non-profit" doesn't mean it is not still a business orginazation.

[QUOTE]

Anyone who rides for a living is doing it for the love of the sport. Do you honestly think people make money on horses every year? Oh, that's right, some people did try to make money off of their steeds. But some got caught.

A bit O/T juniorjump, but how old are you? In your albums you look like a child. How old were you when this all happened? 6 yrs old? How would you feel if PV (or the others) did these things to a horse in YOUR barn, right next to YOUR horse? Would that be cool? Would you forgive? Would you forget? Would you open your arms wide and accept them back into the fold? Or better yet, into your barn?

filly3
Mar. 1, 2006, 05:09 PM
Shsmommy, I was thinking the exact thing. How old were you jrj in 1989 when all this was going on? Many of us on the BB were there riding and showing and getting our information firsthand, not hearing stories from other people years later. You are definitely entitled to your opinion but you shouldn't be rude and disrespectful.

Erin
Mar. 1, 2006, 05:11 PM
Be nice, be respectful, be polite, no snarking.

And for heaven's sake, when someone is obviously trolling, DON'T FEED THEM. Just hit the little post alert button instead.

jumper11
Mar. 1, 2006, 05:14 PM
That might be good advice filly3 if the older women on this board set a better example and didn't act "rude and mouthed off". http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif How else is JJ supposed to fit in and be heard? And BTW, I think she is definitely more mature than many "older" people on this board... JMO.

Erin
Mar. 1, 2006, 05:16 PM
jumper11, read the post directly above yours. Take it to heart before you post again.

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 05:16 PM
Thank you all for the kind words. Yes! one of the few good things about having been around for so long is that little is herasay.

There are inexperienced youngsters made bitter by a world they don't understand and them I can forgive because they just don't know. I'm sure eventually they will realize that this life is lived to learn.

Countryhawk
Mar. 1, 2006, 05:49 PM
Harry,

Why does this thread always go back to PV, when there are others in a similar situation? Ie Barney Ward, Lindeman, Marion Hulick. If it weren't for PV's supporters it would be a general topic. Also I don't believe any of them answered if they were pro reinstatement for the above names.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:04 PM
Good points CH. Everyone seems to be suiting up to do battle. No one is answering about pro or non reinstatement.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:21 PM
What could PV do...to obtain COTH absolution? Anything? Nothing. Something? What will it take?

mwe
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by Countryhawk:
Harry,

Ie Barney Ward, Lindeman, Marion Hulick. If it weren't for PV's supporters it would be a general topic. Also I don't believe any of them answered if they were pro reinstatement for the above names.

My opinion on Paul's reinstatement is based on the facts as I know them, and the interaction I have had with him. Would I trust my horse in Paul's barn. Yes. I would...I have...

As far as the others, show me the same criteria: "proof ...taken steps to reform...performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses" and I will voice my opinion...

In the case of MV...no...based on my interaction with MV (I rode at Hulick's, witnessed plenty)...based on interaction in the 80's (I lived in NJ) NO I would not support her reinstatement...

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:27 PM
Just a question Xegeba, How do you feel about the others that have been banned by the USEF? They will be up for reinstatment soon.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:30 PM
Good question Showponymom... i'll have to refresh the cocktail and ponder that .

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:31 PM
as long as you ponder my question. I promise to be nice and concise. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

ponybreeder
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:33 PM
Xegeba, There is no way that there is a resolution to this topic. It is a discussion. A number of reinstatement supporters have commented that there is no point saying anything to this group because they don't listen. In a discussion, both sides often feel that way, but in the end, there will always be a difference of opinion. Posters like JrJ who choose to post in and unpleasant and condescending way, do not help anyone's cause. At some point, we will all just have to agree to disagree.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:46 PM
I'm more than a little disturbed that according to someone ... that this little brotherhood was just the tip of the iceberg... and since PV (for whatever reason) decided to squeal...he is being crucified ( ten years later) for what could be considered as "doing the right thing".

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:51 PM
I politely disagree xegeba. This is not about crucifying PV, but about possible re-instatement of him, them, whomever. Should it be allowed? He just happens to be next in line to apply for re-instatement. I understand why you think he did the right thing by "squealing". But possibly it was to save his own skin? Thus the doing the right thing move may not been upper most in his mind.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:53 PM
so... no brownie points for squealers?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:58 PM
Depends on why they squealed. To save themselves, no. To save the horses, yes.

Kap
Mar. 1, 2006, 06:59 PM
They can give themselves their own moral brownie points. I'd say they should get none in terms of reinstatement matters, since it's hard to prove whether they did it to save themselves or to come clean and be honest.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:03 PM
ya know... the legal system that we are all a part of would be in serious trouble if tattletailers did not get brownie points for being one.

Janet
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:06 PM
In this case, the "brownie points" consist of being permited to APPLY for reinstatement earlier than the others.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:08 PM
What if PV had decided NOT to talk?

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:12 PM
OK! we're here and I agree that it is the facts that matter. If we were to be successful in passing a Rule Change in January 2007 then we will not be here doing this the next 20 times.

So far we have been given no good reason why the conviction of anyone should be approved and the only evidence is the legal paper trail.

The issue is how will the Hearing Committee deal with this matter? Will those opposed to Re-Insttement have an approved way to be heard? Will we be notified when and if the time comes?

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:15 PM
So far we have been given no good reason why the conviction of anyone should be approved and the only evidence is the legal paper trail.
perhaps you can re-word this one for me.

Duffy
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by Janet:
In this case, the "brownie points" consist of being permited to APPLY for reinstatement earlier than the others.

I don't believe PV got any prison time either.

Sherry
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:16 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:

A 'real arguement'?

First of all, I despise arguing...

My only case is FORGIVENESS.

I just wish people would stop for one second, and take thier feet off this man's neck long enough for him to BE SORRY.

You have to give people a CHANCE.

There is not one person on this board who hasn't screwed upin some way in their life, and not been offered a chance to make amends.

Perhaps our mistakes werent as incomprehensible, or made public, but we have all been granted forgiveness at one point.

Try it folks..it makes YOU a better person. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

First of all, he's had about ten years to "Be Sorry".

Second of all, you don't personally know most of the people who post on this thread so you don't know that ANY of us has screwed up in ANY way. I certainaly don't appreciate YOU making this statement about ME as a poster on this BB, even in a general way. Can you spell S L A N D E R ??

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:19 PM
yikes Sherry...

Sherry
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by anthem35:
If that is your definition of 'the purpose', can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?

Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was 'an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse'?

Many people helped with the animals (and people) in LA and MS after Katrina. Most did it because it was what we wanted to do and didn't want (or care about) any publicity about what we were doing. Yes, PV did help out but it makes me wonder if he did it for the same reason many others did it or did he do it just to "score points"?

Duffy
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:25 PM
Sherry, I would think the answer to that is another question. Did PV perform "charitable acts" prior to his suspension? I don't know the answer to this. If he only started after his suspension, I think we can deduce that the "charitable acts" were, perhaps, not done in a 100% altruistic manner.

jetsmom
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:25 PM
If PV felt bad about what he did and went to the cops with the info on his "buddies" before they caught and charged him, THEN, I would say, it should be considered a mitigating factor. Doing it to save your hide and get a reduced sentence AFTER you have been caught means nothing. He didn't feel remorseful enough about what he did to turn himself in, along with info on the others, so I think he isn't sorry for what he did, but sorry he got caught.
Personally, there is nothing he could do or say that makes me think he should be reinstated.

xegeba
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:25 PM
the guy is overcooked if he does and burnt beyond recognition if he doesn't.

Duffy
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:27 PM
xegeba - the "guy" does NOT appear to be suffering...

ponybreeder
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:27 PM
At some point, we will just have to agree to disagree.

Snowbird
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:31 PM
I'm sorry xegeba you're right and I will rephrase. My new glasses are not helping much at all and the eye doctor is looking for a better solution.

So far we have been given no good reason why the conviction of anyone should be approved and the only evidence is the legal paper trail.

What I meant to say was that so far we have no facts to indicate any reason why any of these convictions should be forgiven.

The only hard evidence is the paper trail of the legal actions which ended in conviction.

The conclusion to me is there is no evidence of any reformation and therefore I am still opposed to re-instatement based purely on the facts. No mediating information is available to the contrary.

I think the most deviant defense was that those who were the recipients of the cooperation of PV for justice are somwhow behind this plot to keep him from being re-instated. That is truly an amazing spin.

Erin
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:31 PM
And I think that point is now. Everyone is going to have their own opinion on whether or not someone is "truly" remorseful, and I think it's best to just accept that and move on.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
as long as you ponder my question. I promise to be nice and concise. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

I am not after PV personally, it all of the people that were banned and will come before the committee if they choose for reinstatement.

I really don't think that we can give absolution, that to me is something you show and give to yourself. You have to live with what you have done and make peace with yourself. I really don't think alot of people have made this personal, it just happens that he is the second (the first got by us) to come up for reinstatment. If it was someone else I think the same would happen.

So have you pondered my question?

Sherry
Mar. 1, 2006, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:

It peeves me that those of you who have not met Paul nor know of what he does when the media isn't all over him can come on here, also unidentified, and say that he hasn't done anything for the benefit of the horse community. Consider that when you wonder why he's afraid to talk to the public...

I don't think being afraid has anything to do with it! Why would he be afriad to apologize for something he admitted doing? I think his lawyers have probably told him to keep his mouth shut in public until after the reinstatement hearing.

BaliBandido
Mar. 1, 2006, 11:02 PM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
I understand the moral turmoil of it all, but it's not morals or principals that are going to get you anywhere.

Ironic isn't it that the very same mindset is what got PV et al where they are today.

I'm not sure where there is moral turmoil- the thing with morality is it the line is usually pretty clear between moral and immoral behavior. I don't think there has been disagreement on either side of the issue that what PV et did was immoral, illegal, unethical, cruel, depraved, corrupt and self serving. I understand it is difficult to reconcile the PV that you and others may know whom you have had pleasant dealings with, who is a talented trainer and instructor with the PV that arranged a 'hit' on a horse. However, by all accounts PV was charming and talented before so I am not sure how one could conclusively say he is a changed man now.

What makes what he and others did so repulsive and sordid is the fact that they had so many other ways to get out from 'under' these horses, they had other options, they had the contacts to get the horse placed somewhere else if only they had not placed their own ego above the value of a life.

Do I think he will do it again- not likely, but that in and of itself does not justify reinstating him. Just as with other convicted criminals, there are rights and privledges that are forever lost once you cross over the line. He has not been stripped of his right to earn his living in the industry; and is according to many posters doing quite well in that regard. However the privledge(not the right) of being a member in good standing in an organization that claims to promote sportsmanship and the expectation of fair treatment and responsibilty to these animals is a privledge he forfeited when he of his own free will chose to engineer the death of one of those animals. There are some consequences that follow you forever, he knew that then, he took the chance, bad decision- but clearly a decision- now he lives with the result.

Personal responsibility - there should be more of it.

Silk
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:22 AM
I have an idea - LET HIM FOOT THE BILL FOR POOR MR. BIGGLESWORTH!!!!

His parents are dealing with huge medical bills to save a silly, backyard mini donkey who was ravaged by dogs and nearly died!

I would guess PV (and his millionairess wife) could easily take care of it.

Now, let him do it and NOT tell anyonehttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Silk
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Erin:
And I think that point is now. Everyone is going to have their own opinion on whether or not someone is "truly" remorseful, and I think it's best to just accept that and move on.

I for one do not care if he is remorseful or not. It doesnt change the facts. The issue is whether he should be allowed back as a member of the USEF. Let him train, sell, ride, whatever...I dont care. I dont think any horse killer should be given the staus of membership. That is really the only issue, isnt it?

Silk
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:25 AM
Duh..never mind! That was your point, wasn't it? I am tired this morninghttp://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:30 AM
His wife was a millionairess before she met him?

Dancing Lawn
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:50 AM
Dear God!!! Since WHEN have morals and ethics been expendable??? If this is the kind of society we're raising these days, God help us all.

On the other hand, maybe I'll give up morals and ethics for Lent. I can screw everyone I do business with, and actually start making some real money for a change. And they'll have no grounds to complain, as its obviously not only acceptable, but expected!

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:00 AM
Can't even think of a smart snappy answer. Truly sad place to be in. When you have no morals or ethics, then there is nothing left in society. Its the glue that keeps it together.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:11 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
What peeves ME is the fact that some people think that those of us against reinstatement have never met Paul or know what he does when the media isn't all over him. What also peeves me is that there are a number of people on here defending PV's right to be reinstated, yet you don't hear those very same people going to bat for Barney Ward, George Lindeman, or Marion Hulick. If you want one of them back, they should ALL be back.

Why so defensive? Nowhere did I direct my statements at you. I said those who haven't met Paul shouldn't be pointing fingers at him. And again, this isn't about PAUL, it's about general reinstatement for similar crimes. So no, people aren't mentioning the names of the other offenders. That seems to be a point you're missing.

jn1193
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:13 AM
Someone said earlier that Paul has become the "poster boy" for no reinstatement and I think that's true. I oppose reinstatement for ALL of them. Paul is getting the focus here because he's eligible to apply soonest. If and when Barney comes up - well, don't get me started on THAT one because Erin will be throwing many buckets of cold water on me!

At any rate the point is PRECEDENT.If Paul is reinstated, the door is opened for Marion, Barney, George Lindeman and everyone else, including Tommy Burns to be reinstated. It would be very difficult for USEF to argue a degree of evil or a degree of popularity as their yardstick for reinstatement. (We like you - you're in! We don't like you - auf weidersiein!)

Two points:
1. We need to keep up the public pressure against reinstatement on USEF and make it embarassing for Paul to even think about applying.
2. We need to pressure USEF to pass new rules about setting people down for life for convictions regarding horse industry activities. Insurance fraud, cruelty to animals, fraud, theft by deception - all sorts of nasty stuff.

Jodes, Aefvue Farms Bartender
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:15 AM
Jr Jumper: Dear Harry doesn't get defensive. What Harry does is state the facts. The facts are, horses died, these people did it, and therefore, should not be reinstated to the USEF. It's that simple. You can defend him all day long, but it's you then who has to put your head on the pillow at night knowing you come on here and defend a known horse killer.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:18 AM
Originally posted by 2hsmommy:
Anyone who rides for a living is doing it for the love of the sport. Do you honestly think people make money on horses every year? Oh, that's right, some people did try to make money off of their steeds. But some got caught.



Sure they love the sport, but what makes you think professionals aren't also in it for the money? You said it yourself...they do it for A LIVING. Thus with the intention of making an income on which they can support themselves. Not everyone makes money on horses every year, but the BNT's and BNR's that you all seem to enjoy living so vacariously through DO in fact make money off of the industry. And by "making money", you know I don't mean "committing insurance fraud", so don't try to play that card, it's not going to hold any ground.

And age is but a number for those of you who care so much about it. The fact that many of you are twice my age really has nothing to do with my knowledge of the situation and the fact that I've heard more than what the members of COTH have to say.

Janet
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:19 AM
This thread focuses on PV because he is the next one permitted to apply for reinstement.

No more, no less.

I can assure you that when BW is close to his "apply for reinstatement" date, discussion will focus on him.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by Jodes, Aefvue Farms Certified Bartender:
You can defend him all day long, but it's you then who has to put your head on the pillow at night knowing you come on here and defend a known horse killer.

I sleep well at night, thanks. And it's people like yourself that know him ONLY as a "horse killer." You can forgive, but no one is asking you to forget. Unless you're so below forgiveness that you're going to harbor hostility towards everyone who makes a publicly exposed mistake.

Silk
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:21 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
His wife was a millionairess before she met him?

Jill MArtin? Yes...Billy Martin's widow, I believe.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:23 AM
So no, people aren't mentioning the names of the other offenders.

Jrjumper why don't you read before you post. Others have been mentioned, in several posts. Once again we are not only singling out PV but he is next to be reinstated and one person has been missed already. When the next person comes up after PV we will be there, but hopefully a rule change could stop them all.

Jodes, Aefvue Farms Bartender
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:23 AM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Jodes, Aefvue Farms Certified Bartender:
You can defend him all day long, but it's you then who has to put your head on the pillow at night knowing you come on here and defend a known horse killer.

I sleep well at night, thanks. And it's people like yourself that know him ONLY as a "horse killer." You can forgive, but no one is asking you to forget. Unless you're so below forgiveness that you're going to harbor hostility towards everyone who makes a publicly exposed mistake. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is no forgiveness for someone who has killed a horse to line his pockets. Stop trying to justify yourself.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:25 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
Second of all, you don't personally know most of the people who post on this thread so you don't know that ANY of us has screwed up in ANY way. I certainaly don't appreciate YOU making this statement about ME as a poster on this BB, even in a general way. Can you spell S L A N D E R ??

If you've never messed up, I must have just met Jesus Himself. I can spell b l a s p h e m y....Don't act holier than thou, it makes you look ridiculous.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:27 AM
The fact that many of you are twice my age really has nothing to do with my knowledge of the situation and the fact that I've heard more than what the members of COTH have to say.

So why don't you share the knowledge of the situation and the facts that you have heard more than what we have said here. Maybe it would enlighten us.

JuniorJumper01
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
If that is your definition of 'the purpose', can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?

Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was 'an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse'?

Many people helped with the animals (and people) in LA and MS after Katrina. Most did it because it was what we wanted to do and didn't want (or care about) any publicity about what we were doing. Yes, PV did help out but it makes me wonder if he did it for the same reason many others did it or did he do it just to "score points"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So essentially he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he volunteers, he did it to have a better chance at reinstatement, not because he really wanted to help anyone. If he doesn't, he's a shameless horse killer who has made no attempt at reformation.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:28 AM
I wonder if Snowy has any bracelets left?

Erin
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:30 AM
Cool it, people.

JuniorJumper: be nice, be respectful, be polite, no snarking. You're more than welcome to express your opinion, but if you're just coming on the thread trying to rile people up, you're not going to be allowed to continue to participate on the thread.

And the rest of you -- stop taking the bait.

Renn/aissance
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:53 AM
JrJumper, since you seem to know more inside information than the rest of us, please do share it in detail so that we can understand the full story. Otherwise you come off as saying things that have no basis in order to defend him from a charge that you don't understand in full because you weren't around then and so don't know all the details.

I wasn't around then either. And I don't know all the details. That's why I'm interested to hear more of Valliere's side of the story. Even those of us who were around when the horses were killed don't necessarily know Valliere's side of the story. It's not about attacking you or him. It's wanting to know the truth.

Truth is an amalgam: one's own perspective and the other person's perspectives combined with the hard facts. We've got two of those. Please do enlighten us and tell us Valliere's side of the story so that we can have all three.

shade
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:07 AM
There are a lot of people on here that WERE around and DO know the details and knew & know PV quite well. So please JrJp stop telling us we don't know what we're talking about and don't know the whole story. And as I said previously donating money does not say contributing to the horse community to me. I posted several ideas a while ago that to me would be some things these people could do to show that they really are sorry for what they did and want to give back to the horse community. Since they are the ones that have put such a black eye on our industry. We didn't do it..they did.

Countryhawk
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:18 AM
To PV it is all about money, the horses were killed because of the money and he thinks forgiveness comes with donating money.

To me it does not.

There are people taking in horses, retraining them so they have useful lives, yes that takes money but it also takes the love of the horse, which I haven't seen that he has shown. Others rescue PMU foals a byproduct of the medical industry, for the love of the horse.

No where has PV etal shown love of the horse, it is all about the money to them. So no he has not changed. It still is about the money.

Duffy
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
<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:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
If that is your definition of 'the purpose', can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?

Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was 'an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse'?

Many people helped with the animals (and people) in LA and MS after Katrina. Most did it because it was what we wanted to do and didn't want (or care about) any publicity about what we were doing. Yes, PV did help out but it makes me wonder if he did it for the same reason many others did it or did he do it just to "score points"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So essentially he's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. If he volunteers, he did it to have a better chance at reinstatement, not because he really wanted to help anyone. If he doesn't, he's a shameless horse killer who has made no attempt at reformation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm - I posted somewhere to this point. I asked, essentially, if anyone knew of any other charitable acts that PV performed before the suspension, thus showing a pattern. If the pattern is NOT there, then what else are we supposed to think?

SGray
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by Janet:......When someone applies for parole, MANY things are taken into consideration (not just whether or not he has violated the terms of the original sentence). This often includes testimony by the victims, and other members of the community. This typically includes some people supporting parole, and others opposed to granting parole. Parole can be denied, even if he has been a model prisoner, and complied will all the terms of the original sentence.......

yep - Charles Manson has had several parole hearings - hasn't been let out yet though

BaliBandido
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by JuniorJumper01:
I said those who haven't met Paul shouldn't be pointing fingers at him.
I'm not sure meeting Paul would change the facts of his case. In fact most people who sit on a parole board or are involved with mediation etc are not personally aquainted with the people that come before them. They deal only with the evidence presented, not personal issues. They do take personal references as to charachter, but their goal is to remain objective not emotional.

I have never met Kenneth Lay either, but from the facts presented about him and his dealings I have formed an opinion, so I am not sure why you feel it is necessary to meet PV before forming and voicing an opinion on what he did and if he should be reinstated. Even if he is a very nice man, gifted with a horse and rider etc, it will not change my opinion of his actions, it will not undue what has been done. Although I think that is what has happened with some of his supporters, they have met him and are very charmed by him, so they have to defend him to justify their own association with him.

I don't think that should be the case either, every one has their own personal boundary and should be respectfully entitled to it.

Riggs
Mar. 2, 2006, 10:13 AM
OK, at risk of being set on fire, can I just suggest that maybe going forward we could just talk about reinstatement and not PV in particular. As I mentioned oh maybe 100 pages ago! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif I dont think there is much point in going around and around in circles about any one particular person's morals and what they think or dont think or mean or dont mean, because everyone has their opinions and are NOT about to change them no matter what the other 'side' says.
So why not talk about bracelets, reinstatement or not, and leave suppositions and he said/she saids out of it? That way maybe we can move forward with the discussion instead of circling like a crazed disco ball.

Countryhawk
Mar. 2, 2006, 10:16 AM
'Here is an idea for PV. Maybe he could rescue a few OTTBs from the meat truck, train them to have a useful career, and sell them for a low price - just to cover their purchase expense. You know, nice litte local show hunters for pony club kids. Sure, it would take his time, and he wouldn't be making judges or BNT fees for it, but quality training will always help those unfortunate horses to find a home. Unless he would have a problem training a less than stellar talented horse....hmm oh yeah, he already had a problem with his ability to do that '



Fairfiew

That would mean more to me than a few dollars tossed to 'noteworthy' places. He would be saving at risk horses, and with his talents, that all his supports say he has, he can find them meaningful jobs.

Janet
Mar. 2, 2006, 10:25 AM
OK, at risk of being set on fire, can I just suggest that maybe going forward we could just talk about reinstatement and not PV in particular.
Because the USEF has to address the applicaitions for reinstantement ONE AT A TIME, each on its OWN merits.

The USEF can NOT make any kind of group decision about ALL the suspended persons who cna apply for reinstatnement. It has to make a separate decision about EACH application for reinstatement.

SGray
Mar. 2, 2006, 10:29 AM
For the record, I believe that the below list of individuals should not be allowed to join the USEF nor should they be allowed to compete as non-members at any sanctioned shows.


Richard Bailey
Nancy Banfield (she may be in but that does not alter my opinion)
Donna Brown
Robert Brown (no - this is not Buddy)
Tommy Burns aka Tim Ray
Robert Cheska
Jerry Farmer (dead)
Tammie Glaspie
Kenneth Hansen
James Heinsohn
Dr Ross Hugi
Marion Hulick
Donna Hunter
Michael Hunter
James Hutson
Lisa Kinney
Herb Kroninger
Alan Levinson
George Lindemann, Jr.
Ron Mueller
Georg Nuber
Matt O'Connor
Laura Stern-Grzebieniak
Phil Sudakoff
Scott Thompson
Paul Valliere
Barney Ward
Dana Waters nee Tripp (courtesy of one_star_or_bust)
Steve Williamson
Brenda 'Joni' Youngblood


The above list includes some convicted of involvement and not necessarily former members of the (then) AHSA, thus, not all were suspended.

That is a first run-through - there are more that I will add as I review the cases.

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 10:32 AM
I don't think it is our place to suggest what may or may not be remorse. It is nothing we can recognize until after the fact and not a criteria we can validate. You say give away 5 horses to poor kids, take on students for free...then it is how many for how long and that is not our debate.

As to the youngster who defends PV. All children especially college kids think they have the solutions all the questions of how the world should run and then by 40 they learn how much they don't know. Time will solve that problem in it's own time.

Youngsters are basically self serving and demanding so it is no surprise they prefer people who don't make them feel inferior for not having a social conscience yet.

One Star
Mar. 2, 2006, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by SGray:
For the record, I believe that the below list of individuals should not be allowed to join the USEF nor should they be allowed to compete as non-members at any sanctioned shows.

Donna Brown
Tommy Burns aka Tim Ray
Robert Cheska
Jerry Farmer
Tammie Glaspie
James Heinsohn
Marion Hulick
Donna Hunter
Michael Hunter
James Hutson
Lisa Kinney
Alan Levinson
George Lindemann, Jr.
Georg Nuber
Matt O'Connor
Laura Stern-Grzebieniak
Paul Valliere
Barney Ward
Brenda 'Joni' Youngblood


The above list includes some convicted of involvement and not necessarily former members of the (then) AHSA, thus, not all were suspended.

That is a first run-through - there are more that I will add as I review the cases.

Dana Waters nee Tripp

Perfect Pony
Mar. 2, 2006, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
As to the youngster who defends PV. All children especially college kids think they have the solutions all the questions of how the world should run and then by 40 they learn how much they don't know. Time will solve that problem in it's own time.

Youngsters are badically self serving and demanding so it is no surprise they prefer people who don;t make them feel inferior for not having a social conscience yet.

What an awesome post! My favorite so far. It is so SO true. We've all been there.

I do have to say though, reading posts by high school/college students just makes me fear for the future of America. Even though I thought I knew everything at that age....I thought I knew how to save the world, not how to destroy it quicker. I was busy being a vegitarian, buying everything from thrift stores and driving the smallest/most fuel efficient car I could find. I took all that 60s and 70s stuff seriously.

I can't imagine supporting a horse killer and talking about how business rules and morality is out of date http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

I want to add, I do know there are some great young people out there. I just can't believe how much the money/power/greed/bling stuff is so pervasive though...It's weird for this ex-hippy turned punk rocker who thought it was cool to be against the messed up "system".

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 11:34 AM
Originally posted by shade:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">One is not necessarily entitled to forgiveness; one must earn it. And one is not automatically entitled to respect and compliments from their peers; one must earn that as well.

None of the supporters have been able to tell us what PV has done to earn our forgivenes other than donate his lesson money and help with the hurricane horses. IMO that is not enough, not considering the crime that was committed. I personnally would like to see time and energy donated. But that's just me. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shade-What I am trying to say to you is that he IS trying, and that there have been a NUMBER of efforts on his part to try and 'earn forgiveness'...In the few attempts that were made public, he was attacked and accused of being sefl-righteous. Unfortunately the many ways he has offered his time and money to help withouth any publicity have gone just that, unknown.
My point of view is as someone who does interact with Paul on a regular basis, I DO Know of many times and instances where he has offered time and strength to various causes...I know of these because I see him, or, when I wonder why he isnt in the ring that day, I discover that he is off somewhere, helping someone, or countless strangers.

I wouldn't expect you to know the many charities, or donations of time hes made, because they are not flown on a billboard, or advertised by Paul.

Could it, perhaps, that these truly ARE efforts to try and earn forgiveness? Consider this...

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:

A 'real arguement'?

First of all, I despise arguing...

My only case is FORGIVENESS.

I just wish people would stop for one second, and take thier feet off this man's neck long enough for him to BE SORRY.

You have to give people a CHANCE.

There is not one person on this board who hasn't screwed upin some way in their life, and not been offered a chance to make amends.

Perhaps our mistakes werent as incomprehensible, or made public, but we have all been granted forgiveness at one point.

Try it folks..it makes YOU a better person. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

First of all, he's had about ten years to "Be Sorry".

Second of all, you don't personally know most of the people who post on this thread so you don't know that ANY of us has screwed up in ANY way. I certainaly don't appreciate YOU making this statement about ME as a poster on this BB, even in a general way. Can you spell S L A N D E R ?? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S L A N D E R??

Yes, and I can read A N G E R ...

No, i dont know everyone on this board, but I did assume we were all human...All Holy Souls and Saints are to be excluded from my aforementioned group. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
If that is your definition of 'the purpose', can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?

Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was 'an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse'?

Many people helped with the animals (and people) in LA and MS after Katrina. Most did it because it was what we wanted to do and didn't want (or care about) any publicity about what we were doing. Yes, PV did help out but it makes me wonder if he did it for the same reason many others did it or did he do it just to "score points"? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Please see both sides..maybe he DID do it just to help out...?

I will admit, I did have the chance to speak with him while he was in the rescue process...And I do have to say, it was a most life-altering experience for him in many ways...

I'm sure all will find some way to attack both of us for this comment, but it is the truth.

Janet
Mar. 2, 2006, 11:50 AM
I think he is to be commended for helping out in the aftermath of Katrina. And the fact that I (at least) had not heard about it before this means it was NOT "just a publicity stunt".

So it counts in his favor.

But it is still open to judgement how it balances against the negative items.

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by Janet:
I think he is to be commended for helping out in the aftermath of Katrina. And the fact that I (at least) had not heard about it before this means it was NOT "just a publicity stunt".

So it counts in his favor.

But it is still open to judgement how it balances against the negative items.

Yes, I understand...and Thank You.

It will take quite a bit, but an effort is an effort, and since only good can come from it, should at least be encouraged, rather than criticized.

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 12:04 PM
There is nothing to fear the vast majority of youngsters turn out just fine and it is simply the way of the world. There are some who refuse to mature and I think those are easy to recognize.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 12:25 PM
Anthem, there were thousands of people who helped out after the hurricanes. Many left their jobs, homes, families for extended periods of time. They were not encouraged to do so, they just felt compelled to go. That is human nature. I don't feel that one person should be singled out and commended for their efforts, it is just something you do. Many people who for whatever reason could not go there to help, sent money, food, clothing. I do not think that the things I have done in the name of charity or compassion makes me a better person, or atones for any wrongs, it is just something that needs to get done. No one encourages me, I do it on my own.

shade
Mar. 2, 2006, 12:36 PM
Anthem..you are the first pro-PV person to come on here and tell us that he has been trying to give back to the horse community in many ways other than the hurricane relief or just donating money. Thank You

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
Anthem, there were thousands of people who helped out after the hurricanes. Many left their jobs, homes, families for extended periods of time. They were not encouraged to do so, they just felt compelled to go. That is human nature. I don't feel that one person should be singled out and commended for their efforts, it is just something you do. Many people who for whatever reason could not go there to help, sent money, food, clothing. I do not think that the things I have done in the name of charity or compassion makes me a better person, or atones for any wrongs, it is just something that needs to get done. No one encourages me, I do it on my own.

Harry, this is what I am trying to say...

He did this ON HIS OWN.

The only reason I know is because he was gone for weeks... ( unfortunately right before New England Finals, but... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif)

Shade-Thank You, More than you know.
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 12:54 PM
But Anthem, didn't you say we should encourage him? You know, it is extremely easy for those with money and non structured jobs to donate time and cash. I think that the child who gives up a portion of their allowance, or the ones in this area that gave up a week of showing and sent a truckload of hay, that is an act of charity. They weren't encouraged, these are kids who compete against each other for points, who decided on their own to make an effort. I would have a difficult time encouraging someone to be charitable, when I see children showing charitable instincts
on their own.

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 12:58 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
But Anthem, didn't you say we should encourage him? You know, it is extremely easy for those with money and non structured jobs to donate time and cash. I think that the child who gives up a portion of their allowance, or the ones in this area that gave up a week of showing and sent a truckload of hay, that is an act of charity. They weren't encouraged, these are kids who compete against each other for points, who decided on their own to make an effort. I would have a difficult time encouraging someone to be charitable, when I see children showing charitable instincts
on their own.

Well, Harry, Paul is neither a child, or without money..but isn't is unfair to discriminate against him because of it, don't you think? I don't think anyone encouaraged him to do it, I'm not even sure they asked. He just went.

He is a healthy man who can donate both money and strength, and he does. Just becasue he isnt down and out doesnt make his efforts less valuable.

I'm sure the families of Katrina appreciated any help they could get...

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 01:03 PM
Anthem, you were the one telling the rest of us to encourage him. I simply was attempting to point out that most people perform acts of kindness and charity without encouragement.

anthem35
Mar. 2, 2006, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
Anthem, you were the one telling the rest of us to encourage him. I simply was attempting to point out that most people perform acts of kindness and charity without encouragement.


Got it, now I read what you're saying..

OK-poor choice of words...perhaps not 'encouragement', maybe just less 'criticism'...and just maybe acknowledgement....

Equit8tor
Mar. 2, 2006, 01:10 PM
"less 'criticism'" of what?
and "acknowledgement" of what?

shade
Mar. 2, 2006, 01:43 PM
And I have to say no matter what any of them do it will never be enough for me to want them reinstated. The crime is just too heinous. But considering what they did they all should be giving back to the whole horse community..just because.

SGray
Mar. 2, 2006, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by SGray:
For the record, I believe that the below list of individuals should not be allowed to join the USEF nor should they be allowed to compete as non-members at any sanctioned shows.


Richard Bailey
Nancy Banfield (she may be in but that does not alter my opinion)
Donna Brown
Robert Brown
Tommy Burns aka Tim Ray
Robert Cheska
Jerry Farmer
Tammie Glaspie
Kenneth Hansen
James Heinsohn
Dr Ross Hugi
Marion Hulick
Donna Hunter
Michael Hunter
James Hutson
Lisa Kinney
Herb Kroninger
Alan Levinson
George Lindemann, Jr.
Ron Mueller
Georg Nuber
Matt O'Connor
Laura Stern-Grzebieniak
Phil Sudakoff
Scott Thompson
Paul Valliere
Barney Ward
Dana Waters nee Tripp (courtesy of one_star_or_bust)
Steve Williamson
Brenda 'Joni' Youngblood


The above list includes some convicted of involvement and not necessarily former members of the (then) AHSA, thus, not all were suspended.

That is a first run-through - there are more that I will add as I review the cases.

and who are those Federal Fraud dudes? I want to add them to my list

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 01:47 PM
And I still contend that no one is pushing to reinstate Marion Hulick, and look at what she did in terms of training, and working with young people for 30 or 40 years before being set down for this. She was a legend when I was a child. Barney Ward doesn't have people supporting him, all he wants to do is watch his son ride. George Lindemann, no group of wide eyed supporters. Why should they be considered any more guilty than anyone else involved?

Andrew
Mar. 2, 2006, 02:47 PM
I will admit, I did have the chance to speak with him while he was in the rescue process...And I do have to say, it was a most life-altering experience for him in many ways...

Well, blessed be......
It STILL doesn't change the past Nor should he or any of the others be reinstated. plain and simple. I know many Legal Judges who have told me that prior to sentencing, the defendat more offten and not is remorseful and have found the Lord. And the Judges says, "you should of thought of your actions and the consiquences first not standing before me now?"

Sandy M
Mar. 2, 2006, 02:49 PM
Robert Brown, as in "Buddy" Brown?

I just wondered because I THOUGHT that only his (then?) wife was involved...

Just curious because there is a clinic (and apparently new permanent location) for Buddy and Vanessa(?) Brown locally and I wondered if it were the same people....

Riggs
Mar. 2, 2006, 02:52 PM
Janet, in response to your response to my post -the fact that each person will be judged on their particular merit does not have anything to do with my point.
Can we not discuss what the rules of merit might be/should be? How we feel about reinstatement without always, ALWAYS coming back to one particular person?

Anthem, you keep making the same point over and over again. We get your point. WE GET IT! The fact that some may not agree with it, does not mean they dont understand it. Can we move on now?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 2, 2006, 02:56 PM
Where's the applause meter? We need it now.. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif Thanks Riggs..

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:14 PM
Sandy M, Robert Brown is NOT Buddy Brown. Buddy Brown had left Acres Wild Farm, and was not with Donna Brown at the time of these horrific incidents.

Linus
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens:
Anthem, there were thousands of people who helped out after the hurricanes. Many left their jobs, homes, families for extended periods of time. They were not encouraged to do so, they just felt compelled to go. That is human nature. I don't feel that one person should be singled out and commended for their efforts, it wis just something you do. Many people who for whatever reason could not go there to help, sent money, food, clothing. I do not think that the things I have done in the name of charity or compassion makes me a better person, or atones for any wrongs, it is just something that needs to get done. No one encourages me, I do it on my own.

But when you're considering the question of whether Paul Valliere has made a contribution to the horse community or deserves forgiveness, of course his participation in charity will be singled out.

He really can't win at this point (which is perhaps deserved, given his crime). If he toots his own horn about good deeds, he's criticized for being fake. If he doesn't, nobody knows, and he's criticized for not doing anything.

He has to do some good if he's to be reinstated -- shows he's been "rehabilitated." But if he didn't do these things before being suspended, he's obviously just making a game of it. Etc.

I'm against reinstatement, but there's definitely a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't thing going on here.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:27 PM
I am in total agreement with that Linus.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:30 PM
No damned if you do, damned if you don't. You just don't, period. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Who knows if any criminal is rehabilitated? Stats in many cases proved otherwise. We can't undo history. But we can keep people from slipping thru the cracks back into the sport.

VirginiaBred
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:38 PM
We can't undo history. But we can keep people from slipping thru the cracks back into the sport.
Well said radio.
Rehabilitation is abstract. Every individual rehabilitates differently, some more throughly than others.
When you kill an innocent, beautiful, trusting animal for selfish greed, how do you get rehabilitated for that? Those are life lessons that are learned from birth. These people didn't learn them. In this case, you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:53 PM
I believe the word in the Rules is "REFORMATION" not Rehabilitation. I think to have reformed is much more stringent. If I'm wrong I know I shall be corrected.

VirginiaBred
Mar. 2, 2006, 03:59 PM
That sounds right to me, Snowy! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Linus
Mar. 2, 2006, 05:58 PM
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">We can't undo history. But we can keep people from slipping thru the cracks back into the sport.
Well said radio.
Rehabilitation is abstract. Every individual rehabilitates differently, some more throughly than others.ting whether PV or anyone has "truly" b
When you kill an innocent, beautiful, trusting animal for selfish greed, how do you get rehabilitated for that? Those are life lessons that are learned from birth. These people didn't learn them. In this case, you can't teach an old dog new tricks. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Don't get me wrong, I agree with the sentiment. But clearly the rules allow for the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation or whatever, and PV has done some things that at least look like rehabilitation. Can we acknowledge that, at least?

Surely parole boards know that a prisoner coming up for parole might not volunteer to teach others to read purely out of the goodness of his heart. But they would still look upon it favorably: at least he's trying. There's no way for them to know the state of the guy's heart. They have to look at what he does.

Is the problem with PV himself and how remorseful he may or may not be (which most of us have no earthly way of knowing)? Or is it with the organization allowing for the possibility of reinstatement?

Riggs
Mar. 2, 2006, 06:53 PM
Good lord amighty. Can we just let PV go and talk in generalities?
That way we MIGHT be able to keep this thread alive with some constructive discussion....
We all get the gist of the big pro-publicity-change-everyone's-mind-or-at-least-get-the-word out. Now will you let it GO?
Your post was interesting except for the greek chorus chant....

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:03 PM
Linus, the problem is not with PV himself, it is with ALL of the individuals involved in the insurance/horse killing scandal.

jn1193
Mar. 2, 2006, 07:51 PM
Sgray - well, there is one member of your list who for sure won't be reinstated: Jerry Farmer died and is, if there is justice, probably spending enternity working on another type of reinstatement entirely. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:15 PM
Hopefully he is the pooper scooper keeping the pasture clean where our loving horses wait for our arrival. There are a lot of great horsemen there to make sure the horses and ponies and dogs are safe.

PV is not the target and from the sounds of it his supporters agree that no one else should be Re-Instated. These other ones are the evil ones who convinced him to do what he did. If it was not for his courage to wear the wire the others might have all skated free.

And, his supporters think we are the tools of those he committed to exile.We have mental syndromes of Narcisim, delusions of grandeur, messianic syndromes and all sorts of other evil maladies of the human creature.But PV is the hero of the real war.

All of which is irrelevant and as said many times by Erin the Facts Please! The fact is that heinous deeds were done. Apparently they were quite socially acceptable in their time. But, they are not socially acceptable to us in this time and place.

The issue is how and what we do to make ourselves heard by a Federation which is NEW and was not there then. There doesn't seem to be any moral leadership. When we studied history we wondered how the "society" could look the other way during times when charismatic leaders used their talent to lead them down a bad trail.

So, our question to ourselves is do we whine and complain and weep over past glory days or do we find a way to make those few who do have a vote represent our dreams for a level playing field where horses are respected?

While the supporters of PV say well he wasn't the worst! While the supporters of PV say everyone was doing worse!

What exactly is it that we say? Do we have a Manifesto that spells out what we believe? What are the definitions and conditions beyond which we have no tolerance?

Will we all be interviewed one day and say well we tried we voiced our opposition but they went ahead and they corrupted the most beautiful relationship ever had on earth between men and their horses for a $2.00 piece of rayon.

BaliBandido
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:23 PM
So does the fact that Nancy Banfield got reinstated make it harder to deny PV or any others? Like once you let one back in, how can you not for the others? Or do you think each and every application for reinstatement will be heard on a case by case and not follow precedents?

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:27 PM
If you have a prison and two guys manage to swim out of Alcatraz are you required then to let everyone else go free?

Boberry
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:32 PM
PV and others have not met the majority of people in the USEF, but they have hurt them. Why is the membership being attacked for "not being open to forgiveness"? Why can't we hold people responsible for hurting the horse industry? The convicted had the membership's trust, but they abused that trust. They lost it, not us.

BaliBandido
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
If you have a prison and two guys manage to swim out of Alcatraz are you required then to let everyone else go free?

Well actually, I was thinking more along the lines of legal arguments. The fact that one person slipped by might make an argument for the others. I am not sure I know what Nancy Banfield did or how it relates to the severity of what the others did, so that is why I asked if a case by case review was most likely what would happen.

Not at all saying I think it is a good idea, Snowbird. Relax, deep breath.

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 08:44 PM
There is no reason BoBerry except if we let them manipulate us and make us feel guilty for being moral. If they make morality and integrity a passive ancient philosophy then they are right and we are wrong.

If the finality of contemporary thinking is a tolerance for abuse of the law then they are right and we are wrong. If killing horses for a profit is a tolerable idea then they are right and we are wrong.

My point is if we are right then what do we do to make the whole situation right? We can feel good if we Memorialize the horses that died but how do we change what is acceptable to unacceptable?

It would seem since she came up first for possible re-instatement that what she did was less heinous. Was it only because we didn't know? Probably.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:16 PM
What Nancy Banfield did was as premeditated and heinous as any of the horse killings.

Rub The Lamp was a SUPER NICE HORSE..and only 10 years old. Two years after being a top junior hunter for his former owner.. Nancy Banfield had him electrocuted.

Snowbird
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:19 PM
racetb I did say probably. We were not notified and our opinion was not requested. We have found out now! There should be 21 others we can express our opinions about if we find the way to do it.

One Star
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:20 PM
I actually thought Snowy's Alcatraz allusion was kind of clever... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:22 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

One Star
Mar. 2, 2006, 09:28 PM
This is excerpted from "What About the Horse? Controversy in the Equestrian Show Scene" by Lindsay Turcotte.

It says it all for me.

"When all else fails, when the horse has been beaten, trained with less-than desirable methods, and drugged into oblivion, and he no longer has what it takes to win constantly, there is one final way for an owner or trainer to get their money's worth out of the horse: Insurance fraud. In 1998 thirteen owners and trainers suffered expulsion from the American Horse Show Association for anywhere from five to twenty five years after their horses suffered much worse fates than they. Nancy Banfield, from New York, arranged to have her horse, Rub The Lamp, electrocuted. Lisa Brandon participated in the murder of the horse Cloud Castle. Jerry Farmer, from Georgia, was involved in electrocution schemes. Ross Hugi, D.V.M., witnessed a trainer kill the horse Jatomic Streaker by flipping him out of a horse trailer and beating the horse to death with a hammer. He then falsified the cause of death records. Alan Levinson, from Illinois, schemed to kill Rainman, who was later electrocuted. George Lindemann JR, from Florida, and Marion Hulick, from Massachusetts, hired a killer to electrocute Charisma, who brought $250,000 in insurance money. Ronald Mueller from Spring Grove, Illinois killed many horses by means of sledgehammer, crowbar, live cremation, and electrocution. Barney Ward of Brewster, New York, arranged to electrocute four horses. Steve Williamson of Chicago, Illinois stood "lookout" while the electrocution of Empire took place. He later helped create the colic symptoms that would be deemed the cause of death.

These are only some of the cases of insurance fraud that happen world wide. They are all centered in the United States, not because this is a problem exclusive to the United States, but because these are the cases that were prosecuted by the American Horse Show Association in 1998. Other means of killing horses for insurance purposes are by stuffing ping pong balls up the horse's nostrils, causing him to thrash to his death within five minutes, and using a baseball bat or a two-by-four to simulate an accidental leg break. All too often, these procedures take place, for monetary desire."

BaliBandido
Mar. 3, 2006, 02:31 AM
Originally posted by Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.:
What Nancy Banfield did was as premeditated and heinous as any of the horse killings.

Rub The Lamp was a SUPER NICE HORSE..and only 10 years old. Two years after being a top junior hunter for his former owner.. Nancy Banfield had him electrocuted.

Holy sh*t! I didn't know that, I mean I am sure I have read it here a zillion pages ago- but had forgotten her tie into this mess.

How on earth did that go down so quietly? I would have supported every effort to prevent that from happening, like I am with this one and any one that comes after.

My real question now becomes even more pertinent- NB is back in and her offense was just as bad as PV, do you think he can use that as leverage against USEF? I wonder what NB did in the interim that showed her remorse, rehabilitation and that she had reformed. Does any one know what she was doing during her 'hiatus'?

N&B&T
Mar. 3, 2006, 06:33 AM
The actual language might be an aide to discussion. I have emphasized some language in bold and omitted any particular name or time frame to make it easier to discuss generally.


NAMED PERSON is hereby expelled from membership in the AHSA and denied all the privileges of membership including the ability to hold or exercise office in the association, attend or participate in association meetings, hold license(s) as an AHSA or FEI official, compete in international competitions or receive AHSA automatic insurance coverages or participate in AHSA group insurance programs and is found not in good standing and he and all horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his are found not in good standing and are suspended from competing or taking any part whatsoever in Recognized competitions and he is excluded from all competition grounds during Recognized competitions as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. The panel members also directed that the Hearing Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter, and NAMED PERSON may not apply to the Association for reinstatement any sooner than XX years from the date he first became suspended by the Association on account of his indictment for the crime in question and then only based upon affirmative proof of total rehabilitation, including proof that he has taken steps to reform himself and has performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses.

.
The language is interesting; and somewhat vague and conflicting: ie, expelled vs suspension; and the implication that he may not *apply* for reinstatement without affirmative proof etc. At least that is how it *reads*.

"Community service to benefit the welfare of horses" is IMO different from "contributing to the horse community".

Also notice indictment vs. conviction.

Reinstatement includes a lot more than being at the ring with his students.

Hope this furthers general discussion.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Mar. 3, 2006, 06:40 AM
How on earth did that go down so quietly?
Good question, Bali. She was a real treat...and is happily, and with seeming impunity,back at the horse shows.

anthem35
Mar. 3, 2006, 07:04 AM
Originally posted by Equit8tor:
"less 'criticism'" of what?
and "acknowledgement" of what?

"Criticism" of any or all efforts to TRY to make amends?

"Acknowledgement" that there have been several ocassions that he has actually given more then just money...

anthem35
Mar. 3, 2006, 07:08 AM
Originally posted by Riggs:
Janet, in response to your response to my post -the fact that each person will be judged on their particular merit does not have anything to do with my point.
Can we not discuss what the rules of merit might be/should be? How we feel about reinstatement without always, ALWAYS coming back to one particular person?

Anthem, you keep making the same point over and over again. We get your point. WE GET IT! The fact that some may not agree with it, does not mean they dont understand it. Can we move on now?

WOW. That was completely uncalled for...

You have 3,000 people here on this board supporting the No-Reinstatement petition,and you single ONE opposer fighting a lonely battle. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 3, 2006, 07:17 AM
You really want to make this personal instead of sticking to the issue, don't you anthem35. That is what that post was about. The issue, not a personal vendetta against PV. The issue being, if somehow we have lost it, is that many of us believe there should be no-reinstatement for these perpetrators. And that people have already slipped back into the sport. Thus we all need to be very aware when someone comes up for APPYING for re-instatement.

anthem35
Mar. 3, 2006, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
You really want to make this personal instead of sticking to the issue, don't you anthem35. That is what that post was about. The issue, not a personal vendetta against PV. The issue being, if somehow we have lost it, is that many of us believe there should be no-reinstatement for these perpetrators. And that people have already slipped back into the sport. Thus we all need to be very aware when someone comes up for APPYING for re-instatement.

Wait..hang on..

WHAT HAVE I EVER DONE to make this personal???

I have had no less than 10 of you anti-PVers e-mail me personally the nastiest letters I have ever gotten.

I have been NOTHING but respectful to EVERYONE.

Please, I would like to know...

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Mar. 3, 2006, 07:33 AM
If you have gotten nasty emails from this board, then you need to forward them to Erin. The BB has rules, which I know Erin has stated to all of us. She will handle that.

anthem35
Mar. 3, 2006, 07:36 AM
Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
If you have gotten nasty emails from this board, then you need to forward them to Erin. The BB has rules, which I know Erin has stated to all of us. She will handle that.

You know, I would really prefer to just ignore them, rather than add fuel to the fire...

I really have no patience for people that can't fight fair.

jn1193
Mar. 3, 2006, 08:08 AM
It would be really interesting to find out, who - if anyone - is willing to insure or insuring horses either owned by Paul or in Paul's care, custody & control these days

I remember when a couple of insurance agencies told me that they would no longer insure horses going into some of the Chicago area barns or into Barney's. But I wonder what folks like Shawna Deitrich or Ernie Oare would have to say on this issue right about now.

So, anthem, there's a question that can be asked without being inflammatory: where does your insurance company stand? Are your horses insured and do they know your horses are under Paul's care, custody and control? How about mwe?

On another note: Yes, Nancy Banfield did slip through and we should be ashamed that happened. I am wondering for the show managers (Snowy) if it is possible - should more folks be reinstated - to refuse their entries. I know Dolores Swan wouldn't have a problem with it. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif But would any other show manager step up and be willing to make that kind of stand. I mean, WEF is refusing entries from an "R" judge who complained about them putting up new stabling tents behind her property! (It's on another thread.) Does that even compare to this? Could we (the No REIN people) lobby them? Just a thought.

And, anthem, if you are getting awful emails, do forward them to Erin or another moderator. That is part of what they are here for. You are sticking up for your friend in the face of all odds and I hope Paul appreciates it. I don't agree with you and personally would never give Paul a dime or the time of day ever again, but we've all had friends our parents disapproved of or other friends didn't like. You obviously can take the heat, so stay in the kitchen if you like. Just beware of getting burnt.

VirginiaBred
Mar. 3, 2006, 08:15 AM
Fascinating post, jn1193! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Andrew
Mar. 3, 2006, 08:16 AM
You know, I would really prefer to just ignore them, rather than add fuel to the fire...

You have just lost ALL creditbility. If I were getting these "so- called emails" I certainly would have forwared and contacted Erin without a doubt!
We can have a healthy debate on this subject, but when threats and vial personal attacks occur that's crossing the line and where it should stop. So are you contacting Erin?

Erin
Mar. 3, 2006, 08:17 AM
anthem, I think the comment about you "making this personal" was referring to the fact that you always bring this back to PV as an individual, which results in several pages of "is not!"/"is so!" type rubbish that is pretty pointless, because not everyone is going to agree on an assessment of an individual.

This thread would probably be a lot more productive if it stayed on the topic of reinstatement in general, rather than on specific cases.

BaliBandido
Mar. 3, 2006, 08:34 AM
Originally posted by Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">How on earth did that go down so quietly?
Good question, Bali. She was a real treat...and is happily, and with seeming impunity,back at the horse shows. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Since I am not familiar with her so much, is she a trainer? With clients and horses at the shows competing? I wonder if she has recieved any flak or if people just look the other way. I would feel very uncomfortable in the company of any of these people.

Since there are so many people who are opposed to the reinstatment of these people I wonder if it is just a matter of time before there is some type of altercation or protest.