PDA

View Full Version : The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.



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

War Admiral
Jan. 20, 2006, 06:34 AM
Originally posted by N&B&T:
There is a reporter who would like to talk to Palm Beach County residents, seasonal or year-round, about the website and the petition.

PT me for how to contact the reporter.

Bumping this up with N&BT's request - can anyone who lives even part time in Palm Beach County help?

Listen, believe me, I'd FAR rather not speak for publication EITHER, but I know I have to.

War Admiral
Jan. 20, 2006, 07:58 PM
Picked up 126 more signatures today. Keep crossposting!

big dawg
Jan. 20, 2006, 10:32 PM
hey, I have a great idea...Why don't we get all those homeless New Orleans folks to come protest in front of the PB Courthouse? They've got nothing else to do, and many have been sent to the cold parts of the country...PB County in January? Gotta love it.

xegeba
Jan. 20, 2006, 10:38 PM
Who is willing to man the "NOLA AGAINST REINSTATEMENT " lunch line?

big dawg
Jan. 21, 2006, 02:00 AM
How about the NOLA mayor? he would like chocolate milk served however.

N&B&T
Jan. 21, 2006, 03:07 AM
big dawg (et al)
Are you yourself a Palm Beach county resident? If so, I would be happy to put you in touch with the reporter I mentioned earlier in the thread, as you obviously have an enduring interest in this issue. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Of course, if you are just the kind of person who likes to make anonymous, obnoxious, and vitriolic statements on a bulletin board, you will not be willing to present your views publically, under your real name. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Obscure, sniggering remarks are for schoolchildren. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

blubays
Jan. 23, 2006, 06:30 AM
Yes, that is a great idea! Both Big Dawg and Sheila. It would be fun to see them explaining why they are promoting the convicted horse killers and why they think the way they do.

Duffy
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:52 AM
Just looking at my most recent COTH (dated 1/20) - in the "Look Back" section, there's a blurb, "Florida Investigators Break Up Nationwide Insurance Scam...2/15/1991" (It's on pages 80-81)

equissmiss
Jan. 23, 2006, 12:41 PM
I am for NO Reinstatement of ALL of the offenders that have been suspended. I am wondering why the petition is only for PV and not any of the other people involved?

Duffy
Jan. 23, 2006, 12:52 PM
Because different criminals come up for possible reinstatement at different times. It's been advised that they need to be addressed separately.

Sheila H
Jan. 23, 2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by blubays:
Yes, that is a great idea! Both Big Dawg and Sheila. It would be fun to see them explaining why they are promoting the convicted horse killers and why they think the way they do.

I've already explained it. Killing horses is a part of the game, and insurance fraud is widely tolerated in both the horse world and society at large.

zoehesed
Jan. 23, 2006, 03:58 PM
Wow sheila... firstly its a sad thing to say that horse killing and insurrance fruad are tolerated in the industry....so what if they are??? Maybe it's time for us to take a stand and say ENOUGH! It's NOT ok! Horse killing and insurrance fraud should NOT be tolerated in any way and if it is... we should stop it.

TWF
Jan. 23, 2006, 07:26 PM
If it was YOUR horse..I doubt if you could even speak of the act...let alone condone (tolerate) the act.

It's a sad day that allows this to be a NORMAL of our INDUSTRY..

Sheila H
Jan. 23, 2006, 07:49 PM
What are you talking about? I've had horses put down before. So have most people.

Edited to say that the ones I had put down didn't die as tragically as the ones I found 'good' homes for. The do-gooders were the ones who starved, mistreated and resold (with new birthdays) the horses they got from me.

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:11 PM
uh... Sheila... your Insurance Co. does NOT condone you offing your horse ( if it is insured) . But only because it costs them money. Those who off and those who have to pay those that off ONLY care about the money. Those who send off to slaughter and those that slaughter ONLY care about the money.

Sheila H
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:20 PM
OK well I'm pretty sure I already knew insurance companies are not among those who tolerate insurance fraud. I also already knew that everyone just cares about money. So what is your point?

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:24 PM
No point.

Sheila H
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:30 PM
I wonder why the insurance companies havent jumped on the no reinstatement bandwagon. Maybe its because they know it's nothing but a bunch of tools.

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:34 PM
For every 100 policy holders... how many hire hit-men to kill their horse?

Sheila H
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:41 PM
Most estimates say somewhere btwn 2 and 5.

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 08:58 PM
that seems high

big dawg
Jan. 23, 2006, 09:20 PM
Originally posted by N&B&T:
big dawg (et al)
Are you yourself a Palm Beach county resident? If so, I would be happy to put you in touch with the reporter I mentioned earlier in the thread, as you obviously have an enduring interest in this issue. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Of course, if you are just the kind of person who likes to make anonymous, obnoxious, and vitriolic statements on a bulletin board, you will not be willing to present your views publically, under your real name. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Obscure, sniggering remarks are for schoolchildren. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

well aren't we just full of OURSELF!

big dawg
Jan. 23, 2006, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by Duffy:
Because different criminals come up for possible reinstatement at different times. It's been advised that they need to be addressed separately.

Yes, but they were not suspended because they are criminals, they were suspended for animal abuse--in case you don't know...there are no rules against criminals being members of the USEF.

And most every one of them have the right to petition for reinstatement, and to have their case heard in a fair and impartial manner...

after all, we let the suspended druggers of horses back in without even a petition for reinstatement...and that doesn't bother all you "do gooder, self-righteous" types...I don't get why you all are on such a bender about this when obviously other things don't even phase you.

big dawg
Jan. 23, 2006, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
uh... Sheila... your Insurance Co. does NOT condone you offing your horse ( if it is insured) . But only because it costs them money. Those who off and those who have to pay those that off ONLY care about the money. Those who send off to slaughter and those that slaughter ONLY care about the money.

What are you trying to say? No one who sends a horse off to slaughter can care that much about the money unless they are living on about $12K per year...the slaughter prices are almost nothing. And if someone sends their old horse off to slaughter vs. calling the vet out to put it down, then you have no business even commenting unless you are a vegan...you eat, what, beef, chicken, pork--they all go off to slaughter...what is the difference with Mr. Ed, other than your own self-delusion...

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 10:11 PM
dawg... no need to piss on every tree...

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 10:12 PM
and your logic eludes me...

xegeba
Jan. 23, 2006, 10:50 PM
after further review... dawg... i agree...

big dawg
Jan. 24, 2006, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Sheila H:
Most estimates say somewhere btwn 2 and 5.

why don't you cite the study or whatever for this estimate? do you just make this stuff up as you go?

N&B&T
Jan. 24, 2006, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by big dawg:

...there are no rules against criminals being members of the USEF.

And most every one of them have the right to petition for reinstatement, and to have their case heard in a fair and impartial manner...

after all, we let the suspended druggers of horses back in without even a petition for reinstatement...and that doesn't bother all you "do gooder, self-righteous" types...I don't get why you all are on such a bender about this when obviously other things don't even phase you.

I *think* the courts have held that the USEF can deny membership in some situations for criminal behavior. I would hope so anyway! Someone who is better versed in the court documents could perhaps tell us?

Yes, they do have the right to reapply. Impartial means both sides, IMO. Therefore, both supporters and opposers to reinstatement can make their views known publically. It's a free country.

I would not assume that people posting here condone illegal drugging. Quite the reverse, in fact. However, if sanctions against even inhumane horse killing with intent to defraud are not severe, why should we believe that sanctions against repeated illegal drugging will ever be made sufficiently strong to deter it?

What if USA Skating reinstated Tonya Harding?

War Admiral
Jan. 24, 2006, 07:31 AM
Originally posted by big dawg:

Yes, but they were not suspended because they are criminals, they were suspended for animal abuse--in case you don't know...there are no rules against criminals being members of the USEF.

And most every one of them have the right to petition for reinstatement, and to have their case heard in a fair and impartial manner...

after all, we let the suspended druggers of horses back in without even a petition for reinstatement...and that doesn't bother all you "do gooder, self-righteous" types...I don't get why you all are on such a bender about this when obviously other things don't even phase you.

Ahhhhhhhh Big Dawg, me old pal, lovely to see you back! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif Beer? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

It's my understanding that Big Dawg is completely correct and that criminal behavior itself is NOT sufficient grounds for a USEF suspension. (See: Joe Plemmons situation.)

The suspended parties were, as Big Dawg rightly states, suspended for horse abuse (read: killing them for profit), not for their respective convictions/participation in the federal fraud case.

And yes, every single one of them ABSOLUTELY has the right to apply for reinstatement; the terms of the USEF order confirm that. Nobody here is disputing it. But, as N&B&T observes, both "sides" are equally entitled to put forward as much persuasive material as they can muster.

Maybe where Big Dawg and I actually disagree is that I perceive the "drugging horses" issue to be a separate one from the "killing horses" issue.

I'm by all means in complete agreement w/ Big Dawg that the "drugging horses" issue needs to be addressed; I always have been. I'd love to see those fines and suspensions jacked up SO SKY HIGH that it's no longer in any trainer's best fiscal interest to use illegal substances on horses.

That said, I do think that it *is* a separate issue, and I think the more immediate need at this particular time is to focus on No Reinstatement for those who killed horses.

But I'll be more than happy to come and play in an anti-drugging sandbox later, if anyone wants to get it started. Over to you, BD. And as usual, thanks for the bump! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Quick update on press: we've had some nibbles, we've done some interviews, so has the other side, so we'll see y'all in the papers, guys.

TWF
Jan. 24, 2006, 08:31 AM
From The COTH November2000 (link: Judge's Ruling ) *note the link is not working.*

BARNEY WARD BANNED PERMANENTLY, JUDGE RULES

On Nov. 1, a New York State Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of the American Horse Shows Association in its two-year effort to keep former show jumper Barney Ward off horse show grounds. Justice Richard F. Braun granted the AHSA a permanent injunction to keep Ward off show grounds for as long as he is suspended.

Ward, along with others convicted in the insurance-fraud indictments announced in July 1994, was suspended by the AHSA Hear-ing Committee for a minimum 15 years in July 1998. After serving 33 months in federal prison, he appeared on the grounds of shows in Vermont and Florida, violating his suspension. Justice Leland G. LeGrasse ruled twice in favor of the AHSA in granting a temporary injunction against Ward, pending further action.

Justice Braun’s decision permanently bars Ward from attending AHSA-recognized competitions as a participant or spectator. He noted that Ward had pleaded guilty in March 1996 to the insurance-fraud charges, admitting he arranged for Tommy Burns to electrocute George Lindemann’s hunter Charisma and three other horses before he threatened to kill Burns if he told anyone. Justice Braun called these "most reprehensible actions."

Justice Braun wrote that the AHSA "has the right to keep unsavory people away from the horse shows that it oversees, even if only to prevent the appearance of impropriety."

Justice Braun rejected Ward’s request that he be allowed to watch his son, McLain Ward, compete, saying Barney "should have considered the consequences of his actions before he put himself in the position in which he is now."

He added that the AHSA "issued an appropriate penalty that, contrary to [Ward’s] contention, was not disproportionate to penalties issued against others" and that the AHSA is "certainly justified in avoiding actual or potential harm to its events, members and reputation, not to mention the horses, by having [Ward] barred from those events."


QUOTE]

Note that Ward plead guilty to fraud..

SO there is a ruling that stands behind the (USEF) ASHA to keep "unsavory people" (not just those convicted of felonies) away from the horse shows...
I have asked if this was made into a formal USEF rule.. Did the expensive Federal Court case..which the AHSA won..produce a rule we can quote from the rule book?

At any rate, the Federal Court ruled the USEF is certainly justified in their right to bar persons form their shows.

big dawg
Jan. 24, 2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by TWF:
From The COTH November2000 (link: Judge's Ruling ) *note the link is not working.*

BARNEY WARD BANNED PERMANENTLY, JUDGE RULES

On Nov. 1, a New York State Supreme Court justice ruled in favor of the American Horse Shows Association in its two-year effort to keep former show jumper Barney Ward off horse show grounds. Justice Richard F. Braun granted the AHSA a permanent injunction to keep Ward off show grounds for as long as he is suspended.

Ward, along with others convicted in the insurance-fraud indictments announced in July 1994, was suspended by the AHSA Hear-ing Committee for a minimum 15 years in July 1998. After serving 33 months in federal prison, he appeared on the grounds of shows in Vermont and Florida, violating his suspension. Justice Leland G. LeGrasse ruled twice in favor of the AHSA in granting a temporary injunction against Ward, pending further action.

Justice Braun’s decision permanently bars Ward from attending AHSA-recognized competitions as a participant or spectator. He noted that Ward had pleaded guilty in March 1996 to the insurance-fraud charges, admitting he arranged for Tommy Burns to electrocute George Lindemann’s hunter Charisma and three other horses before he threatened to kill Burns if he told anyone. Justice Braun called these "most reprehensible actions."

Justice Braun wrote that the AHSA "has the right to keep unsavory people away from the horse shows that it oversees, even if only to prevent the appearance of impropriety."

Justice Braun rejected Ward’s request that he be allowed to watch his son, McLain Ward, compete, saying Barney "should have considered the consequences of his actions before he put himself in the position in which he is now."

He added that the AHSA "issued an appropriate penalty that, contrary to [Ward’s] contention, was not disproportionate to penalties issued against others" and that the AHSA is "certainly justified in avoiding actual or potential harm to its events, members and reputation, not to mention the horses, by having [Ward] barred from those events."


QUOTE]

Note that Ward plead guilty to fraud..

SO there is a ruling that stands behind the (USEF) ASHA to keep "unsavory people" (not just those convicted of felonies) away from the horse shows...
I have asked if this was made into a formal USEF rule.. Did the expensive Federal Court case..which the AHSA won..produce a rule we can quote from the rule book?

At any rate, the Federal Court ruled the USEF is certainly justified in their right to bar persons form their shows.

You need to be a lawyer--you are attempting to give legal advice without a license--maybe we should yank your USEF membership for breaking the law.

You are taking this court case and citation out of context...Ward showed up at the shows, on the show grounds and legally challenged the ASHA's right to keep him off the grounds during the period of his suspension...the court merely upheld the AHSA's right to ban him as a suspended person from licensed [newly added word in '06] competitons. That was what the case was about--you should have been around then and maybe you would have a better contextual view of this whole thing.

Snowbird
Jan. 24, 2006, 10:27 AM
Dear little puppy, there is a difference between someone who was tried and convicted and confessed to their guilt of a felony that directly involved their participation in an illegal way in this sport and industry. Druggersd have not been prosecuted and most have not confessed their guilt.

If the USEF chose a District attorney could prosecute those who tested positive for drugging horses under the "racketeering laws"; I think those are called the Ricco laws. Anyone guilty of tampering with the results of a sport competition. I don't know if that's a felony or a misdemeaner. In my personal opinion the County should be notified whenever someone is caught and they should be the ones to prosecute both under Ricco and for Animal abuse. That would end the drugging problem very quickly. If the USEF does not purssue that recourse I am embarrased by them.

I am personally offended when righteous people say it's nothing to collect insurance money fraudulently. It's costs us each one when they do and they caused their own loss. I am offended when righteous people think that selling someone's horse and not giving them the full amount that was paid short of a legal 10% commission is criminal enough for the USEF to recognize a court order. I am personally offended if our Federation chooses not to respect the Law enough to abide by the decisions of a court order.

Not to enforce the rules in the rule book that are available for this purpose is collusion and consent to criminal activities.

War Admiral
Jan. 24, 2006, 10:42 AM
Doubt if anyone who drugged a horse could be prosecuted under RICO, unless there were a proven conspiracy across state lines and one could convince a U.S. Attorney to prosecute under RICO.

The reason the horse killers were subject to RICO was because there was conspiracy to defraud insurance companies across several states, which is a FEDERAL felony.

Info on the RICO Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RICO_(law)).

I'M NOT A LAWYER EITHER, but I think that's more or less right. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

big dawg
Jan. 24, 2006, 11:01 AM
War Admiral--make mine a MGD

seriously though I would not sign the No Reinstatement Petition because I don't agree with it. I think most of these people should be allowed to be reinstated and will trust the hearing committee to weigh all the facts and make a correct decision--I do believe those on the committee care about the sport and the public's perception of the sport, but also recognize that they have a higher authority to answer to, i.e. the USOC and the IOC. I don't see drugging in violation of the Rules as any different--if it is not animal abuse to have your horse in a drunken stupor just so you can win a class, then I don't know what is? And I am against animal abuse...I am a breeder and own horses that I am very partial to on lots of levels...I care about my animals, and wish others would feel the same way--but they don't and that probably includes half the USEF membership--the city dwellers who just come out in their expensive SUV, get on the horse that the groom has all prepared and that the trainer beat the prior two days because it wouldn't go for the lady because she is such a bad rider--then she takes her lesson, hops off, hands it back to the groom, maybe feeds it a couple of carrots, then off to shopping with her friend. Don't get me started on this H/J industry. I am a jumper rider for over 25 years. I know how it is. And I don't mean to condemn all the owners and riders, as there are many just like me who are always trying to do the right thing. But we have far more problems in this industry than these 2 doaen or so people, who no doubt will never do anything like this again, and who could serve as a voice in this industry as they have done something they are ashamed of and perhaps if around to tell others just may keep someone else from doing something similar.

big dawg
Jan. 24, 2006, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Dear little puppy, there is a difference between someone who was tried and convicted and confessed to their guilt of a felony that directly involved their participation in an illegal way in this sport and industry. Druggersd have not been prosecuted and most have not confessed their guilt.

If the USEF chose a District attorney could prosecute those who tested positive for drugging horses under the "racketeering laws"; I think those are called the Ricco laws. Anyone guilty of tampering with the results of a sport competition. I don't know if that's a felony or a misdemeaner. In my personal opinion the County should be notified whenever someone is caught and they should be the ones to prosecute both under Ricco and for Animal abuse. That would end the drugging problem very quickly. If the USEF does not purssue that recourse I am embarrased by them.

I am personally offended when righteous people say it's nothing to collect insurance money fraudulently. It's costs us each one when they do and they caused their own loss. I am offended when righteous people think that selling someone's horse and not giving them the full amount that was paid short of a legal 10% commission is criminal enough for the USEF to recognize a court order. I am personally offended if our Federation chooses not to respect the Law enough to abide by the decisions of a court order.

Not to enforce the rules in the rule book that are available for this purpose is collusion and consent to criminal activities.

Where did you get your law school degree? Sears mail order?

RICO is racketeering, and it doesn't even apply here.

Snowbird
Jan. 24, 2006, 11:10 AM
The No-Reinstatement bracelets have just been delivered by Fedex. If you have written before please send me another email and I will send them out by week's end. It will save me searching the files.

They cost us $1.75 each plus shipping. I couldn't find them anywhere for the price quoted by SNL. But they are here at last. I have received two checks with no indication of the number of bracelets needed.

So let's get those requests you can pm me or email me direct with the address where they should be sent.

Little puppy feel free to seek support for the issues you think are more important. I for one would love to know what issues disturb you.

War Admiral
Jan. 24, 2006, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by big dawg:
War Admiral--make mine a MGD

seriously though I would not sign the No Reinstatement Petition because I don't agree with it. I think most of these people should be allowed to be reinstated and will trust the hearing committee to weigh all the facts and make a correct decision--I do believe those on the committee care about the sport and the public's perception of the sport, but also recognize that they have a higher authority to answer to, i.e. the USOC and the IOC. I don't see drugging in violation of the Rules as any different--if it is not animal abuse to have your horse in a drunken stupor just so you can win a class, then I don't know what is? And I am against animal abuse...I am a breeder and own horses that I am very partial to on lots of levels...I care about my animals, and wish others would feel the same way--but they don't and that probably includes half the USEF membership--the city dwellers who just come out in their expensive SUV, get on the horse that the groom has all prepared and that the trainer beat the prior two days because it wouldn't go for the lady because she is such a bad rider--then she takes her lesson, hops off, hands it back to the groom, maybe feeds it a couple of carrots, then off to shopping with her friend. Don't get me started on this H/J industry. I am a jumper rider for over 25 years. I know how it is. And I don't mean to condemn all the owners and riders, as there are many just like me who are always trying to do the right thing. But we have far more problems in this industry than these 2 doaen or so people, who no doubt will never do anything like this again, and who could serve as a voice in this industry as they have done something they are ashamed of and perhaps if around to tell others just may keep someone else from doing something similar.

Big Dawg - Miller coming right up - in a No Reinstatement Beer Stein! (O.K., joke is stale; beer is not. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif)

But seriously: I totally understand and respect your reasons for not signing. They're very well stated.

It would indeed have been very nice if any of the "horse killers" had stepped up and become strong loud voices against horse abuse. They would have commanded a serious amount of respect (including mine) if they had done so. Unfortunately, none of them have.

Even the ones who are attempting to prove their own "total rehabilitation" to satisfy the standards set out by the USEF Hearing Committee (http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm) ("...affirmative proof of total rehabilitation, including proof that s/he has taken steps to reform him/herself and has performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses....") are not really satisfying the Committee's criterion of public service "to benefit the welfare of the horse".

One is working, from what I understand, in a therapeutic riding program - which by all means is certainly public service (provided she's not getting paid), but it didn't benefit the HORSES last time I checked; another one, whom we all know, seems to regard volunteer judging at WEF on off-days as a "community service of benefit to the horses", which is kind of a novel stance IMO...

So can anyone show me where any of these people have made ANY serious attempt to convince anyone that they've done ANYTHING AT ALL for the benefit of the horses during the time they've been suspended?

In addition to which, from what I understand, insurance premiums tend to be a bit higher at the barns of those "horse killers" who continue to do business as trainers. Now, I'm definitely not a risk management professional (can't do math, teehee), but if the insurance premiums are higher at those barns, could it be because professional risk assessors think there *is* in fact some kind of risk, at least statistically speaking, that one or more of these people *will* do it again?

I'm not attacking, I'm just asking. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird: That is great news! Thanks so much!! Is it too late for folks who have not ordered bracelets from you to place an order?

Coreene
Jan. 24, 2006, 12:57 PM
War Admiral, congrats on that wonderful piece in the Palm Beach Post today. Lovely, lovely.

Of course, it had to have the usual Mason butt kiss, but then who is surprised?

Duffy
Jan. 24, 2006, 01:12 PM
Can someone please post a link?

War Admiral
Jan. 24, 2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Coreene:
War Admiral, congrats on that wonderful piece in the Palm Beach Post today. Lovely, lovely.

Of course, it had to have the usual Mason butt kiss, but then who is surprised?

Thanks, Coreene - I didn't even know it was out until you e-mailed me!
Linkage (http://www.palmbeachpost.com/search/content/nation/epaper/2006/01/24/m1a_horse_0124.html)

For the record, I thought it was pretty well balanced. However - one minor correction: as everyone here knows, I am most definitely NOT an "amateur showjumper" - I haven't seen the business side of the in-gate at the jumper ring since ohhhh, '79-80 or thereabouts! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I just don't want anyone to think I'm claiming to be something I'm not... Right now, I'm doing carriage driving with the Avemaster and still goofing around with saddle seat - I'll be doing adult pleasure eq. this season and MAYBE Country Pleasure later in the year if a suitable horse can be found. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Many thanks to Horse_Poor, Snowbird, Anyplace Farm, SNL & everyone else who is helping get and keep this thing together.

Snowbird
Jan. 24, 2006, 01:19 PM
Not at all NEVER TOO LATE. I have 200 bracelets in hand; red with white letters in silicone. They are two sizes, large and medium there is one inch difference is size. So keep the orders coming. We can easily print more.

I'd love to see a few thousand out there being worn at all shows especially. And, don't forget the red ribbons idea at shows it's great conversation starter.

War Admiral
Jan. 24, 2006, 01:48 PM
Great! I've got to scoot out to the farm & tuck the Avemaster in bed (I've messed my back up & he hasn't seen me in days) but I'll e-mail you an order when I get back.

Meanwhile, I've linked to the Palm Beach Post (http://www.negia.net/%7Eguernica/links.html) article on www.noreinstatement.org (http://www.noreinstatement.org) now.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Jan. 24, 2006, 01:52 PM
Congratulations on your article, WA, I found the Mason comment interesting in that even he said it was the letter of the law that was complied with. He might as well have added "but not the spirit".

blubays
Jan. 24, 2006, 02:28 PM
This is great news. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

War Admiral
Jan. 24, 2006, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
Congratulations on your article, WA, I found the Mason comment interesting in that even he said it was the letter of the law that was complied with. He might as well have added "but not the spirit".

Thanks, Harry, but I don't really think of it as "my" article... It's everybody's article. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif I'm just glad to see that the issue is getting back out on the table for discussion in public, the same way it's been under discussion in here for all these years.

Andrew
Jan. 24, 2006, 06:39 PM
PLEASE KEEP IN MIND..... That the RED RIBBON is for AIDS AWARENESS and will be sending the WRONG message on "this topic"

Sheila H
Jan. 24, 2006, 06:56 PM
I always thought the red ribbon was for finiishing second.

Snowbird
Jan. 24, 2006, 07:11 PM
Oh! Good Lord there are not enough colors for all the causes to have separate color. Ours is red for the blood spilled by innocent horses. It says No Reinstatement in white letters. I'm certain white is also controversial.

We discussed it and we have them. I don't think that Aids Awareness is going to suffer an identity crisis by sharing the color red with our fallen horses. The red in our flag is for the blood spilled to protect freedom.

For every good cause there are always a thousand reasons to stay inactive if that's what you want.

big dawg
Jan. 25, 2006, 12:30 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Oh! Good Lord there are not enough colors for all the causes to have separate color. Ours is red for the blood spilled by innocent horses. It says No Reinstatement in white letters. I'm certain white is also controversial.

We discussed it and we have them. I don't think that Aids Awareness is going to suffer an identity crisis by sharing the color red with our fallen horses. The red in our flag is for the blood spilled to protect freedom.

For every good cause there are always a thousand reasons to stay inactive if that's what you want.

How about sienna?

Serah
Jan. 25, 2006, 08:15 AM
I just don't understand, why, when you say your focus is for these poor horses that died, why instead of focusing this campaign on horses that are already dead, people that have already been sentenced..WHY dont you turn the focus on things that are still happening... Horses that are STILL being killed for insurance money? Veterinarians that are still illegally signing Death Certificates?!?!? It's beginning to look like there is a personal grudge behind all this, Why dont you focus on saving horses that are still alive? Preventing this from reoccuring??

Snowbird
Jan. 25, 2006, 08:34 AM
Big Dawg these companies only deal in primary colors. Sienna is a mixed color and they would produce a brown which look like a dark orange.

This is for the braclets only. If you all want to use Sienna for the ribbons that would be fine with me. Or some mix that suits everyone would be fine too.

Serah to do that you have to have people who are willing to bring charges against them. The idea is to go after the worst of the lot first. Those convicted and who confessed to their guilt.

I have suggested that we could go for a Rule Change which would require that anyone whose horse tested positive for drugs have those results sent to the District Attorney in the County and State where the incident happened.

What do you think the possibility of that is as to getting it approved and passed?

Duffy
Jan. 25, 2006, 09:58 AM
Serah - it (no reinstatement) will also serve as a deterrant (sp?) for people who think about committing this crime.

War Admiral
Jan. 25, 2006, 10:06 AM
Originally posted by Serah:
I just don't understand, why, when you say your focus is for these poor horses that died, why instead of focusing this campaign on horses that are already dead, people that have already been sentenced..WHY dont you turn the focus on things that are still happening... Horses that are STILL being killed for insurance money? Veterinarians that are still illegally signing Death Certificates?!?!? It's beginning to look like there is a personal grudge behind all this, Why dont you focus on saving horses that are still alive? Preventing this from reoccuring??

Serah, the first, simplest and most obvious step toward deterring people from this kind of behavior is, in my opinion, to make it clear to USEF that we're not going to tolerate it.

The rules probably DO need to be changed. But these things take time - and the first thing we've got to be able to do is demonstrate that there is sufficiently strong feeling that such a rule change would be WIDELY supported.

Then it's up to USEF to figure out how to make that happen. And believe me, after talks w/ several people there about horse abuse last year, I still believe they are racking their brains to the fullest trying to figure out something that would actually work.

You have to understand that sometimes baby steps are necessary in order to get where you eventually want to go.

Hope that makes sense.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Jan. 25, 2006, 10:46 AM
Serah, you sound as if you know people who do this personally. If you know of it, then you should be contacting the authorities and making them public with charges. We are trying to put the focus on what has happended so these people do not get back into the show world. If you know of these acts being done and have done nothing, you are no better than them by turning the other cheek.

War Admiral
Jan. 25, 2006, 11:09 AM
Excellent point, Showponymom.

Andrew
Jan. 25, 2006, 01:02 PM
Posted Jan. 24, 2006 10:11 PM
Oh! Good Lord there are not enough colors for all the causes to have separate color. Ours is red for the blood spilled by innocent horses. It says No Reinstatement in white letters. I'm certain white is also controversial.

We discussed it and we have them. I don't think that Aids Awareness is going to suffer an identity crisis by sharing the color red with our fallen horses. The red in our flag is for the blood spilled to protect

I'm not talking about the bracelts those are AWSOME.... but someone mentioned "also" wearing a RED RIBBON too... that's what I was cautioning not the R/W bracelts ... okie dokie Ms V! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Jan. 25, 2006, 03:39 PM
Okie Dokie Mr.Andrew, It's been a generally weird day so I am philosophical and amiable to anyone who doesn't want to argue.

Bracelets are on my turf and whatever colors for ribbons are someone else's worry. The ribbons could be black and blue for bruises and beatings and red for blood spilled. But, I'm sure those are the national colors for something important.

Serah
Jan. 25, 2006, 05:23 PM
I DO know people who have committed these crimes. And i went to the authorities, i went directly to the insurance company, and they told me basically to F**K OFF and that it was non of my business and that this person was a loyal customer of theirs...That's what i get for trying to save them 15,000$. So as far as getting the Insurance companies on your side....Good Luck.

Serah
Jan. 25, 2006, 05:31 PM
Do you really think lifetime suspension is going to scare these people away more than the thought of actually getting caught??? They would only have to face lifetime suspension IF they get caught.... Besides, like many people have commented, the suspensions haven't slowed most people down, they simply train off grounds and send their riders over. Maybe if getting caught was more likely, that would be the fear that would make them reconsider.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Jan. 25, 2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Serah:
I DO know people who have committed these crimes. And i went to the authorities, i went directly to the insurance company, and they told me basically to F**K OFF and that it was non of my business and that this person was a loyal customer of theirs...That's what i get for trying to save them 15,000$. So as far as getting the Insurance companies on your side....Good Luck.

Why don't you contact the media, most of the big market news stations have an investigation team that would take over and investigate why authorities would not address. I would not rest because someone said no. Did you go to the DA or just local police? Write the insurance commission of your state. I can't believe an insurance company would tell you to mind your own business.

You live in Atlanta, call CNN. This is a national story.

horse_poor
Jan. 25, 2006, 06:05 PM
Snowbird-where did you get your bracelets from? I am getting mine from reminderband.com and the cardinel red for 20 plus shipping makes it $2.35 a piece, and that is without the white lettering, which is an additional .25 per bracelet. But I spose if you order them in larger amounts at a time that will make them cheaper in the end. I am just leery of ordering a ton and then not being able to get rid of them. Do you want me to not order any more and let you handle it? I thought that with as much as you have on your plate, I would try to ease you of that burden. Fed Ex is hurtling my way with another 20 which should be here shortly, many of which had been spoken for.

War Admiral
Jan. 26, 2006, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Serah:
I DO know people who have committed these crimes. And i went to the authorities, i went directly to the insurance company, and they told me basically to F**K OFF and that it was non of my business and that this person was a loyal customer of theirs...That's what i get for trying to save them 15,000$. So as far as getting the Insurance companies on your side....Good Luck.

The correct steps IMO would have been:

1. Police. File a report.
2. Report vet to State Board of Veterinary Examiners.
3. Report incident to insurance company, providing copy of police report.
4. Report incident to local ASPCA and, here in Georgia, the GA Dept. of Agriculture, which licenses all boarding/training facilities, likewise together with a copy of the police report.

Duffy
Jan. 26, 2006, 09:32 AM
Got some more signatures from people I spoke with at Lexington. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Jan. 26, 2006, 09:44 AM
I got them from the same place but I ordered 200 so it cost $350.00 plus shipping express. I wouldn't suggest buying them without the white second color. The recessed print is almost invisible as far as being able to read it. It's well worth the extra $.25.

There is another place where you can get them silk screened and they're cheaper but I haven't had time to find it again.

Anyway please let me know who wants them. I did receive two checks but they don't request any bracelets so I put that into the fund.

Duffy
Jan. 26, 2006, 10:04 AM
Agree - maybe I'll try some liquid paper/white out on my bracelet. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Although, people have noticed it without being able to see the writing and have asked what it's for. That, at least, starts a dialog. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Jan. 26, 2006, 10:29 AM
Exactly War Admiral, that's what Pwynn meant. We have to start to be proactive if we don't want that kind of environment in our sport. And, we have to be as diligent in following through as they are in being delinquent in their attitudes.

Snowbird
Jan. 26, 2006, 10:31 AM
Duffy try using masking tape and spray paint. I think white out is water soluable.

Hopeful Hunter
Jan. 26, 2006, 12:08 PM
Taking a quick break from a MOUNTAIN of work here...

I want to address the sense of "why bother" that I see cropping up.

I can understand the frustration; I can understand the feeling that it won't make things any different for the people who are suspended; I can understand all of it. I cannot understand condoning the actions, nor can I accept that it's so widespread as to be generally accepted to defraud insurance companies by maiming or killing an innocent animal.

But the MOST important reason, for me, that I put some time into this is simple: I want to be able to answer with honesty, to anyone who asks, that I truly do love my sport and my horse, and that I respect the effort that goes into it.

I cannot respect it if I think that it is ONLY populated by people with no concern or love for the animals, if I think that all trainers are out to win at any cost and that all owners will rip off insurors in a heartbeat. And if I don't believe that, then I feel I have an obligation to support my beliefs with action.

Will PV apply to reinstated? I don't know. Will he be reinstated if he does apply? Again, I don't know. I know that right now, I have some differences of opinion with USEF, and am choosing to put my support and money elsewhere...but whether or not I join again WILL in part be determined by how they treat this issue should it arise. The one reinstatement - of which I was unaware until the boards mentioned it - already has me deeply concerned.

Again...it's not a personal vendetta against anyone. I wouldn't know any of these people if I fell over them. BUT, I do NOT respect what they did. And I do believe that actions have consequences, and some of those consequences are lifelong. I can see that something to feel sorry about (that they have to live under a cloud, as it were), or as a shame, or as anything I want...but the consequences remain.

The people involved in the horse killing scandals were not unaware of the illegality of their actions, regardless of how THEY viewed the morality of them, and they should not have been unaware of the fact that those actions carried consequences that could follow them for life. They made a choice, perhaps one they truly regret, but whether or not they'd make the same choice today doesn't change the past. They did what they did, and have to live with it.

The sport, however, does NOT need to accept what they did. We don't like to think this today, but some things are NOT acceptable, nor are the forgettable (not "forgiveable" because that is not for me to judge). It is because of that belief that I support No Reinstatement. Because if we all just throw up our hands and say "what's the use" we will imo have lost not just the respect of those outside our sport - who would be justified in wondering that such a thing isn't seen as horrific - but we would lose our self-respect, too.

SGray
Jan. 26, 2006, 12:32 PM
very well put Hopeful Hunter -- bravo/brava

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

TL
Jan. 26, 2006, 12:47 PM
I think Hopeful Hunter said it beautifully.

My thought, or question rather, not to be redundant,but.. was what others have asked: "where is the line?"

Who hasn't done something they've regretted, who hasn't suffered the consequences of a mistake. Yes, you learn from those mistakes and, in some, in many, instances you get a second chance. However, sometimes, that mistake is so big... and consciously made and is so, so inexcusable.

Well, what's a lifetime suspension for, if not for that? I don't even want to know...

This was nothing less than greed, cruelty and self-absorption (is that a word?) of the worst kind.

I'm not saying this would be an excuse, but (and correct me if I'm wrong) nobody involved was in some sort of terrible, back-against-the-wall crisis, the kind where panic and desperation make an otherwise good and moral person make a terrible, terrible, one-time mistake...

No, there's a time when it's "you f***** up and you're done."

I can't imagine being able to come, being able to stand coming within sight of a horse if I had participated in something like that. The desire to continue on riding and practicing a trade within the industry after that... there's a big disconnect there... I guess. I'd ask, If you owned up to doing wrong, was it only because you got caught?

Snowbird
Jan. 26, 2006, 12:57 PM
TL the line is very clear and unwaivering. Those who have been convicted or confessed to killing horses to benefir themselves or their clients financially.

The 2nd level is those who have defrauded horse owners of their right to be paid what their horses were sold for less a reaonable commission. Many of these horses wound up in horrible condition and some have not yet been found. Those convicted by a court and who have a court order prohibiting them from further engagement in this sport at least during te years of their parole should also be banned for life. These are not undefinable these are people who have been convicted and confessed their guilt in a Court of Law. The USEF has no right to refuse to enforse this court order. It does have the proved right to keep unsavory people out of this sport.

The line is a conviction in a court of law. I am personally offended that someone convicted and sitting in jail can be listed as a Member in Good Standing. If our predessers were derelict in their responsibilities it is no excuse for us not to try and fix it for the future.

Serah
Jan. 26, 2006, 01:14 PM
I'm glad that all of you are so quick cry "witch" at me, when i am honestly telling you I TRIED EVERYTHING to get this case brought to attention. And for someone to have the nerve to tell me I'm no better than the people who committed these crimes?!?!!?!?! YOU DON'T EVEN KNOW ME!!!! I called the police, they told me to go to the insurance company, so i went directly to the insurance company, and spoke with them about this case and every exact detail on it, and they treated me like I was outstepping my boundaries, and they threatened me that basically if I don't back off they were going to slap a slander suit on me...I'm sorry...but where do I go from there? The bottomw line is, if the police or other authorities were to get involved, and they went to the Insurance Co. and the insurance co. says everything is legit, the trail will end there. I tried to tell the company they were being had, I talked to the adjuster on the claim, i sent her specific conversations that were held between the owner of the horse and I... I told her every detail I could. She never called back, she never did anything. The owner got her money. The horse is dead, I, and everyone else that knew the situation, did everything we felt we could... It's really easy for all of you to sit here and tell me i did this wrong and that wrong...You think you could get farther fine...PT me and I'll give you all the details and evidence and you can take it on yourself, but don't you dare tell me that I am no better than the people who committed this crime, because you have no idea the pain i went through and the lengths I would have gone to to save that horse.

Snowbird
Jan. 26, 2006, 01:30 PM
Serah, I'm sorry it sounded that way. What you did was much more than most have done and I respect your effort. It is tough to fight the establishment that protects such goings on. Probably because it was only $15.000 it was cheaper for them to pay rather than to argue.

I know how you feel, I've been taking abuse for years because I won't just roll over and play nice. Now I'm old enough not to care about being popular; I just want to help right things that are wrong.

I got stung at the convention because I trusted the establishment and I really believed they cared.

Lori B
Jan. 26, 2006, 05:18 PM
Hopeful Hunter: BRAVA! Exactly.

Snowbird: my own first rule is that one should never never never trust organizations, even when they are made up of individuals that you trust. Organizations will always behave in a way to protect themselves, save themselves work and grief, and minimize input from troublesome outsiders. To be effective in this, our attitude has to be "We cannot be shuffled aside, we will not play nice, we will not go away, and we will remember who in the organizations obstructed us when we are able to make our voice heard." That is the only approach that works. When those of you interact with people from USEF or other equine organizations, start taking reporters with you.

No reinstatement, and no prisoners, either.

lure
Jan. 26, 2006, 06:37 PM
Hi, new here. Was scolling thru the 50+ pages of this thread and at some point read a comment about making this not just a US issue. Just wanted to let you all know that I signed the petition, sent it to all my contacts(&not just horse people) & they have signed. We're from Canada & all very familiar with the PV (& others issue). Many of us have spent winters at WEF & have opinions of how 'business has continued & prospered despite' for PV. Your petition has our full support.

Limerick
Jan. 26, 2006, 07:33 PM
Serah, I'd certainly feel a little jaded if I had done what you did. Good for you for taking action. How sad and pathetic that the insurance company didn't do anything. It actually shocks me as the few times I've known insurance companies to deal with insured horses that are badly hurt, they take great precautions to ensure it is a valid claim.

Don't let that one insurance company's behavior stop you from trying to protect horses.

Welcome lure and thank you.

Snowbird
Jan. 26, 2006, 07:50 PM
We are invincible if we have courage. We are the horse shows. Maybe not the "elite" but I don't think I want to play in their sandbox. Alone none of us can be successful but together as a group we can accomplish everything we dream to make the world better for our horses.

As a bottom feeder I look to see where the horse is happy and what he is comfortable doing. If you find that you can have a star both rider and horse. It's when you over reach that all the evil things happen. A family loves everyone some are smarter some are prettier but they are all family. I do the same with students. What horses love is to teach. They teach manners and sportsmanship and love and respect for each person. They help the helpless and and have a contest with the know-it-alls. That's why I love them.

It is wrong to misuse them. The people who do are as cruel as those who abuse the less talented, the less intelligent and the less beautiful people.

BaliBandido
Jan. 27, 2006, 01:56 AM
Originally posted by Serah:
I just don't understand, why, when you say your focus is for these poor horses that died, why instead of focusing this campaign on horses that are already dead, people that have already been sentenced..WHY dont you turn the focus on things that are still happening... Horses that are STILL being killed for insurance money? Veterinarians that are still illegally signing Death Certificates?!?!? It's beginning to look like there is a personal grudge behind all this, Why dont you focus on saving horses that are still alive? Preventing this from reoccuring??

Well if you make the penalties for committing these offenses severe enough, you set a precedent that has the possibility of preventing future offences. Besides- can you do two things at once, just because one issue is being addressed does not mean the other one is not. How would you advise prevention? Education? How about making the consequences have some actual negative effects?

BaliBandido
Jan. 27, 2006, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Serah:
I'm glad that all of you are so quick cry "witch" at me, when i am honestly telling you I TRIED EVERYTHING to get this case brought to attention.

I am sure you did what you could, however was there proof? Other than your word against someone elses? Tangible proof, photos, tape recordings anything like that? If not, and if the insurance amount was not a great deal of money the liklihood of the insurance company delving into it further is slim to none. However I don't know that it means none of them cared or believed you, but they knew they had nothing to go forward on. That is unfortunatly a very harsh reality. Good for you for trying, I know it is hard to stomach but I do have to nelieve that some day these people will get thiers.

BaliBandido
Jan. 27, 2006, 02:46 AM
Originally posted by big dawg:
And I am against animal abuse...I am a breeder and own horses that I am very partial to on lots of levels...I care about my animals, and wish others would feel the same way--but they don't and that probably includes half the USEF membership--the city dwellers who just come out in their expensive SUV, get on the horse that the groom has all prepared and that the trainer beat the prior two days because it wouldn't go for the lady because she is such a bad rider--then she takes her lesson, hops off, hands it back to the groom, maybe feeds it a couple of carrots, then off to shopping with her friend.

You are a breeder? Do you keep all of them? Do you sell them? Do they possibly go to the very people you are berating- the SUV driving, city dwelling, groomed horse, bad riding, trainer beating people? Do you ensure that you are not contributing to the problem by providing more of these animals and profiting from the sale of them to these lesson taking, carrot feeding shoppers? Or do you place each animal in a situation that provides properly (according to you) for them until the day they die?



Don't get me started on this H/J industry. I am a jumper rider for over 25 years. I know how it is. And I don't mean to condemn all the owners and riders, as there are many just like me who are always trying to do the right thing. But we have far more problems in this industry than these 2 doaen or so people, who no doubt will never do anything like this again, and who could serve as a voice in this industry as they have done something they are ashamed of and perhaps if around to tell others just may keep someone else from doing something similar.

Oh if only they were ashamed, if only they had the moral convictions to admit with sincerety the complete betrayal of the animals and people they were charged with looking after. Absolutely, if any of them truly had some genuine remorse, not for getting caught - but for the actual act itself and had repented in some way then maybe they could serve some greater good. However, with PV he has done exactly what he needed to do to comply with the letter of the ruling, but not its intent, he has made a show of his self serving generosity. He has shown people what he thinks they need and want to see, this is what a con man does, this is why he got into the trouble that he did. Make no mistake he did not freefall into this horse killing, he was waltzing down a trecherous slope that led him there. There were many, many misdeeds along the way, lies told, tracks to be covered, unholy alliances made, deals with the devil all so he could get what HE wanted at the expense of anyone and anything. He had no line that he didn't cross. How can you state that they will no doubt never do it again? Are you willing to risk it? Is it that the circumstances will never be repeated? What does someone have to do for them to be considered not worthy of trust? How many times does someone get to lie, steal, cheat, defraud, maim and kill something in the name of greed and ego? I am not saying he should be drawn and quartered- he makes a good living now- fine. Let him do so, let those that see no problem with him continue to support him. But please as my association and governing body, if you say that your mission is the welfare of the horses etc then mean it. His inclusion back into USEF means what to him really? That he can put down the binoculars and 2 way radio? Big deal- However there are many people who have followed the rules in spirit and to the letter that managed to refrain from doing these kinds of things- somewhere they should be commended for that and they should expect that their association who set those rules will uphold them not make a mockery of them. I should think that those '2 dozen or so' people who were guilty, should not swing the balance of the much larger numbers of their peers who have not committed these acts.

Yelp all you want- I suspect you have the intelligence to see the flaws in your arguments, however your one size fits all mentality with regard to the degree of crimes all being the same, and equating euthanizing a horse for either kindness or convenience to what was done to these horses seems to impede clear vision. I spent many of my years on a ranch, far from town and had to upon occasion put one down without the assistance of a vet, however I never saw any comparison to beating one with a crowbar, stuffing ping pong balls up its nose or electrocuting one. Maybe that is just a distinction I made.

HunterJumperLuv
Jan. 27, 2006, 07:07 AM
Well said Bali, well said!

horse_poor
Jan. 27, 2006, 07:28 AM
I used a thin tip Sharpie marker to color in the lettering--it is good to know that the color fill lettering is worth the extra $$

Snowbird
Jan. 27, 2006, 04:52 PM
Well we'll see please PM me your orders. I'd like to mail out over the weekend because we have a show next week. I will have them for sale at the show as well. And a copy of the petition. Afterwards War Admiral if you give me your address I will send what we get to you.

N&B&T
Jan. 28, 2006, 05:52 AM
Wonderful posts by HopefulHunter, TL, and BaliBandido.

RNB
Jan. 28, 2006, 06:25 AM
Originally posted by N&B&T:
Wonderful posts by HopefulHunter, TL, and BaliBandido.

I second that, N&B&T!!

ise@ssl
Jan. 28, 2006, 07:28 AM
I'm always truly amazed that people USE these trainers and justify it to themselves. I wouldn't sell manure to a person who did business with a person who was responsible for harm to horses. And I'm DAMN sure I wouldn't sell a horse to them. For them it's ALL ABOUT THE MONEY & WINNING - NOTHING ELSE.

What's that old saying?

"You lay down with dogs .....you get up with fleas?"

Snowbird
Jan. 28, 2006, 09:17 AM
I'd feel safer sleeping with dogs with or without fleas. Than with self serving, self centered egotists who wouldn't care even if it was people getting killed. Afterall Joe Plemmons is still welcomed and he admits he shot Helen Brach.

lure
Jan. 28, 2006, 11:19 PM
Trying to find that I'm logged in. Yep, new here but really only wanted to show that alot of canadians have signed the PV petetion. Supporting you.

Snowbird
Jan. 29, 2006, 09:22 AM
Well thank you Canadians. My first riding instructor and the only time I could ride was in the summers in the Laurentians. Roger Vigneau was a remarkable man who taught the true love of sport and was a relentless teacher making you face your fears and beat them.

I think many of the best days of my life were spent in Canada and I loved the free spirit up there. The tolerance for individuality was wonderful. I trust it is still the same.

Maybe some of you remember him as an announcer on CBC which he was for 25 years. I'm not sure now I would forgive him for getting me hooked on skiing because that really beat up my knees and today I am paying the price for abusing my legs for far too many years.

Roger came down here to get me started at Suburban Essex in West Orange. And, when my son said it was impossible for him to learn French Roger took him home for two weeks where no one would speak english at all for the two weeks. When my son went to Paris on an AIFS trip he was the only translator for the group when they needed important information like where's the restroom.

horse_poor
Jan. 29, 2006, 03:37 PM
Just thought I would throw this in...

I have a copy of the petition language hanging up at the barn along with the Palm Beach article and handouts with the petition address, No Rein gear, and bracelet info hanging up. One of the newer pony dads was standing int he office and wandered up to read it and I watched his jaw drop as he read on. He had no clue.

Not everyone knows about it.

As I told Liz on the phone, I was a walking No Rein billboard the other day with my hat and shirt on and the button on my purse and sticker on my car. I walked through Fleet Farm and my local tack store and noticed a few people reading the sticker on my car and reading my hat. I took pics of Rosina wearing a No Rein bracelet as well-will have to get it developed this week.

So word is getting out!

Victoria Farms
Jan. 29, 2006, 07:28 PM
Does anyone know what the relationship is between PV and the author Susan Nusser who wrote "In Service to the Horse"? She mentions "Jill and Paul Valliere" in her acknowledgments section.
I really want to buy the book, but until I understand that this is not an endorsement of PV I guess I'll have to sit and wonder how good it is... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Snowbird
Jan. 29, 2006, 07:43 PM
Yep! I got word they are clucking all over Wellington because the "savage indians" are restless and challenging authority with this petition.

Tsk! Tsk! That's how this country got free from the King of England. He just didn't understand freedom.

Snowbird
Jan. 30, 2006, 06:56 PM
Bumpity! Bump!

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Jan. 30, 2006, 06:58 PM
No Rein would be a lovely logo idea.

Snowbird
Jan. 30, 2006, 07:01 PM
Now there's an idea...or should we put the culprits up in a pelham with a too small twisted bit? A short martingale and how about one of those cowboy tie downs that pinch the right places.

Bob Markey II
Jan. 30, 2006, 09:17 PM
Are images of the wrist bands posted anywhere? I saw a band or two on the wrists of some riders I photographed on Sunday and wondered whether any of them might be wearing the no-reinstatement band.

War Admiral
Jan. 31, 2006, 11:42 AM
Don't know if there are any pics. If any of you actually have a wristband could you please post a pic for Bob?

MEANWHILE: KNOW ANY T.V. CRITICS? Don't forget TV bloggers, as well.

It might be worth sending your local T.V. critic a quick e-mail tying the No Reinstatement campaign in with tomorrow's debut of the "Road to Maclay" series on Animal Planet.

This is what I wrote. Feel free to borrow and edit.

Dear ______:

While Animal Planet is focusing its latest efforts on the equestrian community (see "Road to Maclay", starting tomorrow night, and the upcoming Grand Prix jumping series), this might be an opportune time to focus some media attention on the professional jumping trainers who were prosecuted and convicted under RICO for insurance fraud which involved the brutal killing of show horses for profit.

Having been suspended for varying terms, these people are now being reinstated, one by one, to professional standing in the US Equestrian Federation. Some of us in the equestrian community find this inappropriate.

See wwww.noreinstatement.org and the Providence Journal for tomorrow, Wed. 2/1.

Best regards,

Jane
Jan. 31, 2006, 12:47 PM
MEANWHILE: KNOW ANY T.V. CRITICS? Don't forget TV bloggers, as well.

It might be worth sending your local T.V. critic a quick e-mail tying the No Reinstatement campaign in with tomorrow's debut of the "Road to Maclay" series on Animal Planet.

This is what I wrote. Feel free to borrow and edit.

Dear ______:

While Animal Planet is focusing its latest efforts on the equestrian community (see "Road to Maclay", starting tomorrow night, and the upcoming Grand Prix jumping series), this might be an opportune time to focus some media attention on the professional jumping trainers who were prosecuted and convicted under RICO for insurance fraud which involved the brutal killing of show horses for profit.

Having been suspended for varying terms, these people are now being reinstated, one by one, to professional standing in the US Equestrian Federation. Some of us in the equestrian community find this inappropriate.

See wwww.noreinstatement.org and the Providence Journal for tomorrow, Wed. 2/1.

Best regards,

Oh for crying out loud, must you people piss in every pot?

There's finally going to be a show (series) on a major network on the sport, which will be an introduction to the h/j world to a good percentage of its viewers. It's not bad enough that we're hoping the show will focus more on the sport itself, the love of horses, without making it appear to be too much of an elitist sport, but you want to go and bring more negativity to it? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

War Admiral
Jan. 31, 2006, 01:13 PM
Originally posted by Jane:

Oh for crying out loud, must you people piss in every pot?

There's finally going to be a show (series) on a major network on the sport, which will be an introduction to the h/j world to a good percentage of its viewers. It's not bad enough that we're hoping the show will focus more on the sport itself, the love of horses, without making it appear to be too much of an elitist sport, but you want to go and bring more negativity to it? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I highly doubt the No Reinstatement campaign is responsible for any "negativity" as regards equestrian sport.
These people (http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/94/7/horse_killers.html) get all the credit for that.

HunterJumperLuv
Jan. 31, 2006, 01:23 PM
As you say that "these" people must piss in our pots, but I don't feel that this could be at all considered bad policy.. They are showing how they disagree with the bad ideas, not committing them!

ss3777
Jan. 31, 2006, 01:30 PM
Oh for crying out loud, must you people piss in every pot?

wow, I am not sure I understand what you mean. Do you mean that if bad people do bad things no one should talk about it?

Serah
Jan. 31, 2006, 01:50 PM
actually, I agree with Jane, why not let this be a positive exhibition of this sport. People have to care about something before wanting to take a stand. The more americans that respect the sport and understand it, the more you can count on to unite for your effort. However, if we bring all this negativity along with the premiere of this show, people aren't even going to want to understand the sport, and they definitly won't understand your campaign. Look at the works of PETA... They work hard to bring awareness to major animal abuse situations, however, now they have such a reputation of being overly negative that people just shrug them off as "radicals". The sport needs to gain the respect of this new audience first. Besides, lets put on our best face for them, show off the sport we love so much!!!

Uberraschung
Jan. 31, 2006, 02:15 PM
You have got to be kidding me! One of the FEW good things to happen to english riding in this country in a long while and you are trying to sully it with something completely irrelevant to this nice story following the efforts of some good kids to compete in the Maclay.

Way to try to make it so that a tv station never covers another english equestrian event in the near future! Good thing you don't show and you don't have a kid that shows so then the lack of positive media coverage for our sport won't affect you http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

N&B&T
Jan. 31, 2006, 02:52 PM
To the contrary Serah, I find that non-horsepeople are quite quick to understand and support the no-reinstatement position.

It's not very difficult to grasp what happened, or why some horsepeople don't like it.

"Negativity"? I believe many people supporting no-reinstatement are quite positive human beings. This isn't gossip, etc. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Just about *every* horseperson wants to see more coverage of the wide variety of equestrian sports and activities on tv and in the general media. I think it is a measure of the strength of feeling of the supporters of no-reinstatement that they are *even* considering using the series as a chance for publicity.

As far as "appearances" go--IMO, it appears *far* worse if horsepeople are not *seen* to acknowledge and address these sorts of issues. Silence can well be perceived as tacit acceptance. More media attention will mean more exposure of such problems. It won't just go away if we all smile brightly. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I hardly think the no-reinstatement petition is comparable to PETA activity. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jane, must you people always enter this discussion with an off-putting remark rather than initiating a polite dialog? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

N&B&T
Jan. 31, 2006, 03:02 PM
Uberetc, please. On the one hand, no-reinstatement can be portrayed as a positive thing. On TV, even. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

On the other--if you see the horse-killings as such a black eye on the sport, why not take a stand?

And believe me, if I had a child in this sport, I would be QUITE a great deal more proactive about such matters. And not on the lets-pretend-this-isn't-happening side, either.

Edited to add, the Palm Beach Post recently ran a short and well-balanced front page story about the petition AND continues to run interesting articles about WEF and the NHS.

Sheila H
Jan. 31, 2006, 03:16 PM
What do you think the TV critics are going to write? "There is a show on TV today about horses, and by the way somebody else got in trouble 10 years ago. Also, Mike Tyson is not a nice guy."

FuzzyLogic
Jan. 31, 2006, 03:29 PM
What do you think, Sheila....you don't think everytime there's a baseball game they bring up Pete Rose?

BTW N&B&T, does your face hurt after so many grins in your posts?

FuzzyLogic
Jan. 31, 2006, 03:38 PM
Edited to add, the Palm Beach Post recently ran a short and well-balanced front page story about the petition AND continues to run interesting articles about WEF and the NHS.

It would be nice if they would fact check their stories before they run them.....how I can trust the validity of a story when it referred to War Admiral as a amateur show jumper rider? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

N&B&T
Jan. 31, 2006, 03:53 PM
BTW N&B&T, does your face hurt after so many grins in your posts?

See, I *said* smiling brightly doesn't make stuff go away.
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

War Admiral
Jan. 31, 2006, 03:55 PM
Ãœberraschung, I await with a fascination I may truly describe as "boundless" your explanation as to how anyone's marital status/number of offspring are relevant to the instant discussion.

CBoylen
Jan. 31, 2006, 04:03 PM
There's finally going to be a show (series) on a major network on the sport, which will be an introduction to the h/j world to a good percentage of its viewers. It's not bad enough that we're hoping the show will focus more on the sport itself, the love of horses, without making it appear to be too much of an elitist sport, but you want to go and bring more negativity to it?
Agreed, Jane. There IS such a thing as bad publicity.
A major network is promoting our sport. A family-friendly network.
The WEF public relations department has spent YEARS getting the local papers to provide any coverage. The Post has been fabulous for the last couple of seasons, showcasing the athleticism of the sport and its *family-friendly* appeal.
Why, in light of the recent progress made in those areas, is it necessary to drag 10-year-old dirty laundry out into the public view?
Do you honestly think that people with little knowledge of the sport want to see people on the inside bringing controversy forward? It doesn't create the impression that the community is concerned with its image. It creates the impression that the community is inherently controversial.
It certainly doesn't promote the sport as a good environment for people's children.
I really think, whatever your feelings on this issue, that everyone needs to take a step back and look at this type of publicity from the view of the general public. I don't think it's doing our sport and industry any favors.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Jan. 31, 2006, 04:07 PM
This issue as always, will bring out both the best and worst in people. You can make a valid point with what Serah and C.Boylen are saying, yet you can look at competitive figure skating, which has only grown since the Nancy Kerrigan/Tanya Harding incident. There is no right or wrong in bringing the issue public at this time.

Snowbird
Jan. 31, 2006, 04:09 PM
On a more pertinent issue. Here is the link to a page which has photos of the two types of bracelets with order information and links to the petition as well as a copy of the Petition Verbage. And a link to a pdf version for printing out to circulate at shows and stables.

http://www.usahsa.org/Bracelets-No-Reinstatement.htm

You can add this link to your signature as well War Admiral

Snowbird
Jan. 31, 2006, 04:20 PM
I do so agree with you Harry, it was Tanya Harding who actually gave the boost to skating that they needed to take it out of the "ballet" stage onto the sports pages.

It is the players about to kill each other in major sports that brings in the crowds, the hope they will see a crash at the NASCAR and that one day the Bull will win in the Bull Riding.

There is nothing more boring that 30 perfect trips of hunters. But in jumpers there could be a crash or a rail comes down and ends the competition.

I cannot imagine any harm would come from the fact that we want to protect this sport for those generations yet to be born from these evil people who would ruin a wonderful receational sport for the children. It can be written in an affirmative way to build an audience and the ratings while at the same time giving us the attention badly needed.

This frames it for both sides of the argument and if the ratings are good could gain us a lot of public support. If we could show that we need help to depose the B******* who would corrupt our horses and our children it could be a great asset.

War Admiral
Jan. 31, 2006, 04:28 PM
It certainly doesn't promote the sport as a good environment for people's children....

Certainly seems to me to provide information that an interested incoming parent would care to know, though.



I really think, whatever your feelings on this issue, that everyone needs to take a step back and look at this type of publicity from the view of the general public. I don't think it's doing our sport and industry any favors.

What I fail to understand is why sweeping the issue under the carpet at the very time these people are becoming eligible for reinstatement is perceived as "in the best interest of equestrian sport".

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this, Chanda, sorry.

Snowbird, cool, thanks, I'll add that. I just e-mailed you BTW.

Sheila H
Jan. 31, 2006, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by War Admiral:
Ãœberraschung, I await with a fascination I may truly describe as "boundless" your explanation as to how anyone's marital status/number of offspring are relevant to the instant discussion.

Nobody said anything about marital status nor number of offspring. Uber said you dont have a kid that shows. Is that inaccurate?

Uberraschung
Jan. 31, 2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by War Admiral:
Ãœberraschung, I await with a fascination I may truly describe as "boundless" your explanation as to how anyone's marital status/number of offspring are relevant to the instant discussion.
And that's exactly my point. A television show about some riding teenagers has nothing to do with 10 year old news (the kids in the program were what...8 years old max at the time of this news?) for an organization people outside of horses have never heard of.

Fairview Horse Center
Jan. 31, 2006, 07:03 PM
It will only be bad publicity for the sport if they are actually reinstated. It will be good publicity if it is shown that instead of us all being spoiled, elitist, rich brats with no morals, we DO have people that care about doing what is right, and making sure our environment STAYS family friendly.

Saddlebag
Jan. 31, 2006, 07:27 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I have tried to stay away from this thread, because it seems to me that what the "No Reinstatement" faction really is about is to discredit the "A" Circuit competitors and unilaterally assuming that anyone who competes on the "A: level of showing condones killing horses for insurance money. So now, you are seeking to piggy-back your cause onto the upcoming Animal Planet series on the Maclay Finals by implying that the kids who are the stars of this series, and who have expended the work and dedication that goes into preparing for this national championship, are the budding young horse killers of the future. I'm sorry, but I find this type of "Yellow Journalism" extremely distasteful and yes, harmful to the sport.

I know of no-one who supports the actions of Messrs Lindeman, Ward, Valliere, et al that occured ten years ago. I certainly am apalled by what they did to those horses. But, I am also outraged when I read the vicious verbiage that this mob visits upon anyone who says, "Hey, I have faith that the USEF Hearing Committee will listen to the reinstatement arguments fairly and dispassionately, and will come to a just decision as to when or whether the miscreants may be reinstated as members of our Federation.

And,by the way, the whole notion of the petition flies in the face of a fair judicial procedure. Juries in criminal trials are often sequestered so that they can't be tainted by public emotions and swayed by lynch mob histrionics. Your actions, despite what you say, amounts to an attempt at "jury tampering", and last time I heard, that is against the law!

As someone mentioned earlier, "Get Over It!" And, by the way, the letter that was sent to Animal Planet stated ( as fact) that the USEF was "one by one reinstating" those who had been found guilty of insurance fraud". That just isn't true...the USEF is beginning to conduct hearings on reinstatement...which is not the same thing as granting reinstatement. Please...when you set out to ruin a sport that others have worked very hard to develop...at least, get your facts straight!

Snowbird
Jan. 31, 2006, 07:28 PM
Well said Fairview! It is not PR that matters it is principles.

Snowbird
Jan. 31, 2006, 07:53 PM
http://www.usahsa.org/Bracelets-No-Reinstatement.htm

I have tried to stay away from this thread, because it seems to me that what the "No Reinstatement" faction really is about is to discredit the "A" Circuit competitors and unilaterally assuming that anyone who competes on the "A: level of showing condones killing horses for insurance money.
You couldn't be more wrong saddlebag. We are against those who who committed offenses against your community of A Circuit people and yet you seem to tolerate PV's lack of remorse by stretching the rules to accomodate his needs as more important than our value as a "sport". These are convicted self confessed felons who admit they killed horses to pacify the ego of either the trainer or the client without regard for what was good for the horse.

Do you seriously believe that convicted felons should be a welcome part of our horse community? Whether it is a convicted sexual offender; or a confessed murderer of a client like Helen Brach; or theives who steal horses from rightful owners without fair compensation these are felons and they have no plavce in the world of sports.


So now, you are seeking to piggy-back your cause onto the upcoming Animal Planet series on the Maclay Finals by implying that the kids who are the stars of this series, and who have expended the work and dedication that goes into preparing for this national championship, are the budding young horse killers of the future. I'm sorry, but I find this type of "Yellow Journalism" extremely distasteful and yes, harmful to the sport.

No we are saying that these children deserve a better horse world for all their efforts. They deserve the opportunity to accept the Olympic challenge based on how good they are and not ho they know. They deserve to find a place in this horse world where they can win fairly with rules equally enforced. Saddlebag are you not embarrassed that the Court has ruled that these felons can be eliminated from our sport and should be for their transgressions.

Are you not ashamed that we have existing rules that say that PV violated the spirit of his parole? Are you not incensed that in your favorite environment you rub elbows with the man who publicly admitted he killed Helen Brach, with the people who admitted they killed horses for the insurance money and they fraudulently killed healthy horses? With other trainers who may have cheated you of prizes by having drugged horses? By knowing that rightful owners have been penalized with financial loss from conmen who are as I write Members in good standing of the Federation?


I know of no-one who supports the actions of Messrs Lindeman, Ward, Valliere, et al that occured ten years ago. I certainly am apalled by what they did to those horses. But, I am also outraged when I read the vicious verbiage that this mob visits upon anyone who says, "Hey, I have faith that the USEF Hearing Committee will listen to the reinstatement arguments fairly and dispassionately, and will come to a just decision as to when or whether the miscreants may be reinstated as members of our Federation.

Why would anyone have faith in a Hearing Committee that is accountable to no one? A self contained revolving circle which has the final decision and does not feel impelled to make sure that all the rules are equally enforced on all levels of competition. There is no accountability and no responsibility as the punishment is dealt out to be a less painful as possible on those VIP and as strict as possible on the "nobodies".


And,by the way, the whole notion of the petition flies in the face of a fair judicial procedure. Juries in criminal trials are often sequestered so that they can't be tainted by public emotions and swayed by lynch mob histrionics. Your actions, despite what you say, amounts to an attempt at "jury tampering", and last time I heard, that is against the law!

It is not because because we don't expect a fair hearing on this issue. No one is attempting jury tampering we are preparing a case to present to higher authority.


As someone mentioned earlier, "Get Over It!" And, by the way, the letter that was sent to Animal Planet stated ( as fact) that the USEF was "one by one reinstating" those who had been found guilty of insurance fraud". That just isn't true...the USEF is beginning to conduct hearings on reinstatement...which is not the same thing as granting reinstatement. Please...when you set out to ruin a sport that others have worked very hard to develop...at least, get your facts straight!

Are you sayng that you don't know of the current re-instatement of two already that were convicted and are felons. Do you agree with us that PV should not be re-instated? I submitted a request to the CEO that Joe Plemmons after his public confession that he shot Helen Brach in the head twice should be suspended and have a Hearing. I never received the courtesy of an answer.

Fairview Horse Center
Jan. 31, 2006, 08:10 PM
And,by the way, the whole notion of the petition flies in the face of a fair judicial procedure. Juries in criminal trials are often sequestered so that they can't be tainted by public emotions and swayed by lynch mob histrionics. Your actions, despite what you say, amounts to an attempt at "jury tampering", and last time I heard, that is against the law!

The USEF is not a court of law. It is a "club" with exclusive membership. The #1 requirement for membership is to do what is right by and for the horse. Members in a club have the right to work to make sure undesirables are not welcome - especially if they have gone against the core values that have been established for the "club". Members of this club should be held to HIGHER standards that the letter of the law. The BEST way to make sure the horse community is NOT perceived to be elitists is to remove the perception of impropriety, and hold the "good 'ole boy network to higher standards. If it involves public pressure to make sure they are not EVER welcomed back with open arms, so be it. They will never offer anything of value to the horse community to overcome the kind of people they really are, and that is someone that cares more about money and status than the horse.

Doctors who have intentionally killed patients do not EVER get to practice medicine again - even if they have served their time in prison.

FuzzyLogic
Jan. 31, 2006, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by Saddlebag:
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I have tried to stay away from this thread, because it seems to me that what the "No Reinstatement" faction really is about is to discredit the "A" Circuit competitors and unilaterally assuming that anyone who competes on the "A: level of showing condones killing horses for insurance money. So now, you are seeking to piggy-back your cause onto the upcoming Animal Planet series on the Maclay Finals by implying that the kids who are the stars of this series, and who have expended the work and dedication that goes into preparing for this national championship, are the budding young horse killers of the future. I'm sorry, but I find this type of "Yellow Journalism" extremely distasteful and yes, harmful to the sport.

I know of no-one who supports the actions of Messrs Lindeman, Ward, Valliere, et al that occured ten years ago. I certainly am apalled by what they did to those horses. But, I am also outraged when I read the vicious verbiage that this mob visits upon anyone who says, "Hey, I have faith that the USEF Hearing Committee will listen to the reinstatement arguments fairly and dispassionately, and will come to a just decision as to when or whether the miscreants may be reinstated as members of our Federation.

And,by the way, the whole notion of the petition flies in the face of a fair judicial procedure. Juries in criminal trials are often sequestered so that they can't be tainted by public emotions and swayed by lynch mob histrionics. Your actions, despite what you say, amounts to an attempt at "jury tampering", and last time I heard, that is against the law!

As someone mentioned earlier, "Get Over It!" And, by the way, the letter that was sent to Animal Planet stated ( as fact) that the USEF was "one by one reinstating" those who had been found guilty of insurance fraud". That just isn't true...the USEF is beginning to conduct hearings on reinstatement...which is not the same thing as granting reinstatement. Please...when you set out to ruin a sport that others have worked very hard to develop...at least, get your facts straight!

Well said, Saddelbag, and please know that unlike members of the lynch mob, there are people reading this thread who can actually read for comprehension and not put words in your mouth. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Sheila H
Jan. 31, 2006, 08:20 PM
I'm pretty sure the AMA isnt a club.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Jan. 31, 2006, 08:23 PM
I do not think that there is any sort of movement against those who compete at A level shows.

Sheila H
Jan. 31, 2006, 08:35 PM
Sure there is. It's called RICO.

Duffy
Jan. 31, 2006, 08:38 PM
Saddlebag - I see no one trying to discredit the "A" Circuit here. Heck, I show on the A circuit, albeit not at WEF. I don't assume anyone who competes on the level condones killing horses for insurance money either. I do, however, have a problem with allowing these criminals back into our USEF. I don't care to see them at the shows. I don't care to have my child (yes, I have one and she also shows on the A circuit), around these criminals either.

However, I'm not sure the upcoming Animal Planet show is the place for this publicity. I see both sides on this one.

It is difficult to have faith that the USEF will not allow the others back in. They have already let one back in.

This petition/movement is NOT anything like jury tampering. Come on! I would think it might be more similar to a parole hearing however, where interested parties ARE allowed to voice their misgivings AND support.

See above note about the USEF...They have already let one of these criminals back in - that I've heard of. We're now trying to make sure no OTHERS get back in.

I have no problem reading for comprehension. I don't know anything about any lynch mob.

Serah
Jan. 31, 2006, 10:08 PM
You cannot compare the no reinstatement movement to a jumper rider crashing... I understand the movement, you guys have great motives and I think your persistance is admirable. But this series isn't the place for negativity. Let it go...

BaliBandido
Feb. 1, 2006, 01:01 AM
My thoughts on the reinstatement have been said earlier- I think those who comitted these infractions should not be allowed back in the organization.

So with that being said, I do not think 'honing' in on this particular program is going to have the desired effect. This is to showcase some of the things that are good about our sport, to show young people in a competition setting, to showcase the animals and maybe along the way provide some interest and inspiration to the general public about a sport we are passionate about. To attach the reinstatement issue and the history leading up to it is certainly a detracting factor and those that see this program may never see the resolution- it is not likely to be broadcast to that audience. So then people are left to draw their own conclusions, that may not be a good thing.

I think it unfair to tarnish the accomplishments of those featured, let them be a positive influence and let them enjoy the rewards of their work. This issue will not be decided by a huge public outcry from those outside of the industry who see a t.v program, it will come from within the association. The powers that be will have to make decisions based on the standards they have set, what they feel the reprecussions will be etc. I think it would be a mistake to offend some of those people in this industry that may agree with no reinstatement and may actually have some clout and whose opinions may be heard louder than some of the rest of us by seeming to look a bit fanatical and take advantage of a situation that really has nothing to do with these issues.

Of course I think it is good to continue to argue against reinstatement and have never been one to shy away from a battle- but I have learned that in the zeal to make a point often you can lose some of the people that do support you just by taking it a step to far. There are, in my opinion better places, better times and better strategies to keep this on track. I think it is really important that we remain factual, fair and logical- you can be passionate about the issue but if you start flying off and insinuating your position in places where most think it innapropriate, you do run the risk of turning people of completely because you appear to be an unreasonable lunatic! The religious right has suffered this same fate! I would hate to have the good intentions of people actually hurt the cause in the long run.

Pick your battles well, where you are at an advantage.

BaliBandido
Feb. 1, 2006, 01:31 AM
I just read my last post and want to be clear on something. When I talk about not 'offending those who may have louder voices and more clout' etc I am in no way suggesting that our voices are not important and we don't want to risk upsetting the big boys. Trust me anyone who knows me will tell ya that just ain't the case!

Maybe this little story will clarify what I am trying (desperatly) to say-

I had a client once who was getting a divorce, we at the barn had been witness to some of her husbands less than ideal behavior and supported her and really did feel she was justified in what she was doing. She had days where she was understandably down or angry or frustrated, but she always maintained some sense of logic and reason about the situation.

We had a barn party where the husband and father of the child attended. It was a bit unexpected as he was not a big presence at the barn- but he did have the right to be there and while he was there he was polite, civil and his actions and demeanor were acceptable for the situation.

I suppose she felt like he was intruding on her last refuge or maybe she had just had a bad day or whatever- but this gal lost her mind. She became upset, a little verbally rude and not to rational.

Now those of us that knew what had been happening kinda understood, but the way she came off to those that were not really in the know was not good and was not a true representation of how she was and had been actually handling the situation. Those people saw her behavior at that one point and time and formed the opinion that maybe this was how she was all the time and it made them feel for the husband (who really was a toad). Some of the people who did support her had some doubts as well once they saw or heard about the (relatively minor) ruckus. She lost some credibility and I am sure to some people the opinion formed at that moment never changed because they never were around much before or after that display. It was kind of the attitude of 'well he may be a jackass, but she ain't looking all that easy to get along with either' so people just remained in neutral. Hard to know who to support when both sides look less than desirable.

That is something we don't want to happen here, we don't want to seem so over the top that it scares people to be associated with our 'side'. The facts are the facts, they speak for themselves, if the NGB was not aware of the opposition to reinstatement before, they are now. Keep it on the front burner- yes, but don't make the flame so hot that people back away.

We see it on the BB in several 'hot' topics- slaughter, drugging, draw reins etc- people will ask a question, there will be replies that are informative or offer opinions, then there will be someone (there is one in every crowd) that comes across so strong, so absolute, so black and white, so over the top that they lose all credibility and are labled a fanatic or the slaughter, draw rein etc police, and it turns people off, it pisses them off. Same thing when someone 'hijacks' a somewhat related subject and turns it into yet another way to preach their views. How many times did Roulett (and others I am sure) get accused of this? What was the reaction and the ultimate feelings that resulted? I see trying to connect this issue with the program on t.v as hijacking and fear it will be recieved the same way as it is on the BB. Shoving something down someones throat at any and every opportunity no matter how right you may be or think you may be rarely works to draw people to your line of thinking, so they tune you out and then your message, which may be a damn good one is lost due to the way it was presented.

There- clear as mud?

horse_poor
Feb. 1, 2006, 06:37 AM
yet another newspaper article

[URL=http://www.projo.com/sports/content/projo_20060201_01horse.12cecb79.html]

R.I. horse killer is eligible for reinstatement
Paul Valliere, who admitted paying a hit man in 1994 to electrocute a show horse for insurance money, could be reinstated to the United States Equestrian Federation, causing outrage among equestrians across the country.



01:00 AM EST on Wednesday, February 1, 2006
BY TOM MEADE
Journal Sports Writer



A group of equestrians has mounted an online campaign to block the reinstatement of former Rhode Island horse trainer Paul Valliere to the United States Equestrian Federation. He was one of 23 people convicted in the early 1990s for killing show horses for insurance money.

In 1994, Valliere, then the owner of Acres Wild Farm in North Smithfield, admitted he paid a hit man to electrocute a show horse so Valliere could collect $75,000 in insurance money. Valliere agreed to wear a recording device to collect evidence against associates who also were involved in killing horses. One

of his close friends, Rhode Island native Barney Ward, served jail time for his role in arranging some of the killings.

For his cooperation, Valliere was sentenced in 1996 to four years of probation and ordered to pay a $5,000 fine. Valliere also was indefinitely suspended from participating in horse shows sanctioned by the U.S. Equestrian Federation, then called the American Horse Show Association. The group agreed to periodically review the case. Valliere will qualify for a review this spring if he applies for reinstatement.

Though he may not attend horse shows, Valliere never left the training business. Today, he is coaching riders and training horses in Wellington, Fla., and Plainville, Mass.

Valliere did not return a call to his Florida phone yesterday.

With his eligibility approaching this spring, he is the target of indignation from the horse community on Web sites in the United States and Great Britain. More than 2,000 people have signed an online petition asking the equestrian federation to maintain Valliere's suspension.

"The petition is intended to demonstrate to USEF, the [International Federation for Equestrian Sports] and the U.S. Olympic Committee that there are large numbers of equestrians who believe that reinstatement of any of the so-called horse killers is not in the best interest of equestrian sport, and is unbecoming to the national governing body, whose own charter these people directly violated," says Liz Ireland.

A horse owner and trainer in Athens, Ga., she launched the petition on chronofhorse.com, an online service of The Chronicle of the Horse magazine.

When a federal grand jury in Chicago began indicting people involved in killing horses for illegal profit, the news appeared in publications and broadcasts all over the world. A story in Sports Illustrated and a subsequent television documentary focused on how one of the horse killers used a crowbar to shatter the leg of a horse owned by former U.S. Olympic rider Buddy Brown, once a trainer at Valliere's former farm in Rhode Island. Brown's ex-wife, Donna Brown, was convicted for hiring the hit man.

In 1994, Valliere admitted that he hired Tommy "The Sandman" Burns to electrocute his show horse, Roseau Platiere. Valliere wrote a check to pay Burns, who attached alligator clips to the horse's nose and anus, and then plugged the wire into an outlet.

"We're alarmed that more people are not aware of the killings and the potential for reinstatement [of Valliere and others who were suspended by the equestrian federation]," said Molly Williamson of White Bear Lake, Minn., another horse owner and rider working on the petition campaign.

"There is no place for forgiveness," said Williamson. "It's not like it was an accident. It was premeditated. I don't think they're sorry for what they did. I think they're sorry that they got caught."

Vikki Karcher Siegel, manager of Snowbird Acres Farm in Long Valley, N.J., and a member of the USEF's competition management committee, agrees.

"It is not logical that the U.S. Equestrian Federation, which has as its mission the protection and welfare of horses, would not ban anyone from participation in this sport if they have benefited financially from the fraudulent death of a horse," she said. "The horses involved in the insurance-fraud scandal could have been sold, even if at a loss, to people who would have loved them and cared for them. Instead, they died for people's ego and greed."

"I support Paul 100 percent," Mason Phelps, Valliere's longtime friend and former owner of Glen Farm in Portsmouth, said yesterday. "What he did is unfortunate, but unlike some of the others who did this, Paul has acknowledged what he did. He certainly has been remorseful, and he has made the appropriate apologies publicly. He has abided by the sentence put out by our equestrian federation. He's paid his dues. I think it's time for him to be allowed him to come back. People who have done murders and rapes do their sentence and are back on the streets."

"True," said Williamson, "but child molesters aren't allowed to be around children. Why should horse killers be allowed to be around horses?"

tmeade@projo.com / (401) 277-7340

Fairview Horse Center
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:17 AM
What in the world is negative about a group of horse people working to make sure the horse community is safe from bad guys????

That is a positve thing, not negative in most people's eyes.

SGray
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by Uberraschung:
....A television show about some riding teenagers has nothing to do with 10 year old news (the kids in the program were what...8 years old max at the time of this news?) for an organization people outside of horses have never heard of.

the crime was committed a decade or more ago but the eligibility to apply for reinstatement by those that committed the crimes is past, present and future - a current event as it were

War Admiral
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:51 AM
I've updated www.noreinstatement.org (http://www.noreinstatement.org) with a link to the article.

Perfect Pony
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:55 AM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
It will only be bad publicity for the sport if they are actually reinstated. It will be good publicity if it is shown that instead of us all being spoiled, elitist, rich brats with no morals, we DO have people that care about doing what is right, and making sure our environment STAYS family friendly.

AMEN, that is exactly what I was thinking.

IMO, it is people like Mason Phelps, who it seems practically runs things in places like WEF, and who runs a media company to actually promote the sport (LOL!) that will "ruin" things and turn people away from the sport with his "friends" and attitude.

sarabeck
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:48 AM
OK GUYS WE NEED TO GET OUR FACTS STRAIGHT IF YOU WANT TO BE HEARD BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN DOING A LITLE INVESTIGATION ON MY OWN.

PAUL VALLIERE WAS ELIGBLE FOR REINSTAEMENT IN AUGUST OF 2004 NOT APRIL OF 2006. HIS HEARING DATE WAS IN APRIL 1996. THE USEF MADE THE SUSPENSION RETRO ACTIVE FROM WHEN IT BEGAN IN AUGUST 0F 94. FROM WHAT I HEAR HE HAD NO PLANS APPLYING THEN OR NOW. SO WHEN ALL THE ARTICLES ARE WRITTEN IT MAKES ALL OF US WHO DON'T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN LOOK BAD BECASUE WE DON'T EVEN HAVE OUR FACTS STRAIGHT.

THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE AUTHOR "IN SERIVICE TO THE HORSE" SHE HAD NO MONEY TO SUPPORT THE WRITING OF THIS BOOK AND PAUL OPENED HIS HOME TO HER IN FLORIDA WHEN NO ONE ELSE WOULD THIS ALLOWED HER TO INTERVIEW PEOPLE FOR THE BOOK WHICH WAS THEN PUBLISHED.
NOW I HAVE A FEW QUESTION FOR ANYONE WHO CAN ANSWER THIS:

I JUST HAD A INCIDENT WITH THE BREAST CANCER BRACELETS. I PURCHASED SOME FOR MY FRIENDS AND MYSELF. I LATER FOUND OUT THAT THE BREAST CANCER ASSOC. RECEIVED NO MONEY FOR THE DONATIONS AND THE SELLERS WERE NOT AUTHORIZED TO USE THE NAME OR LOGO. WHERE DOES THE MONEY GO WHEN I PURCHASE THESE NO REINSTATEMENT ITEMS? DOES THE USEF RECEIVE A PORTION OF THE FUNDS SINCE THEIR NAME IS ON THIS? WHAT ARE THE PROCEEDS USED FOR?
BEFORE I SIGN MY NAME TO ANYTHING I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE FACTS CORRECT SO I'M NOT INVOLVED WITH LITIGATION OF ANY KIND PURCHASING NON AUTHORIZED ITEMS OR PUTING MY GOOD NAME AND USEF # TO SOMETHING THAT IS FALSE. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT THE WORDING OF THE PETITION IS INACURATE DO TO THE FACT PAUL A HAS OWNED THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE HORSE SHOW N WELLINTON SINCE 1996 AND AT THAT TIME THE WEF HORSE SHOW WAS APPROX 2 MILES AWAY. THE HORSE SHOW MOVED AND EXPANDED OUT TO HIM. LIKE I SAID I DID MY HOMEWORK. I WOULD LIKE TO GET INVOLVED BUT THIS SOUNDS LIKE A PERSONAL ATTACK ON JUST ONE INDVIDUAL. INACCURACIES CAUSE LITIGATION FOLLOWED BY DEPOSITIONS. HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE WILLING TO GET INVOLVED WITH BACKING UP FALSE INFORMATION

PLEASE HELP ME

shade
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:53 AM
Why, in light of the recent progress made in those areas, is it necessary to drag 10-year-old dirty laundry out into the public view?
Do you honestly think that people with little knowledge of the sport want to see people on the inside bringing controversy forward? It doesn't create the impression that the community is concerned with its image. It creates the impression that the community is inherently controversial.

On the contrary it is very necessary to bring this dirty laundry to the forefront. The perputrators of these horrendous crimes are starting to be eligibale for reinstatement. People need to be aware of the issue. What do you want? For all of us little people to do? Just forget about it. Maybe you big people can and why you can is beyond me. I'm sorry I do not want someone that killed an innocent horse that wouldn't perform to their standards killed in order for them not to lose any money on them back into the organization that represents me. And I also think it shows the general public that the TRUE horsemen out there are very concerned by our image and do not want it sullied by the reinstatement of these people. It would be such a HUGE blot against our industry if these people were allowed back in. It just screams to the public that we don't care that they had horses cruelly killed for money alone. If I was a parent and realized that an organization I wanted to join and have my child show at this orginizations shows allowed these people back in there is no way my child would be allowed anywhere near this orginiations shows. And just so you know I haven't always been one of the little people. I was heavily involved in the upper levels of showing when these crimes were committed.

Coreene
Feb. 1, 2006, 10:15 AM
The Animal Planet series was already filmed. It's not like American Idol.

Coreene
Feb. 1, 2006, 10:16 AM
PS, Sarabeck, I can see you've signed up specifically for your ALL CAPS RANT, so just a suggestion moving forward: take your finger off the Caps Lock key. It makes our eyes bleed.

sarabeck
Feb. 1, 2006, 11:38 AM
sorry about the caps guys but could someone who knows address my questions

thanks

War Admiral
Feb. 1, 2006, 11:39 AM
First off, welcome to the forum, Sara, but please don't "shout".

The No Reinstatement campaign is a grassroots campaign, and is not, and has never claimed to be, sanctioned or approved by USEF. We are all cognizant of the fact that it would be completely inappropriate for USEF to be involved on either side of the debate until such time as any hearing may take place before the Hearings Committee, and I think everyone concerned, no matter which side of the fence they may be on, is in agreement on that.

I haven't seen all the bracelets - several individuals have had them made up at their own expense - but neither the USEF acronym nor logo appear on the bracelets currently for sale via the web site. The acronym "USEF" does appear on some of the apparel, but only in the context of the slogan, not in any context which could be construed as an attempt on the part of the no reinstatement campaign to imply affiliation with USEF.

Apparel sales are non-profit. The items are sold at the break-even price point and no one at all is making any profit, other than the manufacturer, Cafe Press. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif As to the bracelets - which are a separate entity - there is a potential profit there, but we certainly are not in the black as of yet! If enough bracelets are sold to put the campaign into profit, then that money will be put into a general non-profit fund administered by Snowbird. We will either use that money to campaign again when the next round of folks becomes eligible for reinstatement in three years, or, if we get enough, we'll come back to the ideas that have been mentioned farther back in the thread, such as taking out trade advertisements, sponsoring a memorial trophy in memory of the dead horses, or sponsoring a scholarship for a young rider.

There were indeed two separate suspension dates. We are going by the date stated in the latter of the reports of the minutes of the Hearing Committee.

Lastly, while many owners, competitors and trainers do in fact own properties that are now directly adjacent to the show grounds in question owing to expansion, not all of them choose to coach students from "across the line" on show days via walkie-talkie or other similar devices while under USEF suspension. That's an ethical decision that each suspended individual must make for him or herself.

Hope that clarifies.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 12:01 PM
I would like to again bring your attention to page GR67 of the 2005 Rule Book. In the article labeled VIOLATIONS.

1.c. Penalization by an administrative agency, humane society, <span class="ev_code_red">or court of law for violation of Federation Rules. </span>

1.h. Exhibiting any horse while <span class="ev_code_blue">in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.</span>

1.i.Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training <span class="ev_code_red">for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person.</span>

Therefore hiring a proxy is a violation by the proxy trainer on the show grounds. The rider is in violation of the rules. Speaking and coaching even if from your own land by radio is a violation of these rules. The fact that everyone knows Paul Valiere is suspended makes them equally an accessory to his violaion of the rules. The fact that everyone knows which are his students and which are the horses that he has in his care and custody is a violation of existing rules.

If people there on site do not care and have not filed protests then we have to assume they condone the violation of Federation Rules. Since we know that all the committees of USEF are populated only from the "elite" groups which participate in Wellington we have no reason to assume the Hearing Committee is impartial and will deliver a quasi-legal opinion to enorce their own rules. Further, it is directly true that the Stewards on those show grounds are not enforcing the rules of the Federation.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 1, 2006, 12:16 PM
Snowbird, we have had several people come on this forum and avow to the excellent care their horse's get under PV's care, that he even mucks stalls and also that they are being shown at WEF. It is no secret. The USEF is aware of this, too. They have done nothing about it for ten years, and unfortunately their stance will be to look the other way until it comes time for his petition, when they will "forgive".

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 12:27 PM
Sadly Harry you are quite right and there are no rules in the Rule Book under which the Federation can be charged with behavior not in the best interests of the sport.

However, the USOC is reponsible for the behavior of the NGB's which it sanction and the Senate Commerce Committee is reponsible for misbehavior by the USOC.

THIS corporation had it's first day December 1, 2003 and so they are not responsible for previous indescretions for enforcement of rules. They are now responsible and they have advertised their intention to enforce all rules in the Rule Books equally and fairly.

SO! We shall see. I have an appointment in June to go to Washington DC as a Member of the Leadership Trust of the NFIB. It is our annual privilege to meet with Members of Congress and surely the Commerce Committee of the Senate is on my personal agenda.

Anyone care to join me in Washington?

sarabeck
Feb. 1, 2006, 02:02 PM
eply



The Chronicle of the Horse Forums Hunter/Jumper The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.

sarabeck
Feb. 1, 2006, 02:27 PM
Thanks War Admiral for the clarification but what your saying is that paul valliere was suppose to stop trianing on his own property just because the horse show years later came out next door to him. That does not sound correct or a fault of valliere's
also how is it you know for sure about the walkie talkies. You must have an inside source to be able to think you know about someones telephone conversations. Isn't that illegal? Is your source going to go to the usef and testify in front of the hearing panel and show proof that your petition is correct. That's going to be hard . And if paul was eligible almost two years ago and has no plans of trying to get back in why are you not going after people who abuse live horses to stop them. I think you would better serve the horse world that way instead of trying to get people excited about something that isn't really happening. i am still trying to understand all this.it sounds like you are not servng your readers well or the horses that are alive right now that desperately need our help.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 03:58 PM
Thanks War Admiral for the clarification but what your saying is that paul valliere was suppose to stop trianing on his own property just because the horse show years later came out next door to him.

No what War Admiral and everyone else is saying is even though is next door and so tempting the rules clearly say that PV as a suspended person may not particpate in said show.


1.h. Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.

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

Any horse which is boarded on his farm and is cared for by him may not compete in said show. It is devious to hire a proxy trainer for the purposes of them being allowed to show. It doesn't matter if he uses a cell phone or a radio he is directly communicating and the success of said competitor increases his reputation. He may not benefit from any horse show while suspended and all who participate with him are in violation of the Federation Rules and should be penalized as well.


That does not sound correct or a fault of valliere's also how is it you know for sure about the walkie talkies. You must have an inside source to be able to think you know about someones telephone conversations. If that is supposed to be a secret it is without a doubt the worst kept secret in the business. There are threads out here listing HIS equitation riders who are doing well and HIS horses that are doing well and the fact that he cleans stalls in his barn makes every horse there in his care and custody. He has been quoted as bragging that his business has never been better.


Isn't that illegal? Is your source going to go to the usef and testify in front of the hearing panel and show proof that your petition is correct. That's going to be hard . Not when you can document it in written form.

And if paul was eligible almost two years ago and has no plans of trying to get back in why are you not going after people who abuse live horses to stop them.
I think that was the year he planned to judge the Equitation Finals an unrecognized class and he was compelled to change his mind do to public scrutiny.

Even though the class was unrecognized the grounds are USEF sanctioned for 24 hours a day. We know they won't change that and risk letting someone new get a show date.


I think you would better serve the horse world that way instead of trying to get people excited about something that isn't really happening. i am still trying to understand all this.it sounds like you are not servng your readers well or the horses that are alive right now that desperately need our help.

Well, you see legally until the horse is dead there is no crime! I think you need to understand that PV has confessed and admitted guilt so there is no question.

horse_poor
Feb. 1, 2006, 06:05 PM
I can only speak about my end of the bracelets--I order them with my own money-if people want them, they pay what they cost me to make them plus postage to mail them. No profit. I have invoices to back it up if need be.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thanks War Admiral for the clarification but what your saying is that paul valliere was suppose to stop trianing on his own property just because the horse show years later came out next door to him.

No what War Admiral and everyone else is saying is even though is next door and so tempting the rules clearly say that PV as a suspended person may not particpate in said show.


1.h. Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.

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

Any horse which is boarded on his farm and is cared for by him may not compete in said show. It is devious to hire a proxy trainer for the purposes of them being allowed to show. It doesn't matter if he uses a cell phone or a radio he is directly communicating and the success of said competitor increases his reputation. He may not benefit from any horse show while suspended and all who participate with him are in violation of the Federation Rules and should be penalized as well.


That does not sound correct or a fault of valliere's also how is it you know for sure about the walkie talkies. You must have an inside source to be able to think you know about someones telephone conversations. If that is supposed to be a secret it is without a doubt the worst kept secret in the business. There are threads out here listing HIS equitation riders who are doing well and HIS horses that are doing well and the fact that he cleans stalls in his barn makes every horse there in his care and custody. He has been quoted as bragging that his business has never been better.


Isn't that illegal? Is your source going to go to the usef and testify in front of the hearing panel and show proof that your petition is correct. That's going to be hard . Not when you can document it in written form.

And if paul was eligible almost two years ago and has no plans of trying to get back in why are you not going after people who abuse live horses to stop them.
I think that was the year he planned to judge the Equitation Finals an unrecognized class and he was compelled to change his mind do to public scrutiny.

Even though the class was unrecognized the grounds are USEF sanctioned for 24 hours a day. We know they won't change that and risk letting someone new get a show date.


I think you would better serve the horse world that way instead of trying to get people excited about something that isn't really happening. i am still trying to understand all this.it sounds like you are not servng your readers well or the horses that are alive right now that desperately need our help.

Well, you see legally until the horse is dead there is no crime! I think you need to understand that PV has confessed and admitted guilt so there is no question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

the fault of your statement is in the interpretation of the rules. they are meant as the trainer may not be at the show ring, on the show groungs, or on the phone coaching the rider through a course while showing in a recognized class, he also cannot be riding, etc. yet he IS allowed to send a trainer employed by him to train his riders which he trains at home (mass or FL) under his own roof(s)

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:40 PM
Snowbird - watch yourself - this gal has actually taken a lesson from PV - one lesson - she knows him and if you read the other thread - she knows he TOOK THE FALL FOR THE TEAM!

One lesson and she knows - he's the best Eq trainer there is - even with binoculars and cell phones - he be da best!

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:46 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
Snowbird - watch yourself - this gal has actually taken a lesson from PV - one lesson - she knows him and if you read the other thread - she knows he TOOK THE FALL FOR THE TEAM!

One lesson and she knows - he's the best Eq trainer there is - even with binoculars and cell phones - he be da best!

well this one proves my last post on the other thread. you have no argument. IMO hes one of the best eq trainers because i've seen his riders (past and present) not because i took a lesson from him. you really are the worst interpreter in the world.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 07:59 PM
And you are living proof that our education system is failing to provide even the basics of proper writing skills.

And just for clarification - how many of his riders have you seen (past & present)? Was that in person or on VHS? Does seeing them in person count more? Did he teach all of these riders from the first day they rode?

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:02 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
And you are living proof that our education system is failing to provide even the basics of proper writing skills.

And just for clarification - how many of his riders have you seen (past & present)? Was that in person or on VHS? Does seeing them in person count more? Did he teach all of these riders from the first day they rode?

proper writing skills? please i'd love to be "educated" on what was improper about that post. IMO is short hand for in my opinion. i write in perfectly fine interest. i don't count the riders i've seen, i have seen a bunch, in person. i apologize for not knowing his life story "my love." your previous post was the most IRRELEVANT, ignorant thing i have read in my entire life.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:09 PM
I think radishes come in bunches and so do bananas. I never knew people come in bunches.

How about some capital letters?

Nice to know you read. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

TWF
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:09 PM
IMO you need a GED

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:15 PM
the fault of your statement is in the interpretation of the rules. they are meant as the trainer may not be at the show ring, on the show groungs, or on the phone coaching the rider through a course while showing in a recognized class, he also cannot be riding, etc. yet he IS allowed to send a trainer employed by him to train his riders which he trains at home (mass or FL) under his own roof(s)

Why do your posts sound so much like Hildegaard Frostbite who happens to be managed by Mason Phelps? I remember early on when you tried to impress us with your insider knowledge.

In any case it is not "my interpretatin of the rules" it is what the rules read exactly. I see clearly where it is a violation of the Federation Rules to add any gain in prestige or money to the benefit of anyone suspended. You on the other hand seem to read them the old way where the rules were interpreted to mean if they didn't say you couldn't then you could! Yopu really need to get contemporary "my dear". BUT that was a whole other corporation "dearie". This one is brand new and they say that the rules will be enforced equally for everyone highly placed or lowly. We intend to make that be so!


proper writing skills? please i'd love to be "educated" on what was improper about that post. IMO is short hand for in my opinion. i write in perfectly fine interest. i don't count the riders i've seen, i have seen a bunch, in person. i apologize for not knowing his life story "my love." your previous post was the most IRRELEVANT, ignorant thing i have read in my entire life.

No you don't want to be educated you make your living from being snide and sarcastic. I am so pleased because if you think a post is irrelevant and ignorant it must be really intelligent and right on target, don't you think "my love". Congratulations to who ever it was you were criticizing; maybe they will get your job from Mason.

RNB
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:16 PM
ise@ssl & TWF ~ you just have to remember the AGE of the person you are TRYING to communicate with.

You'd have better luck nailing jello to a tree!!

Serah
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:17 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
I think radishes come in bunches and so do bananas. I never knew people come in bunches.

How about some capital letters?

Nice to know you read. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Hey guys, what do ya say we get petty here?!?!? I mean,seriously... are we in high school here??

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
I think radishes come in bunches and so do bananas. I never knew people come in bunches.

How about some capital letters?

Nice to know you read. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

capital letters have nothing to do with being illiterate. it makes typing faster and easier. especially since i don't have a shift button.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:20 PM
Sadly Serah I'm afraid we have some posters who haven't made it to High School yet. We have to care for those mentally disabled and try to nurture them with kindness.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:20 PM
Actually I was lamenting that high schools are obviously NOT teaching proper writing skills! What a shame.

And as far as the age of this young woman - isn't it somewhat frightening that she's reached this point and doesn't see the crime in killing one's own horse for money? Or grasping the concept of perjury. She seems to validate it if anyone else has done it.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">the fault of your statement is in the interpretation of the rules. they are meant as the trainer may not be at the show ring, on the show groungs, or on the phone coaching the rider through a course while showing in a recognized class, he also cannot be riding, etc. yet he IS allowed to send a trainer employed by him to train his riders which he trains at home (mass or FL) under his own roof(s)

Why do your posts sound so much like Hildegaard Frostbite who happens to be managed by Mason Phelps? I remember early on when you tried to impress us with your insider knowledge.

In any case it is not "my interpretatin of the rules" it is what the rules read exactly. I see clearly where it is a violation of the Federation Rules to add any gain in prestige or money to the benefit of anyone suspended. You on the other hand seem to read them the old way where the rules were interpreted to mean if they didn't say you couldn't then you could! Yopu really need to get contemporary "my dear". BUT that was a whole other corporation "dearie". This one is brand new and they say that the rules will be enforced equally for everyone highly placed or lowly. We intend to make that be so!


proper writing skills? please i'd love to be "educated" on what was improper about that post. IMO is short hand for in my opinion. i write in perfectly fine interest. i don't count the riders i've seen, i have seen a bunch, in person. i apologize for not knowing his life story "my love." your previous post was the most IRRELEVANT, ignorant thing i have read in my entire life.

No you don't want to be educated you make your living from being snide and sarcastic. I am so pleased because if you think a post is irrelevant and ignorant it must be really intelligent and right on target, don't you think "my love". Congratulations to who ever it was you were criticizing; maybe they will get your job from Mason. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

snide and sarcastic? all of my posts have been honest. my whole-hearted opinions. it's so funny how close-minded people cannot even FATHOM what the other party is attempting to say.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by RNB:
ise@ssl & TWF ~ you just have to remember the AGE of the person you are TRYING to communicate with.

You'd have better luck nailing jello to a tree!!

because you know my age right? if i were to guess all of your ages i would have to put you at about 12 or 13. you don't have any arguments besides insulting me, nice to know you really care about the issues. i'd vote you for president.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:22 PM
Thank you for that wonderful new descriptive phrase.........."she doesn't have a shift button!" http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:23 PM
Oh! my and how did you manage to find a keyboard without a shift key? If you look carefully there are two on every keyboard. One is next to Z and the other is next to the ?.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
Actually I was lamenting that high schools are obviously NOT teaching proper writing skills! What a shame.

And as far as the age of this young woman - isn't it somewhat frightening that she's reached this point and doesn't see the crime in killing one's own horse for money? Or grasping the concept of perjury. She seems to validate it if anyone else has done it.

i didn't say that you were trying to say that they were. YOU'RE the one that needs to learn how to read. i ADMIT that what he did was wrong. i admit it. i just don't that that it's your place to tell the usef what to do about it.

Sheila H
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:25 PM
Discriptive?

In case anyone wants to make fun of my age, let me just say that I knew PV before he was even born.

RNB
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:25 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif at Snowbird

HunterJumperLuv
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:26 PM
I'm thoroughly enjoying reading this thread all of the sudden! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:26 PM
Sadly Serah I'm afraid we have some posters who haven't made it to High School yet. We have to care for those mentally disabled and try to nurture them with kindness.
Gee... nastiness suits you Snowy...

VarsityHero4
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:26 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Oh! my and how did you manage to find a keyboard without a shift key? If you look carefully there are two on every keyboard. One is next to Z and the other is next to the ?.

maybe you need to go back to school as well snowy. believe it or not the keys on a keyboard are removeable.

HunterJumperLuv
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:27 PM
Wow Varsity, Nice comeback!
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:29 PM
i didn't say that you were trying to say that they were. YOU'RE the one that needs to learn how to read. i ADMIT that what he did was wrong. i admit it. i just don't that that it's your place to tell the usef what to do about it.

Please take just this phrase to your English teacher and ask for comments? Then explain why I should understand this?

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:29 PM
And as far as the age of this young woman - isn't it somewhat frightening that she's reached this point and doesn't see the crime in killing one's own horse for money
Dopey logic.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:43 PM
Varsity didn't the teacher tell you not to remove them because if you did they wouldn;t work?

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:44 PM
Is that the same Dopey that was one of Snow White's dwarfs?

Funny - it never crossed my mind to start removing keys from my computer keyboard. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:45 PM
Sheila were you sharing the sperm or the egg?

I know you had another incarnation which is why you have such great comprehension.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:46 PM
I enjoy a battle of wits unfortunately they're not armed with any.

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:47 PM
Please take just this phrase to your English teacher and ask for comments? Then explain why I should understand this?

ise@ssl
Grand Prix
Posted Feb. 01, 2006 11:29 PM
ise... Honestly... your nitpicky comments make you look nitpicky...and nitpicky is not attractive.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:48 PM
Welcome aboard I suspect we have accumulated some very impaired a$$ kissers tonight.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:48 PM
Ah! but I am attractive! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif My wonderful handsome husband of 29 years told me so. And he never lies. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Especially under oath. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Sheila H
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:51 PM
Who needs wits when you have a handshake deal with the real mob?

Snowbird - are you sure your motivation doesnt have anything to do with keeping the competition out of business?

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:53 PM
Welcome aboard I suspect we have accumulated some very impaired a$$ kissers tonight.
HUH?

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:53 PM
Well after all - we do live in New Jersey! Pay to play baby! And now we have King Corzine! Pay to play with a really bad haircut.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:56 PM
You got it ise@ssl in New Jersey you can hardly do any business without meeting the "boys". I think it was Jersey City that voted not to delete those who had died from the voter poll records and they swung the election for Corzine.

TWF
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:57 PM
ahhh let's all take a moment and pick the keys off our keyboards.. then back to the topic.....BTW...I still have ALL my keys.

And since you don't think the USEF should answer the public..let me enlighten you ...

USEF The National Governing Body(NGB) for the Equestrian Sport by virtue of their application dated April 1,2003 answers to the USOC aka The U.S. Olympic Committee. "The U.S. Olympic Committee is a federally chartered non-profit corporation accountable to the American people and Congress."

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 08:58 PM
Sheila you do! Because at this point you have neither.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:01 PM
But Sheila - Snowbird doesn't kill her horses for insurance money - so there is no competition issue. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Come on Snowbird - just because someone died doesn't mean they can't vote! I think Chicago proved that years ago. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif Why right here in our Township a 34 year old man was voting by absentee ballot from Maryland for almost a dozen years. He worked there, lived there and his mother used to be a Director of the League of Women Voters here in NJ!! Funny though ........I don't think he was paying taxes here. Maybe I should call King Corzine http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:03 PM
Snowbird doesn't kill her horses for insurance money -
But can you assure me that every horse that has been under Snowbird's control has died a natural death?

TWF
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:03 PM
<span class="ev_code_RED">Jello anyone?</span> http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:06 PM
Ah! but I can document that! I have never collected an insurance claim on a single horse and my bills will prove they were fed, fat and happy until it was their time to go to the rainbow bridge.

ise@ssl
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:06 PM
Is under her control the same as under her umbrella? Isn't that a policy question for your insurance broker? And can we have the definition of a natural death for horses?

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:12 PM
Excellent question ise@ssl How would they all define a natural death?

aND HOW DO YOU DEFINE UMBRELLA? oPPS! my shift key has been insulted and is attacking me for not defending it. I'm sorry shifty I will never do that again.

TWF
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:12 PM
Naturally ...a horse will die when hooked up to an alligator clip and a 110 plug.

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:15 PM
You are right TWF in that case none of my horses have died naturally.

Would someone please post the link to the Providence Journal. I hear I have been quoted and I like to know what I've said when it's in print.

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:29 PM
so... the horse cares about his umbrella? and whether the alligator or the hammer or the needle is the way he meets his maker?

alterforsaftey
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:30 PM
"VarsityHero4
Training Level
Posted Feb 01, 20:26
quote:
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Oh! my and how did you manage to find a keyboard without a shift key? If you look carefully there are two on every keyboard. One is next to Z and the other is next to the ?.
maybe you need to go back to school as well snowy. believe it or not the keys on a keyboard are removable."

Who needs wings when you've got a jumper?



Varsity,

take it with a grain of salt... AT LEAST THANK GOD SNOWBIRD has not gone down her conspiracy theory and bitching about the USEF. That can take several pages and she is never never never wrong except well no never wrong...

Personally my tab key and cap lock is missing off my lap top.. I found one chewed up and noticed the cat likes my keyboard if you know what I mean!

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:38 PM
cat piss is responsible for most, if not all of my posting problems.

alterforsaftey
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:40 PM
"xegeba
Grand Prix
Posted Feb 01, 21:38
cat piss is responsible for most, if not all of my posting problems."

No really I saw the cat.. He sprung on to my lap and I went to swat him and when he jumped he took my tab key.. While I was at the barn he came back for the other key!

My friends fancy pants cat pissed on her keyboard!

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:42 PM
ever had a cat that tinkles on the stove? Now THAT is passive-aggressive(or indicates a more serious disease).

alterforsaftey
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:53 PM
no stove pissing but we did have a cat named splutter in college who would piss in shoe boxes, plants and pizza boxes.

Years later of course I realize that as college students we may not have kept the box up to the cats expectation ;-)

I do no a woman with a Basenji that will pull her boyfriend clothes out and pee just on his stuff! and my jerk Russell sometimes can be grudge pooper, just one but if I leave her behind when I go to a show she does her thing one time in front of the bedroom door to let me know or rather my boyfriend who does not find it as amusing as I do!

xegeba
Feb. 1, 2006, 09:58 PM
I do no a woman with a Basenji that will pull her boyfriend clothes out and pee just on his stuff!
I think the Basenji is trying to make a statement! But he probably just hates the BF because he flunked English.

Local Knowledge
Feb. 1, 2006, 10:18 PM
Why do your posts sound so much like Hildegaard Frostbite who happens to be managed by Mason Phelps?

You all do know that Mason Phelps is Hildegaard Frostbite, right?

Snowbird
Feb. 1, 2006, 10:50 PM
There are five of them I understand is he all five? That could explain his problem if he is a multiple personality. There was someone on a long time ago who was not Mason Phelps we did ascertain it was a female and a "R" judge.

Uberraschung
Feb. 1, 2006, 11:57 PM
I have never enjoyed having xegeba around as much as I do right now! She and sheila are the only ones with wit around here...flies straight over most of the heads of people who reply to them.

I never understood why when people can't think of what to insult a person over then they just insult their spelling. There are so many better options that would make for so much better reading. And besides, insulting someone's spelling/capitalization is just, well, really lame.

War Admiral
Feb. 2, 2006, 07:40 AM
Would someone please post the link to the Providence Journal. I hear I have been quoted and I like to know what I've said when it's in print.

Snowbird, there's a link to the actual publication on the links page at the No Reinstatement web site (http://www.noreinstatement.org) . But you have to register to access the ProJo site, so Hopeful kindly placed a copy of the text at the top of this thread (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/7076024331/m/911209978).

I would just like to point out that Sarabeck IS correct on one legal point: every real estate owner has the right of "quiet enjoyment" of his property. Therefore, a USEF suspended party can do whatever he or she likes on his or her own property. He or she can in fact board, train, coach, whatever. That's not really at issue in my mind...

HOWEVER: I'm with Snowbird in that I feel that there are many USEF rules being violated in this instance. It is, of course, an issue for the Hearing Committee to decide, if and when an application for reinstatement is made by ANY of the so-called "horse killers". But there is, in my opinion, a definite issue as to rule interpretation, and possibly some inequity as to how USEF is choosing to apply its rules, and as to whom.

sarabeck
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:35 AM
How do any of you think you are doing justice by being so wrong about so many thngs. For those of us who want to help your cause you are pushing us away by your rude remarks back and forth. knock it off and lets move forward.
Now more facts

1.Paul valliere does not own a horse business and has not owned one since 1994 So he has not employed anyone.

2. After speaking with the USEF Yesterday Paul Vallere is heldto the standard that was in place at the time. Look at your rule books at the time. Anyone of you have a rule book back then? The critia is different. Once someone is gone through the hearing process it can not be changed after the fact.

3. molly williamson all you have to do is look at wef and see a child molesters so your comment about we don't let them next to our chidren isn't too bright

4. Many of the names on your Petition are dulicated & don'thave the usef# next to them they won't be considered.There is only a small number of people who have done this and as far as the usef is concerned unless there is a # by the name it gets taken out. they will not do our homework to check who is a member and who is not.if you are not a member it does not count with them

5. This sounds like you are after one person and given the fact his 10 year suspension was up in august of 2004 andhe has not tried to come back you are going after him & even though we have freedom of speech there is a liable problem here that you are walking right into because he has'nt tried to apply.

6.When you ask people to log on and sign a petition it says valliere. i think i would change that if i were you and have it be for everyone. But the bigger problem with the petition against valliere, The items you are acusing him of don't pertain to the critera given to him by the Usef Why didn't someone help yu out before you started this. You are destroying your own goal

How many of you are wiling to put your name on some thing and end up in court?

Duffy
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:53 AM
I know it's a long thread, sarabeck, but several of your items have been asked/answered/addressed more than a few times.

War Admiral
Feb. 2, 2006, 09:06 AM
Ah. And now the intimidation tactics begin. How very unsurprising.

I would suggest that you read the entire thread, as well as the entire petition site, before commenting any further.

Also, please be cognizant that libel laws work both ways.

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 09:29 AM
Excuse me please! What you say about his being subject to the old Rule Book is quite true and yes I do have a copy and when I have time will print the pertinent information.

However, those rules were amended and the 2005 Rules as published apply to all those who ride and compete with horses in the care and custody of a suspended person. That is not limited to the owner of the business, the farm or the facility but anyone who is boarded in a a barn where a suspended person is in charge.

It says no one may ride any horse trained by a suspended person. They may not compete for his benefit and credit. Those people on the show circuit during 2005 who have been easily identified as the students of a suspended person are in violation of these rules and can be held accountable.

Read the new rules because they do not apply to Paul Valiere's penalty but to the new infractions and violations of the rules. The Stewards at this the shows where such participation is accepted have a responsibility to enforce all current rules equally and fairly on all members.

Coreene
Feb. 2, 2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by sarabeck:
1.Paul valliere does not own a horse business and has not owned one since 1994 So he has not employed anyone.
So when he's listed in thank you ads in COTH, it's just because he's a nice guy, right?

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 11:59 AM
What a wonderful idea Coreene. If anyone can find the time to scan in copies of the ads thanking Paul Valiere for their show success I would love to post them on our page for photos of the infamous felons of the Horse World.

Anyone with photos of any of the others as well I think should be posted. I will post them anonymously; the information providers names will not be published. I think this is a public service since this information is all public record.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Excuse me please! What you say about his being subject to the old Rule Book is quite true and yes I do have a copy and when I have time will print the pertinent information.

However, those rules were amended and the 2005 Rules as published apply to all those who ride and compete with horses in the care and custody of a suspended person. That is not limited to the owner of the business, the farm or the facility but anyone who is boarded in a a barn where a suspended person is in charge.

It says no one may ride any horse trained by a suspended person. They may not compete for his benefit and credit. Those people on the show circuit during 2005 who have been easily identified as the students of a suspended person are in violation of these rules and can be held accountable.

Read the new rules because they do not apply to Paul Valiere's penalty but to the new infractions and violations of the rules. The Stewards at this the shows where such participation is accepted have a responsibility to enforce all current rules equally and fairly on all members.

ever heard of the term "Ex post facto law" it means that you cannot be punished under a law if the act was committed before the law was in place. punishing under the new rules of the usef would be an ex post facto and therefore cannot occur.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by sarabeck:
1.Paul valliere does not own a horse business and has not owned one since 1994 So he has not employed anyone.

5. This sounds like you are after one person and given the fact his 10 year suspension was up in august of 2004 andhe has not tried to come back you are going after him & even though we have freedom of speech there is a liable problem here that you are walking right into because he has'nt tried to apply.


1. He does own a horse business and employs people as well as trains them and sells horses. he has a barn in grand prix village in wellington and one in mass.

2. the reason he hasn't tried to apply is because even though he is allowed to be reinstated, believe it or not he HAS decided to not reapply as he does not want to do that kind of stuff anymore nor does he want to deal with the politics. benefits of knowing him: asking him stuff. still convinced that knowing him is not beneficial ise?

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:33 PM
I would like to again bring your attention to page GR67 of the 2005 Rule Book. In the article labeled VIOLATIONS.

1.c. Penalization by an administrative agency, humane society, or court of law for violation of Federation Rules.

1.h. Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.

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

VarsityHero and have you also heard of "ipso facto"?

1. He does own a horse business and employs people as well as trains them and sells horses. he has a barn in grand prix village in wellington and one in mass.

2. the reason he hasn't tried to apply is because even though he is allowed to be reinstated, believe it or not he HAS decided to not reapply as he does not want to do that kind of stuff anymore nor does he want to deal with the politics. benefits of knowing him: asking him stuff. still convinced that knowing him is not beneficial ise?

Hero my good friend! Thank you! You have proved our case. Why would someone have a barn and employees in Wellington if he did not have care and custody of horses competing at the show next door. If there are ads that thank him for his help then he gets a benefit but the persons who are riding, exhibiting to his his benefit are all in violation of the current rules.

This confirms his lack of remorse and he lack of respect for the regulation of the Federation.

How many people have been corrupted by failure to be notified that they are in severe vilation of the NEW Rules of USEF which is a totally new Federation as of Decemebr 1, 2003.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I would like to again bring your attention to page GR67 of the 2005 Rule Book. In the article labeled VIOLATIONS.

1.c. Penalization by an administrative agency, humane society, or court of law for violation of Federation Rules.

1.h. Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.

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

VarsityHero and have you also heard of "ipso facto"?

1. He does own a horse business and employs people as well as trains them and sells horses. he has a barn in grand prix village in wellington and one in mass.

2. the reason he hasn't tried to apply is because even though he is allowed to be reinstated, believe it or not he HAS decided to not reapply as he does not want to do that kind of stuff anymore nor does he want to deal with the politics. benefits of knowing him: asking him stuff. still convinced that knowing him is not beneficial ise?

Hero my good friend! Thank you! You have proved our case. Why would someone have a barn and employees in Wellington if he did not have care and custody of horses competing at the show next door. If there are ads that thank him for his help then he gets a benefit but the persons who are riding, exhibiting to his his benefit are all in violation of the current rules.

This confirms his lack of remorse and he lack of respect for the regulation of the Federation.

How many people have been corrupted by failure to be notified that they are in severe vilation of the NEW Rules of USEF which is a totally new Federation as of Decemebr 1, 2003. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

again, he is not in violation of the new rules, nor any rules. he employs other trainers that train these horse at the shows etc. he IS believe it or not allowed to run a facility and train the horses in it privately. he is not benefitting from recognized shows that this trainer shows at because of the fact that this trainer is employed by him and is paid by him, but it IS the other trainer's and the client's choices what shows to take their horses too. he does not have immediate involvement in it, therefore he is not violating the rules.

TWF
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:42 PM
Okay young ones (Sara and Varsity)Take the advise given ...read the thread..I know you will not be persuaded to any other opinion..but may find the topic has been exhausted...

In April 2003 the USEF applied to the US Olympic Committee and pledged to align their rules to conform to the USOC....Everyone in the USEF is now an affiliate of the USOC. The rules AS they are......the rules apply to everyone equally.


Sorry I don't anyone is listening to yeah...but.....

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by TWF:
Okay young ones (Sara and Varsity)Take the advise given ...read the thread..I know you will not be persuaded to any other opinion..but may find the topic has been exhausted...

In April 2003 the USEF applied to the US Olympic Committee and pledged to align their rules to conform to the USOC....Everyone in the USEF is now an affiliate of the USOC. The rules AS they are......the rules apply to everyone equally.


Sorry I don't anyone is listening to yeah...but.....

believe it or not i DID read the entire thread before i began posting. but you obviously haven't read what i wrote. the rules of his suspension cannot be changed by the new rules of the usef because that would be ex post facto, and therefore not allowed.

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by TWF:
Okay young ones (Sara and Varsity)Take the advise given ...read the thread..I know you will not be persuaded to any other opinion..but may find the topic has been exhausted...

In April 2003 the USEF applied to the US Olympic Committee and pledged to align their rules to conform to the USOC....Everyone in the USEF is now an affiliate of the USOC. The rules AS they are......the rules apply to everyone equally.


Sorry I don't anyone is listening to yeah...but.....

another thing. you don't know my age, and if you did, age has nothing to do with mental capacity. mental capacity has to do with IQ. mine happens to be 165.

TWF
Feb. 2, 2006, 12:55 PM
REINSTATEMENT Issue is MY concern...his suspension is a fact.

If anyone applies to become a member of USEF..they must abide by current law and further must abide by future new rules...just like everyone else!

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by TWF:
REINSTATEMENT Issue is MY concern...his suspension is a fact.

If anyone applies to become a member of USEF..they must abide by current law and further must abide by future new rules...just like everyone else!

yes, but UNTIL he applies, if he ever does, the old rules and conditions apply to his situation.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:20 PM
Varisty Hero, although your facts are undoubtedly researched, here is a quote from Mr. Valliere himself indicating that he will probably apply for reinstatement. This was taken from the Palm Beach Post on January 26, 2006.

""Valliere declined to comment about the movement to keep him out of the federation. Asked whether he intended to apply for readmittance, he said, "Someday, someday, someday." ""

shade
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:26 PM
am I the only one that can't follow carsity's contradictions of herself.

shade
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:27 PM
oops meant to type varsity's

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:29 PM
Oh! poor baby. I am so sorry but my IQ is 178 plus many years to mature and learn with the brains that God gave me. So let's not start that competition because I have a head start and you have a handicap.

ise@ssl
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:34 PM
Sarabeck -
"Libel" (not liable) is when you falsely accuse someone of breaking a law or committing a crime.

If he isn't running a business - what is his livelood now? You gals who defend what a wonderful person he is and the BEST Eq trainer out there. Is he giving lessons and clinics pro bono?

165 IQ - no way! Absolutely NO WAY.

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:34 PM
No dearie; now listen carefully..new violations of new rules by those that he employs to go to shows for him...new violations of new rules for riders that exhibit with said trainer employee. An employee i.e. some paid for services is in essence an agent of said party. Being his agent is a new violation.

I am afraid Varsity if you keep this up you will bury Paul Valliere in your own words.

TWF
Feb. 2, 2006, 01:34 PM
Just don't lose your SHIFT key...(applies in life too!)

ESG
Feb. 2, 2006, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
No dearie; now listen carefully..new violations of new rules by those that he employs to go to shows for him...new violations of new rules for riders that exhibit with said trainer employee. An employee i.e. some paid for services is in essence an agent of said party. Being his agent is a new violation.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Exactly. A woooonderful example of remorse and adherence to the USEF's restrictions, eh? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif</span>

I am afraid Varsity if you keep this up you will bury Paul Valliere in your own words.

<span class="ev_code_GREEN">Oh, we should be so lucky! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif</span>

VarsityHero4
Feb. 2, 2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
Sarabeck -
"Libel" (not liable) is when you falsely accuse someone of breaking a law or committing a crime.

If he isn't running a business - what is his livelood now? You gals who defend what a wonderful person he is and the BEST Eq trainer out there. Is he giving lessons and clinics pro bono?

165 IQ - no way! Absolutely NO WAY.

as far as i am concerned he does not give clinics. the lessons are not in anyway money related to the usef. he is allowed to conduct business in private, just not anything dealing with the usef. lessons on his property are not able to be controlled by the usef. snowbird, i'd like to know what my handicap is, as 165 is considered extremely above average. the fact that you cannot make an argument without insulting a person gives you a handicap. it shows that you are incapable of making a strong debate without pulling in irrelevant statements. ise@ssl, you "adults" that are SO much more mature than me have still failed to tell me what is so unintelligent about what i say. please enlighten me. snowbird, i'm SURE your IQ test was a legally rendered one. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

BaliBandido
Feb. 2, 2006, 06:40 PM
The best thing to do is continue to let VH4 spew. It is typical round and round conversation that one employs when they really have no leg to stand on.

Most people have tried to be logical and look at the issue with some objectivity, how it is that this person can speak so knowingly of PVs situation?


2. the reason he hasn't tried to apply is because even though he is allowed to be reinstated, believe it or not he HAS decided to not reapply as he does not want to do that kind of stuff anymore nor does he want to deal with the politics. benefits of knowing him: asking him stuff. still convinced that knowing him is not beneficial ise?

Yeah if your in a situation that has the potential to damage your ego- give him a call and ask him for a solution.


he employs other trainers that train these horse at the shows etc. he IS believe it or not allowed to run a facility and train the horses in it privately.

You do realise that your just admitted he trains the horses privately then hires other trainers to take them to the shows- like next door to him. It would make some sense I suppose if he had trainers that worked with him and they went to certain shows that he was unable to attend due to other commitments, but that is not the case when it is across the fence from you. He preps these horses, gives the instruction and post ride critique- but can not set foot on the grounds on show days- that is not how the suspension was intended and his employees are in violation of the rules.

You say he has no desire to be a part of the horseshows again due to the hordes of people following him to hang on his every word, yet he is there on non showing days. Why? If he has no clients to assist is he just soaking up the ambiance?

Your unable to present an intelligent argument because you refuse to accept the facts on both sides of the issue, instead relying on emotion and your wealth of 'insider' knowledge.

Most wanna be groupies are like that, do they realise that they just make it worse for the very position they are tying to promote.

You are very, very good for the No reinstatment position. Thank you for your support, however unententional.

BaliBandido
Feb. 2, 2006, 06:42 PM
BTW he is not allowed to be reinstated, he is allowed to ask for reinstatement. Funny how you keep missing the salient points.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 2, 2006, 07:06 PM
lmao!! You're good, Bali...and I'm not even on your side of the fence, really...but you're good http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif...

BaliBandido
Feb. 2, 2006, 07:19 PM
Racetb- coming from you I am honored!

Just trying to be helpful http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:07 PM
Varsity my IQ Test was rendered in the Psych department of NYU where I was a Psych major. It is quite legitimate and one of the things that we with above average intelligence people learn very young is not to brag. You never know whose score is higher and it can be very humiliating. Several confirmations from grade school and High School "Dearie". You brought up the subject of IQ ratings not me; I count them as unimportant because it depends on how well you use your intelligence and not what it registers on a scale.

Then consider all the years I've had to utilize the IQ and accumulate knowledge. Your handicap is your youth, inexperience and a lower score score. TA! TA!

I have not been name calling or rude. I have bent over backwards to be patient and understanding with your lack of experience and enthusiasm.


as far as i am concerned he does not give clinics. the lessons are not in anyway money related to the usef. he is allowed to conduct business in private, just not anything dealing with the usef. lessons on his property are not able to be controlled by the usef.

Therein is your own answer to your question "as far as I am concerned". Your opinion is not very important in the big scheme of what is important afterall.


ise@ssl, you "adults" that are SO much more mature than me have still failed to tell me what is so unintelligent about what i say. please enlighten me. snowbird, i'm SURE your IQ test was a legally rendered one.

No one can explain logic to an illogical person. It is an abstraction that requires some sophistication to comprehend and I am certain at some point in your life you will understand. I can remember things my teachers said that I didn't understand until many years later as I gained in my real knowledge. IQ represents a potential and not a defined product of intelligence.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:09 PM
aaaaaarrrrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhhhhhhh..run away!!!

MistyBlue
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:12 PM
The IQ arguments are cracking me up. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif
We do know that Einstein on then standardized testing had a 165 IQ. On today's testing scales (an actual IQ score is a mean average of multiple tests at different ages) Einstein would have been either a 160-170...so his "old time" IQ score stands at 165.
IQ tests are administered like this:
The WISC and KABC test are administered between the ages of 2-10 depending on test. One is more involved than the other, both test different areas and functions.
The comes the CAS which is based on finding a mean average in the early developmental ages of late single digits to mid to late teens.
If the CAS comes in at 110 or above, then the person has a choice of the CTONI or UNIT test. One relies heavily on verbal understanding and skills and the other on written.
The last is the SBIS, the most comprehensive and starts exploring spatial intelligence and cognitive leaps. Usually only children who've passed the WISC with high scores do well on this one, the WISC is considered much harder and involved than the KABC, which is usually only used as general grade type testing.
The WJIII is the "normally" given school test in the teenage years as a basic all around type IQ generator...it gives a rough idea of IQ scores if the person had gone through the entire IQ testing process...but it's a simpler format. This is the standard test those who used to work in school and "guess" a child's future career would use. It will give an idea of someone with above average intelligence but in no way shows a genius capability.
50% of the people in this country test at 90-110, 100 being an average intelligence. 115 to 130 is considered above average to enhanced knowledge/learning capabilities and 130 to 145 is superior intelligence. 145 to 165 is genius or above genius IQ.
However...IQ does not denote actual intelligence as it does point to someone's capabilities if applied and taught in a way to enhance their natural talents. Many get higher than average IQ scores simply from being eidetic. (total recall or a "photographic memory) This doesn't always equate spacial intelligence.

(and BTW, there's no such thing as "legal" testing for IQ's. It's a process, not a single test and you can't take illegal or legal ones. Only recognized and unrecognized ones)

HunterJumperLuv
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:19 PM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

This board (COTH and all subsidary threads) are bad for my health! I really need to sit down and do my AP Euro homework, but really.. This is just SO AMUSING!

And Racey, love, PLEASE more stories soon! I need something to justify this sudden drop in grades, and I am sure that my horsey teacher will understand after your stories! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:19 PM
Misty, I just read all that, and I am too stupid to understand. Give me a 90 IQ and a half cup of common sense and I will be fine.

Snowbird
Feb. 2, 2006, 08:41 PM
Dear Harry, everyone I've ever known with a high IQ dearly loved a shot of something and a bottle of good wine; then toss in the common sense and good humor. For most the motivation to use the basic curiosity was a really good bottle of wine. Myself if they weren't so fattening I would vote for a White Russian with real heavy cream. I did manage to pull it off for a lot of years without obesity.

Harry, you are the least stupid person I've met on the BB altogether.I would be glad to bend an elbow with you anytime and consider it an intellectual experience.

MistyBlue
Feb. 3, 2006, 03:02 AM
That's okay Harry, I typed it and I don't get understand it either. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

sarabeck
Feb. 3, 2006, 04:29 AM
Tis a question for Snowbird or war Admiral you both seem well informed about the facts

alos please don't beat up on me when i ask very logical questions i am here to help you.

what is the name of valliere's business and who are the people he is and has employed who would be in possible violation of the rules. shouldn't we write a letter to the usef and give them these names. I would be willing to write the letter.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 3, 2006, 07:03 AM
MENSA just called...They've been perusing this thread and you've all been removed from the A List http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif.

SGray
Feb. 3, 2006, 08:04 AM
Originally posted by sarabeck:
Tis a question for Snowbird or war Admiral you both seem well informed about the facts

alos please don't beat up on me when i ask very logical questions i am here to help you.

what is the name of valliere's business and who are the people he is and has employed who would be in possible violation of the rules. shouldn't we write a letter to the usef and give them these names. I would be willing to write the letter.

there was a long thread recently about the rider who was going to work for PV - 'twas here on H/J forum - I would assume that said rider was banking on PV applying for and being granted reinstatement as otherwise said rider would violate the newly passed rules if he tried to enter shows on horses owned by, trained by,.......PV

Snowbird
Feb. 3, 2006, 09:21 AM
Frankly my particular leaning is towards rules and regulations and governance not individuals so I don't have that information. However, since you asked I will try to find out. I am certain those who personally know the personalities involved will be chirping in since you raise a very valid point and it is information we will need later if not now.

Thank you for the offer to send the letter. I deeply appreciate all the help we can get. There is a possible victory with numbers of people. I do think in spite of a general lack of respect for the members we can clean house and sort out the facts to correct a situation which is damaging to the whole industry.

The idea of bending the rules and "don't ask" really has to end. So again thank you and I will try to help get that information.

Snowbird
Feb. 3, 2006, 09:27 AM
They can't remove me from a list that I have never been on; never wanted to be on and a club that is just too elitist for me. Bright people got a gift we didn't earn therefore deserve no credit for it. It means nothing unless you can use it properly. In that case the credit is for what you do and not what you might be capable of doing but are too lazy.

sarabeck
Feb. 3, 2006, 10:06 AM
War admiral
do you know the name of paul's business or any present or past riders that he employed?

what about his wife what does she have to do with this?

Snowbird
Feb. 3, 2006, 11:42 AM
sarabeck we have just started to try and answer your questions. We only have public record that we can use to document our position. If you go to the other thread I have posted three instances of very public ignoring of the 2005 Rule Book.

Mr. Valierre is listed as the owner of the horse in two instances as reported by his good friend Mason Phelps. He is also listed as a co-trainer in one article so I would guess we have the name of his employed trainer who covers at horse shows for him. The rules do not require that we produce evidence that they get paid as employees.

N&B&T
Feb. 3, 2006, 11:58 AM
Saddlebag, I have been thinking about your post for several days. It seems that you are greatly upset by what you think is an attempt to besmirch an entire group of people, young and old, many of whom are simply trying to enjoy horse sports and are not generally involved with the details of governance.

If that were so, it's certainly worth getting upset about; I would be upset too. It made me wonder exactly why you are getting that impression.

Perhaps there are too many tangential issues being brought into the two threads dealing with the no-reinstatement petition?

For whatever reason, you have that impression; I would like to respond to your comments but I can only really speak for myself, and hope you will accept these remarks as they are meant, which is in the spirit of a respectful and civil exchange of ideas and opinions.



Originally posted by Saddlebag:
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif I have tried to stay away from this thread, because it seems to me that what the "No Reinstatement" faction really is about is to discredit the "A" Circuit competitors
____
No, that's certainly not why I signed the petition. I think that people involved with the horse-killings should not be re-instated, for reasons explained earlier in the thread. That's it.
_____


and unilaterally assuming that anyone who competes on the "A: level of showing condones killing horses for insurance money.
______
No, I don't think that at all.

Mason Phelps is quoted in an earlier newspaper article as saying something like "knowledgeable professionals" are ready to accept Paul Vallier back into the shows but that "the little people" are not willing to forgive him. That remark annoyed a lot of people; and somehow the idea must be leaking into the posts here. At least, that's MHO.
______

So now, you are seeking to piggy-back your cause onto the upcoming Animal Planet series on the Maclay Finals by implying that the kids who are the stars of this series, and who have expended the work and dedication that goes into preparing for this national championship, are the budding young horse killers of the future. I'm sorry, but I find this type of "Yellow Journalism" extremely distasteful and yes, harmful to the sport.

___
No-one is implying *anything* like that. If that were the case, it would be wrong and harmful and I wouldn't like it either.

While I can't speak for War Admiral, I suspect she was simply trying to send her letter while horses were at the forefront of the media mind. The TV show was almost certainly already taped. This would have been a completely different program, and as I've said, could have been presented very positively.
____

I know of no-one who supports the actions of Messrs Lindeman, Ward, Valliere, et al that occured ten years ago. I certainly am apalled by what they did to those horses. But, I am also outraged when I read the vicious verbiage that this mob visits upon anyone who says, "Hey, I have faith that the USEF Hearing Committee will listen to the reinstatement arguments fairly and dispassionately, and will come to a just decision as to when or whether the miscreants may be reinstated as members of our Federation.

_____
If you are referring to a particular poster, I remember that remark. I also remember the numerous sarcastic and rude comments he/she made as well.

*Nobody* likes to be categorized. There are many thoughtful and well-balanced posts on these threads and you do a disservice to those people who are willing to share their thoughts with us and take the time to write them carefully and clearly.

IMHO, there are *way* too many obnoxious posts on this very controversial topic by people on both sides of the fence.
____

And,by the way, the whole notion of the petition flies in the face of a fair judicial procedure. Juries in criminal trials are often sequestered so that they can't be tainted by public emotions and swayed by lynch mob histrionics.
___
See above. This is not a trial and there is no lynch mob here--although, to be quite frank, I have had the same reaction as you to other threads on this board.

As has been posted earlier, it is a free country and people are allowed to express their opinions. Many facts have been posted as well.. If the facts are distateful, it is not the fault of the messenger.
____

Your actions, despite what you say, amounts to an attempt at "jury tampering", and last time I heard, that is against the law!
___
See above. Petitions are not illegal.
____

As someone mentioned earlier, "Get Over It!" And, by the way, the letter that was sent to Animal Planet stated ( as fact) that the USEF was "one by one reinstating" those who had been found guilty of insurance fraud". That just isn't true...the USEF is beginning to conduct hearings on reinstatement...which is not the same thing as granting reinstatement. Please...when you set out to ruin a sport that others have worked very hard to develop...at least, get your facts straight!

___

I don't think anyone is trying to ruin the sport with this petition.

The USEF has reinstated at least one of the people suspended in the horse-killing incident.


Saddlebag, I wonder if you have actually read the petition itself, at a time when you are not upset about the above peripheral things. It might actually reassure you.

The no reinstatement petition (http://www.noreinstatement.org)