PDA

View Full Version : The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.



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

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:

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

Y'know, that is just an... odd... rule. What the heck does it mean to show for the "reputation or satisfaction" of someone? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:45 AM
We can understand that you want to what is best for you. We are not saying anything about you. You need to understand that a good many people feel very passionately against someone who has admitted and been convicted of hiring someone to fake and accident so as to collect insrance; and particularly since there was need to destray in pain a perfectly good resalable horse.

What I care about is tht there needss to a time and place where horse people, sportsmen say you made the decision and now you are personna non grata in the the competion level of the horse world.

I think there are many excelent trainers who never resorted to that remedy. That makes them better trainers in my book of ethics than PV.

We have a trainer in New Jersey a good competitor and a vry nice man with his own fan club as well and he was accused of molesting his students. He claims he is innocent as well. BUT, he is forbidden to be anywhere in the proximity of children. No permanent physical damage was done to any child.

I am not sure if he ever was convicted but he has never once tried to bypass that rule of the court. I would be inclined to believe in his remorse but not his innocense.

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:46 AM
Bizarre, Erin...and pointed, imo...

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:49 AM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">AWF is owned by someone other than PV, but somehow PV gets paid to train and make decisions in care for horses there. There are also other trainers on AWF payroll who are the ones who sign off on entries of clients of PV and the other trainers?


Originally posted by anthem35:
Whats clear is that Paul can do whatever he chooses to do...He is free to train anyone he chooses to on his private property.

So who's property is it anyway? anthem35 seems to be saying it is his. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have no idea whose it is, and I have no time to care whose it is.

I can ride whomever I choose.

If it is my choice to ride with a suspended trainer, then that is MY choice.

I managed a pretty big show schedule this past year, and at no point was breaking any rules,or told I was ineligible to compete due to any training activities conducted off showgrounds.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:54 AM
Erin I agree with you completely. I would also like to know how they are interpreting these rules. And why they have been enforced according to the administrative policy that no one is above the rules. There are no excuses accepted from other rules enforcement.

If someone from administration came on and answered that question it would be constructive and something we all would like to know.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
We can understand that you want to what is best for you. We are not saying anything about you. You need to understand that a good many people feel very passionately against someone who has admitted and been convicted of hiring someone to fake and accident so as to collect insrance; and particularly since there was need to destray in pain a perfectly good resalable horse.

What I care about is tht there needss to a time and place where horse people, sportsmen say you made the decision and now you are personna non grata in the the competion level of the horse world.

I think there are many excelent trainers who never resorted to that remedy. That makes them better trainers in my book of ethics than PV.

We have a trainer in New Jersey a good competitor and a vry nice man with his own fan club as well and he was accused of molesting his students. He claims he is innocent as well. BUT, he is forbidden to be anywhere in the proximity of children. No permanent physical damage was done to any child.

I am not sure if he ever was convicted but he has never once tried to bypass that rule of the court. I would be inclined to believe in his remorse but not his innocense.

I understand this completely, and would not ever want my children in the hands of a child molester.

Child molestation is a result of a mental depravity and sickness.

I do not believe this can be cured.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:58 AM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
There is a lot of good that comes out of the bad, and I believe we are all deserving of a second chance.

Absolutely, and he should be allowed to have a job, a home, develop friends, and prove what a good person he has become. Getting back the same status, and control over animals should NOT be part of his future. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Control over animals that people have voluntarily taken to him.

It is your choice NOT to, and I can understand that.

But that decision should be left up to each individual based on their own ideas and priorities.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:00 AM
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from a Mason Phelps Agency Press Release...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "

Now I have a question for Snowbird (as a show manager, I used to know all of the rules but it has been a while since I managed a show)....Isn't a recognized show subject to some sort of fine/reprimand/penalty if it allows a horse owned by a suspended person to show regardless if the horse is "recorded"??

filly3
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:03 AM
In my mind Anthem35's sentiments on child molestation could be easily changed to something like this:

I understand this completely and would not ever want my horses in the hands of a horse killer.

Horse killing and subsequent insurance fraud is a result of mental depravity, sickness, ego and greed.

I do not believe that this can be cured.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:04 AM
Fairview-I couldnt agree with you more.

But what perhaps people have chosen to overlook is that he IS trying to help.

Paul spent WEEKS in Louisiana doing whatever he could to help the families and their animals devastated by the hurricane.

He has donated large sums of money to several animal related charities.

He did write a letter of apology to the Chronicle, for all the members of the USEF to read.

What I am saying is this---he IS TRYING.

I am certain that if you were to cross paths, he would apologize to YOU..Personally.

But people need to take their feet off his neck and let him up for air so he CAN apologize.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by filly3:
In my mind Anthem35's sentiments on child molestation could be easily changed to something like this:

I understand this completely and would not ever want my horses in the hands of a horse killer.

Horse killing and subsequent insurance fraud is a result of mental depravity, sickness, ego and greed.

I do not believe that this can be cured.


NO, but that wouold be your mind, not mine.

I do NOT think killing a horse is a result of sickness.
I think it is a result of ego and greed.
Which both CAN be cured.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "


I believe that this was a wording error on Mason's part, to which he has subsequently corrected.

filly3
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:09 AM
Don't think there is a pin that is big enough to deflate that ego.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:09 AM
Can you then understand that to many of us who really love our less than spectacular horses. That we have mostly voted them into the family. They are to some people their only children.

To not sell the horse at a loss is I think an unforgivable pre-meditated and self serving decision. It is proved by his current actions.

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:10 AM
Where is this letter of apology that he wrote COTH and when was it written? I only recall the "ads" taken in praise of this and that...

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "


I believe that this was a wording error on Mason's part, to which he has subsequently corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez anthem35...you'll say anything to defend your guy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:13 AM
If that is something which can be proved, one would think the USEF would take a very dim view of this. As far as the rules go, suspended person's horses cannot be shown. So, maybe the class was on an Off day? Thus the bend? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:13 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Can you then understand that to many of us who really love our less than spectacular horses. That we have mostly voted them into the family. They are to some people their only children.

To not sell the horse at a loss is I think an unforgivable pre-meditated and self serving decision. It is proved by his current actions.

But Snowbird-those are NOT his current actions, they were his actions 17 years ago.

A lot of time has passed, and a lot of things have changed.
While I am in no way asking you to forget, I am asking you to consider that he just might actually be sorry.

As you admit, you do not know him now.

Perhaps you should just LISTEN. It certainly couldnt hurt.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA:
If that is something which can be proved, one would think the USEF would take a very dim view of this. As far as the rules go, suspended person's horses cannot be shown. So, maybe the class was on an Off day? Thus the bend? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Radio....that class is a "recognized" class and has to be held on a "recognized" day http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "


I believe that this was a wording error on Mason's part, to which he has subsequently corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez anthem35...you'll say anything to defend your guy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, this is actually the truth.

Paul is NOT my guy, and he has a lovely girl of his own.

I am not defending anything other than what I believe.

Why do you feel the need to discredit me for standing up for someone I believe in?

Boston Chicken
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:17 AM
Anthem - First, Hi http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I saw your boy in results recently and was happy to see he's being a good boy to his new rider. Hope you're doing well too. Second, I have a question about an apology from Paul. You may not know or care to comment but I thought I would put it out there:

Why do you think Paul hasn't used the media attention - and that one article in particular where he was recently quoted sounding annoyed (at least to me) - to state how sorry he is and what has changed?

I asked earlier but thought I would try again. This struck me as odd.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "


I believe that this was a wording error on Mason's part, to which he has subsequently corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez anthem35...you'll say anything to defend your guy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, this is actually the truth.

Paul is NOT my guy, and he has a lovely girl of his own.

I am not defending anything other than what I believe.

Why do you feel the need to discredit me for standing up for someone I believe in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I provided information that proved that a horse owned by PV WAS used at a recognized show-a Press Release put out by a well known "horsey" public relations company. Why don't you show us where this information has been "subsequently corrected". Don't forget to include the date of its publication.

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:21 AM
Yes, Boston - his quote sure didn't sound like he felt any remorse to me either.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:21 AM
Unfortunately, there are plenty of ways to build a persuasive paper trail that ends up with a horse owned by a suspended trainer appearing, on paper, to be in full compliance with the rules.

Does anybody remember how GM did it when Hunterdon was suspended?? Or was that rule not in existence then?? I sort of have a feeling it may have been added later.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:22 AM
HI! And Thank you so much for the compliments!!!

As is the case with any article, only particular pieces of an interview are extracted, thereby often painting a diffrent picture.

I guess I just dont know what use of media he COULD use that would provide him a chance to speak to people in person.

Do you have any ideas of what you, as a USEF member, might like to see or hear?

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "


I believe that this was a wording error on Mason's part, to which he has subsequently corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez anthem35...you'll say anything to defend your guy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, this is actually the truth.

Paul is NOT my guy, and he has a lovely girl of his own.

I am not defending anything other than what I believe.

Why do you feel the need to discredit me for standing up for someone I believe in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I provided information that proved that a horse owned by PV WAS used at a recognized show-a Press Release put out by a well known "horsey" public relations company. Why don't you show us where this information has been "subsequently corrected". Don't forget to include the date of its publication. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

A PRESS RELEASE? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

A horse owned by AWF can and is eligible to compete at any USEF competition.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:26 AM
Originally posted by anthem35:
HI! And Thank you so much for the compliments!!!

As is the case with any article, only particular pieces of an interview are extracted, thereby often painting a diffrent picture.

I guess I just dont know what use of media he COULD use that would provide him a chance to speak to people in person.

Do you have any ideas of what you, as a USEF member, might like to see or hear?

Since you asked....I would like to see him place a full page ad in the Chronicle (inside front cover would be nice) stating that he is sorry for what he did and, out of respect for all of the horses that were killed as well as the USEF members, he is withdrawing his reinstatement request. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:27 AM
He hasn't yet applied, Sherry... Won't be eligible to until April.

filly3
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:27 AM
Sherry that is the best idea that I have heard to date! I second.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:27 AM
Originally posted by anthem35:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn't own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps...


"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, 'AA'

Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at

The R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. "Ronnie" Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark's Long Island. "


I believe that this was a wording error on Mason's part, to which he has subsequently corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jeez anthem35...you'll say anything to defend your guy http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/QUOTE]

No, this is actually the truth.

Paul is NOT my guy, and he has a lovely girl of his own.

I am not defending anything other than what I believe.

Why do you feel the need to discredit me for standing up for someone I believe in?[/QUOTE]

I provided information that proved that a horse owned by PV WAS used at a recognized show-a Press Release put out by a well known "horsey" public relations company. Why don't you show us where this information has been "subsequently corrected". Don't forget to include the date of its publication.[/QUOTE]

A PRESS RELEASE? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

A horse owned by AWF can and is eligible to compete at any USEF competition.[/QUOTE]

Read it again. It says the horse is owned by Paul Valliere NOT AWF.

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:29 AM
Ok, then that he won't ever apply for reinstatement.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by War Admiral:
He hasn't yet applied, Sherry... Won't be eligible to until April.

Thanks for pointing that out, WA. Then he could just say he won't be applying.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:30 AM
So then he diffinitely was not within the rules! Owned by, means that. If the show's records have that ownership, well then enough said. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:31 AM
That is absolutely true and we are required to look at the updated Suspension List. We are also required to post in the prize list the terms of entry as not accepting entries.

There are qualifying shows where entries are limited by points acquired and most of the rest of us select "First Come" as our preference.

A horse has to have an ID number if the horse is not registered. However, so far the system is flawed because as a show manager I have no way of knowing what is true or not on such an application for an ID.

I have for years been proactive on the issue to the effect that person who is suspended and lies and attends should be the one responsible. I dislike the idea of being listed in violation of a rule when I have no way to verify the information.

It would be easily possible for the horse of a suspended owner to be issued a new ID with a different owner and even a different name. I have no way of knowing to a certanty that this is so.

That's why it is so strange that Mason Phelps would publish the information as to which are Paul Valiere's horses when there is no record of them at all. So PV could be tecnically legal by getting a new ID but with falsified information or even go to the trouble of transferring ownership for the run of a show for $2.00 and then accepting the horse back at the end of the show by returning the $2.00. I think Mason Phelps was using PV as the owner because he knows it's true and he could give his friend some good PR.

That is technically legal but morally corrupt.

Boston Chicken
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:37 AM
If it were me and I needed to communicate about changes I had made in my life to change someone's opinion of me I would consider a couple of things:

1. Consider writing an open letter to the Chronicle
2. Work with one reputable reporter (not in the Palm Beach area but a solid daily paper - think Boston Globe or similar) to tell my story.

He would have to be willing to let it all hang out as it were. The good, bad and the ugly. It won't end up being a glowing piece but it should be truthful and balanced. A powerful resulting story would be hard for him to read in the end.

As for its content, I, personally, would want to hear less about all his good deeds (I know he's done some great things for animals recently) and more about the flawed decisions that led him to making the final decision in the first place. Then I would want some expression of understanding that he knows it's going to take a leap for many people in the community to trust him again. That he intends to earn that trust every day in real, meaningful ways.

I absolutely believe in forgiveness though it's hard for me to look at my horse (who is perfect in my eyes - and hey, you've met him, he's pretty cute http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and understand the As, Bs and Cs that led to the kind of decision that Paul made. But, forgiveness is possible - at least in my mind.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
That is absolutely true and we are required to look at the updated Suspension List. We are also required to post in the prize list the terms of entry as not accepting entries.

There are qualifying shows where entries are limited by points acquired and most of the rest of us select "First Come" as our preference.

A horse has to have an ID number if the horse is not registered. However, so far the system is flawed because as a show manager I have no way of knowing what is true or not on such an application for an ID.

I have for years been proactive on the issue to the effect that person who is suspended and lies and attends should be the one responsible. I dislike the idea of being listed in violation of a rule when I have no way to verify the information.

It would be easily possible for the horse of a suspended owner to be issued a new ID with a different owner and even a different name. I have no way of knowing to a certanty that this is so.

That's why it is so strange that Mason Phelps would publish the information as to which are Paul Valiere's horses when there is no record of them at all. So PV could be tecnically legal by getting a new ID but with falsified information or even go to the trouble of transferring ownership for the run of a show for $2.00 and then accepting the horse back at the end of the show by returning the $2.00. I think Mason Phelps was using PV as the owner because he knows it's true and he could give his friend some good PR.

That is technically legal but morally corrupt.

So if PV didn't do the transfer then WEF could be in violation? Why does the USEF make it so difficult to figure out the darn rules http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:37 AM
anthem35 I believe that once someone has used a short cut to cut his losses at the expense of a horse ( a piece of property) they canno be cured. It is a character flaw which will return in a time crisis as the child molester when off their meds or also under stress.

Really, in truth a child molester is only looking for love. Frequently, they believe that the child enjoyed the pleasures he offered.

In PV's case the solution is more difficult because a horse lost it's life to greed and ego. These are a far harder weakness to cure. They come back in many disguises. To my knowledge there is no medication available temporary or permanent against these vices.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:41 AM
anthem 35 for exactly the same reasons that you opt to discredit us for our choices in many malicious and manipulative ways.

filly3
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:44 AM
The perfect "cure" for ego and greed is simple...a lifetime ban.

Coreene
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:47 AM
At this point, I think nothing short of the PR peeps who got the British to accept Camilla Parker Bowles would work.

Zorro
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:49 AM
Anthem35: please post a link or reference to the correction. For once, I'd like to see the factual proof that a quoted article clearly indicating a current rules violation by PV was in fact an error and was corrected.

If you cannot provide proof, as far as I am concerned, the PR document, as quoted on this thread, is the fact of the matter. If there is a rule violation, the USEF should be taking action.

Your statement that is was corrected is simply not enough. Cite where the correction can be read.

As to your continued postings arguing that PV is truly sorry and has or can change, unless you can prove the correction, I think you have an uphill battle (and I hope the USEF views that HE has an uphill battle) to clearly demonstrate his regret; current rules violations really don't support regret or changed behavior.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:51 AM
Yes! WEF would be in jeopardy but the reall guilty party is the person who signed the entry form. The waiver from USEF which is under New York State Law says that the person who completes the entry form has given an oath that all the information as suppiled is true.

It is then signed by the parent and the trainer of record. If there is reasonable doubt that the trainer is an employee (whether paid in money or compensated in kind) that person is also a violator. All parties are culpable a assessories.

That's my point all these innocent people who have been beguiled are actually guilty of lying under oath on each waiver for each show where those circumstances occur.

That's my point I didn't put those children in jeopardy but I am sorry they are at risk. If I were present I would most likely have not said a word either for the sake of the innocent riders who do not understand the rules.

However, to me that PV puts them in that position proves he is not remorseful and still believes he is so wonderful he is above the rules.

Boston Chicken
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Coreene:
At this point, I think nothing short of the PR peeps who got the British to accept Camilla Parker Bowles would work.

Very likely, true dat http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 10:58 AM
This article was published as Results from a show. Mason Plelps Agency should have had the actual list off the entry forms. If not he was sadly guilty of improper reporting and his whole little empire could collpase if no one believed his PR Releases any more.

A Media Agency has only two legitmate sources of information the Entry Form information given to each ring and the Announcers notes submitted from that list. It can hardly be a typo.

Andrew
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:04 AM
Training Level
Posted Feb. 20, 2006 01:44 PM
The perfect "cure" for ego and greed is simple...a lifetime ban.
Posts: 44 | Registered: Feb. 04, 2006

Agree 110%

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:05 AM
Folks, it is certainly not unheard of for a press release to be in error. Lay off. This is not an inquisition, it is a DISCUSSION... although I fear some of you don't know the difference.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
anthem 35 for exactly the same reasons that you opt to discredit us for our choices in many malicious and manipulative ways.

I have in NOW way discredited anyone.

I have continued to respect YOUR choice to not train with Paul.

I have merely asked that you stop throwing stones for one second and LISTEN.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:12 AM
Originally posted by Zorro:
Anthem35: please post a link or reference to the correction. For once, I'd like to see the factual proof that a quoted article clearly indicating a current rules violation by PV was in fact an error and was corrected.

If you cannot provide proof, as far as I am concerned, the PR document, as quoted on this thread, is the fact of the matter. If there is a rule violation, the USEF should be taking action.

Your statement that is was corrected is simply not enough. Cite where the correction can be read.

As to your continued postings arguing that PV is truly sorry and has or can change, unless you can prove the correction, I think you have an uphill battle (and I hope the USEF views that HE has an uphill battle) to clearly demonstrate his regret; current rules violations really don't support regret or changed behavior.

If you would like to see who owns the horse, look it up.

As far as believing every Press Release that comes your way, I'd love to sell you some penny stocks.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:30 AM
Then tell us where to find the published correction which you say was made. I haven't received that my mail must have been lost.


Actually, Snowbird-Suppose my analysis of you comes from not only reading your bitter and cynical posts, but from what I have heard about you personally? That you are a bitter old woman who sits by the computer all day with a bottle of booze and whose daughter decided she could no longer work with due to the same? Might not be pretty, but as I said, I have never spoken to you. Only heard things from the rumor mill. Much like your assumptions about Paul.


I have in NOW way discredited anyone.

Am I to assume the above was a compliment?

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:30 AM
Why is the rider putting a pic of Aristocrat in her webshots with the caption "this is the horse Paul Valliere asked me to show in the EQ. We were 8th in the Maclay and got 2 80's in the washington"

I tried to link the pic, but it didn't work...

Google "aristocrat paul valliere" and it shows up.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:40 AM
Try this....

http://horsesdaily.com/news/showjumping/2005/05wef/03-11-wk7_day3_caristo.html

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:41 AM
Snowbird, jetsmom... DROP IT!!!!

I have no doubt the horse belongs to Paul. However, there are a million and one ways for it to "belong" to Paul and still legally show. Until anyone can prove otherwise, we're going to assume that's the case.

Now, if you want to debate whether or not it's honoring the "spirit" of the suspension, that's fine. But the inquisition ends here. Got it?

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:41 AM
Here's another

http://community.webshots.com/album/465247268FBtrQk

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:42 AM
At your service the link takes you to some lovely pictures of Aristocrat being shown as owned by Paul Valliere. With Shows at which it was shown. So this was not a one time thing at all.

I would say that posting these pictures proves the intention was definitely to the benefit and credit of a suspended person "trainer". Shown by a Junior rider believing it was legally entered. If so this is a valid illustration of ways in which the spirit and intent of the rules is being evaded.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:45 AM
Let me attempt to impress something upon you people.

Those of you who are anti-reinstatement are seriously, seriously, SERIOUSLY jeopardizing your privilege to post about this topic here. It is not my job to sit by my computer 24/7 and make sure that you all are behaving like rational adults. If this topic cannot continue in an adult manner -- i.e. in a respectful tone that adults would use when sitting across a table from each other -- it WILL NOT CONTINUE.

Exactly how much good are you going to do the no-reinstatement cause by getting the thread closed and getting the subject permanently banned from the COTH BB? Hmm?

A select few of you are going to ruin it for everyone if you keep it up. If you're not capable of posting on this thread without being catty and overly dramatic, don't post. Leave it to the more level-headed people to argue the case, because otherwise, NO ONE will be allowed to argue it.

I am getting very tired of constantly issuing the same warnings to the same people.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:49 AM
Seconded.

Come on peeps, let's be careful and stick to the real issues.

The reality is that while the horse PROBABLY IS owned by a suspended party, there is NO WAY for USEF to prove that. Unfortunately.

And, being strictly fair, this is hardly the first instance of such razzle-dazzle with paperwork in the history of the horse biz, either. It's one of those things "everyone" does, though "everyone" definitely shouldn't. As such, frankly, the topic doesn't hold a great deal of interest to me.

grey mare
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:57 AM
Hi

Im pretty new at posting here, mostly just a lurker.
What Id like to know is just good reason Why this PV character should be reinstated.
Because some are in awe of his training abilties???
If so then all the more reason not to let him in. Sorry Anthem, you seem like a reasonable person, but this is NOT good enough.
Belonging to an organization is not a right, like eating, breathing, working. It is a privilege.
If the guy has an ounce of class at all he will not ever ask to be reinstated.

The more I hear about PVs brilliance as a trainer the bigger a brute I think.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:58 AM
Since some people aren't getting the hint, I'm just going to delete every post from here on out that is not polite, respectful, nice, and actually contributing to the discussion. Got it?

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Boston Chicken:
If it were me and I needed to communicate about changes I had made in my life to change someone's opinion of me I would consider a couple of things:

1. Consider writing an open letter to the Chronicle
2. Work with one reputable reporter (not in the Palm Beach area but a solid daily paper - think Boston Globe or similar) to tell my story.

He would have to be willing to let it all hang out as it were. The good, bad and the ugly. It won't end up being a glowing piece but it should be truthful and balanced. A powerful resulting story would be hard for him to read in the end.

As for its content, I, personally, would want to hear less about all his good deeds (I know he's done some great things for animals recently) and more about the flawed decisions that led him to making the final decision in the first place. Then I would want some expression of understanding that he knows it's going to take a leap for many people in the community to trust him again. That he intends to earn that trust every day in real, meaningful ways.

I absolutely believe in forgiveness though it's hard for me to look at my horse (who is perfect in my eyes - and hey, you've met him, he's pretty cute http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif) and understand the As, Bs and Cs that led to the kind of decision that Paul made. But, forgiveness is possible - at least in my mind.

Thank You for your open mind and excellent suggestions.

I truly respct someone who is willing to open up about what THEY need to see, and what they think might be a good place to start.

I will pass on your ideas...Thank You. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:03 PM
Racetb, I'm not going to spend hours going back through this thread and deleting every out-of-line comment. I'd be here for days.

I am, however, stuck at my computer for the next several hours, and so help me God, my finger is staying poised directly over the delete button. I will not hesitate to delete anything even remotely snarky, and if people keep pushing it, I'll simply give them a nice two-week posting vacation.

You've got two strikes. Wanna go for three?

If you all are going to insist on acting like kindergarteners, you're going to be treated like kindergarteners.

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:07 PM
Anthem- I have a question regarding remorse of PV. I think my questions for you earlier got buried, but could you tell me if you started riding with PV after this happened, and if so, does he tell new clients upon first meeting them that he had a horse killed, what led to it, how sorry he is, and that he is suspended? And does he bring it up or does he wait until they ask (why he can't be at shows)?
I'm curious if he is willing to risk not getting new clients by expressing his remorse right off the bat.

anthem35
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:12 PM
Jetsmom-Yes, he did.

Before I even showed up at the barn, this was addressed.

I did not, however press him for answers to any questions, well, simply becasue I didnt have any.

I knew enough of the story, and didn't need a personal apology.
As someone who has made enough mistakes in my life in not my finest hour, I felt no need to inflict any more unhappiness than he had already caused himself.

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:20 PM
Anthem, thank you.

One more question. You asked how he could make amends and help his cause...

Why doesn't he take 15 min and come on here himself and explain why he did what he did, and answer some questions that everyone here has and be willing to scan documents showing ownership of horses, farm, trainer payroll proving that the trainer that goes to the ring isn't being paid by him, etc? It might cost him 15 min a night to answer questions, but would eliminate speculation. If he is truly remorseful, and not violating the terms of his suspension, he could put all of this to rest and gain some support.

Equit8tor
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:23 PM
A quick question, if I may...IF Mr. V does seek reinstaement, how long will this process take? Will it be granted immediately (at a hearing) or will this have to go to a committee(s) for consideration? If so, how long could this possibly take? (Pardon my ignorance of USEF procedures and protocol).

DMK
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:26 PM
jetsmom, given the near rabid nature of internet BBs, I can't think that would be at all productive for anyone.

But I do think IF Mr. Valliere chose to apply for reinstatement, it would be an exceptionally good idea for the USEF to have publicly held hearings, where interested parties could speak, or have letters formally read for the record, and Mr. Valliere would have an opportunity to respond, for the record.

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:28 PM
Agreed, DMK.

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:34 PM
DMK- That could easily be solved by having a thread just for questions, and he could have one where he solely answers the questions, with no responses from anyone. Anyone needing elaboration could post the question on the "question" thread.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:35 PM
3) acknowledgement of the pain he has caused all involved in this industry
Especially owners who then had to deal with soaring insurance premiums, and painful, invasive investigations when their beloved animals died from actual colic, etc.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:36 PM
Considering how much work I'm having to do WITHOUT Paul participating here, I think I can safely say that it wouldn't work and would never happen. Unfortunately there are a group of people who participate here who are extremely immature and have been incredibly out of line, both on and off the BB.

Not gonna happen.

Equit8tor
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:38 PM
So, is there not a set regimen for these reinstatement procedures?

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:40 PM
We didn't even know about Nancy Banfield's application for reinstatement, let alone its acceptance, until someone found it...

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:44 PM
As I understand the current rules he would request a Hearing with the Hearing Committee or ask the CEO to set up a hearing committee session for him.

He would to their satisfaction prove he had remorse, and contributed community service to the horse community and had been obedient to the rules for the whole 10 years. The Hearing Committee would take the record and consider it and it takes 30 days for their reponse.

I do not believe you can appeal a Hearing Committee opinion. He might also under the USOC clauses appeal that as an "elite" hig performance trainer he is prevented from being competitive due to the fact his not a member.

It would be up to him to prove his innocence and good intentions during the term of his suspension.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:47 PM
But I do think IF Mr. Valliere chose to apply for reinstatement, it would be an exceptionally good idea for the USEF to have publicly held hearings, where interested parties could speak, or have letters formally read for the record, and Mr. Valliere would have an opportunity to respond, for the record.

DMK I totally agree that should be the procedure for all who make seek Reinstatement after having been convicted.

Equit8tor
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:50 PM
Snowbird- thank you. And, I too agree with DMK.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:51 PM
With the exception of this case I believe most are suspended for a specific term and then automatically reinstated.

Jane Clark to her credit when she was President made sure that these crimes because they were so heinous in terms of horse abuse and affected the industry as a whole so negatively made sure this time the Suspension was serious and not necessarily open to Reinstatement

Equit8tor
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:54 PM
So, is this the first case that will be brought up under these "new conditions/specifications"?

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:56 PM
Do we know who of those 23 was the other that was the second to be reinstated?

MIKES MCS
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:57 PM
Snowbird and others, I don't know if any of you are keeping up with what's going on in the Winter Olympics, but I found this item very relevant to the no reinstatement thread. It deals with ther IOC and how they are currently viewing a banned coach:
This is an paragragh from todays news story
"At a news conference, IOC medical commission chief Arne Ljungqvist held up a postcard showing Mayer in an Austrian Olympic biathlon team photo. He said that while Mayer's presence in Italy didn't break the IOC ban, it violated the "spirit" of the decision to keep him out of the games."

The fact that the IOC has viewed this coach's presence at the 2006 Winter Olymics to be breaking the Spirit of the IOC's decision for a 2002 doping violation banning him from future Olymics, is very timly I think.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 12:57 PM
Yes! As of December 1, 2003 this is an entirely new Federation and as such not bound to past procedures and penalties. They did not succeed the AHSA but are a new entity.

Equit8tor
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:01 PM
Again, thank you Snowbird! Pardon my ignorance and subsequent silly questions!
MIKES MCS- most timely! Thanks for sharing.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:02 PM
Yes! Mikes MCS I have been watching the process. The Austrian Team was also as a result tested for substances and their quarters searched and a lot of items have been impounded.

The Team complained because they said that the search and interogation caused them to be not able to perform and the Team as a result was last in the Competition. I think this will be a very good test case for just how much authority the IOC has and how responsible an NGB might be for infractions of the rules.

DMK
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:06 PM
Mike, said banned coach was also seen "hanging around" with the team members and I believe that team was also busted for having blood analysis equipment and syringes in their quarters (as well as reportedly dumping stuff out the window when raided). So there were a few more extenuating circumstances...

But yes, I thought how timely, as well...

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:08 PM
I have also been interested in the comments of the Media regarding the new point system which was designed after the Utah fiasco in skating.

There was a lot of dialog about how now the scoring was too objective and instead of a good skate the skaters were more worried about points and how many they could acquire so that the presentations were less artistic and not necessarily related to the music.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:11 PM
The skating situation is also not unrelated to our problems in that we have seen some judges who start a horse with a high score based on it's history and then add points or subtract points based on that day's performance.

So some horses started the class with a score of say 80 and others that were unknown started with a score of 40. I believe that happened in Gymnastics two years ago as well.

Sherry
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
The skating situation is also not unrelated to our problems in that we have seen some judges who start a horse with a high score based on it's history and then add points or subtract points based on that day's performance.

So some horses started the class with a score of say 80 and others started with a score of 40.

With all the trouble we're having on this Reinstatement Thread, I don't think it's a good idea to get folks discussing the problems we all have with Judges/Judging practices http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif That's a good idea for another thread though http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Equit8tor
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:18 PM
Sherry- true! But, I do believe the reference to the banned coach were most timely.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:20 PM
Originally posted by DMK:
jetsmom, given the near rabid nature of internet BBs, I can't think that would be at all productive for anyone.

But I do think IF Mr. Valliere chose to apply for reinstatement, it would be an exceptionally good idea for the USEF to have publicly held hearings, where interested parties could speak, or have letters formally read for the record, and Mr. Valliere would have an opportunity to respond, for the record.

Could not agree more. In fact, I wish I had thought to include that in the petition!! And I think that procedure should be in place for ALL the convicted horse-killers, NOT just Mr. Valliere.

As to what the procedure is NOW, I have no idea how long it would actually take. Any of them wanting to be reinstated would have to reapply AFTER the date on which they are eligible - they do so in writing to the Hearing Committee, and I assume the Hearing Committee then sets up a time to meet and discuss. A lot of these folks are volunteers, and from what I understand, it can be pretty interesting trying to get a quorum together, so it could take a while... Of course, the way things are now, the first we will hear about it is when we read it in Equestrian.

Aunt Esther
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:23 PM
Aunt Esther, national and international Purse Champion, finds it important that people posting on this thread pay close attention to the moderator.

Aunt Esther is impressed with the awareness that the No Reinstatement people have managed to create, and she thinks it would be exceptionally unfortunate that this discussion venue would be closed because some No Reinstatement people cannot mind their P's and Q's.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:36 PM
Absolutely Aunt Esther!! We do not want this thread closed.

MIKES MCS
Feb. 20, 2006, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by DMK:
Mike, said banned coach was also seen "hanging around" with the team members and I believe that team was also busted for having blood analysis equipment and syringes in their quarters (as well as reportedly dumping stuff out the window when raided). So there were a few more extenuating circumstances...

But yes, I thought how timely, as well...
True but it is also true that the only reason this team was brought under suspicion was because they were seen in the company of a banned, persona non gratis (SP) ex coach.. Guilty by association????? interesting and again the point is that this person in the opinion of the IOC was not in compliance with the spirit of his suspension...

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 02:18 PM
I had read that "spirit of the suspension" thing also, Mike, and meant to mention it here, but got distracted slapping little fingers. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of course, now that banned coach is in a mental hospital, after running into a police barricade in Austria. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Also of interest, I believe I read that the judge who "threw" the pairs figure skating competition in SLC was banned from judging for only three years, which surprised me. I mean, who is ever going to trust her to judge again? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Although I admit I haven't followed the story closely. I do seem to remember that she confessed to what she had done early on, so maybe that had something to do with it.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 02:35 PM
Pay heed to your Aunt Esther, people. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Howsabout a reinstatement-related, but NOT PV-related question, just to provide temporary surcease?

Does anyone know whether Dr. Ross Hugi's testimony was given any weight by the courts in the case against James Heinsohn??

What lies behind this is an ongoing debate as to whether Jatomic Streaker, the horse Hugi alleged he saw flipped out of a trailer and beaten to death with a hammer, should be added to the No Reinstatement t-shirts.

We opted to be pretty conservative and if there wasn't a CLEAR paper trail we didn't go for it, but we're kind of having second thoughts about Jatomic Streaker.

Any thoughts?

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 02:44 PM
Aww, WA, you're going to make me dig to the back of my closet and pull out my Big Fat File o' Insurance Fraud stuff again, aren't ya? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I'm almost sure I have some news clippings on the Hugi/Heinsohn cases. In the meantime, try searching the Chicago Tribune archives. They had reporters at all the insurance fraud court appearances.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 02:45 PM
Yes! I remember reading she did a full mia copa admitted her guilt and was humiliated by her mistake and groveled appropriately. She did not argue with the establishment.

We used to be in skating before horses and I was in skiing before there was a family so I pay more attention I guess than most. Although she has regained her license it is unlikely she will ever be selected again for a premiere event without a revolution.

The issues in skating are not that different than ours in horses and for the same reason it is more art than sport. We gave up on skating because the competitions were very limited and always four/five days far away.

I don't know that we will ever totally resolve the problems between subjective judging and objective selection. Both methods have their flaws. What they did in skating that I thought was good and always that we would do in horses is they had test days and you had to earn your way up to a competition.

I'm sorry I've gone off on another tangent. It's just the way my brain works,I apologize for the daliance.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 02:53 PM
I think it is a valid line to draw when someone has been "convicted" of horse abuse and or horse fraud. It stays in effect until the culprit is found innocent. I think we need to start upholding a punishment of them being banned as in the Tanya Harding case.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 02:56 PM
Well Erin we're going to need supervision to stay on the straight and narrow. Like the horses we tend to want to wander around more than follow the trail.

So, you'll have to prepared to engage the bit and spur.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
Aww, WA, you're going to make me dig to the back of my closet and pull out my Big Fat File o' Insurance Fraud stuff again, aren't ya? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif


Well, the Trib didn't have anything on the killing of this particular horse, just Dr. Hugi's conviction & sentencing.

If you read the Hearing Committee decision carefully, you kind of get the sense they weren't 100% convinced that the evidence of an admitted multiple perjurer was really enough to state for sure that Heinsohn paid to have Jatomic Streaker killed. The HC only states that "evidence exists" to suggest that he did.

Which is why we left the horse off the shirts.

Should we add Jatomic Streaker?

Comments welcome! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Edited to correct spelling: Jatomic. I am very tired, but that's no excuse for getting the poor horse's name wrong! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 03:35 PM
I wasn't kidding about the two-week posting vacations, folks.

Anyone else want to test the boundaries on this?

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 03:36 PM
I'm not familiar with this one. Essentially you're saying the horse was killed but there is no proof who killed it or why?

If that's true then killing a horse which is farm livestock or designated as property and not involved in other nefarious plots. I don't think we want to include because it could be a very slippery slope.

We have right now a definable term of "Convicted" that is in a court of law.

filly3
Feb. 20, 2006, 03:43 PM
The bracelets are definitely showing up in Wellington and causing quite a bit of discussion. I personally can't imagine Paul requesting re-instatement for quite a while. I'm sure he'll wait/hope for some of the hooplala to quiet down.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 03:45 PM
Same Hearing Committee meeting at which PV and others were suspended:

This is official notice of the following action taken by the Hearing Committee of the American Horse Shows Association following a meeting held on April 9-10, 1997, in the association's New York City offices:

MR. JAMES HEINSOHN, of Glenview, IL violated Rule III, Article 302.6 and Rule VII, Article 702(a), (d), and (f) of this association, in that he was convicted of having participated in a plan or conspiracy to commit acts of cruelty or abuse to a horse and the conduct underlying his conviction is deemed improper, unethical, dishonest, unsportsmanlike or intemperate, or prejudicial to the best interests of the Association. In considering an appropriate penalty for the violation by MR. HEINSOHN, the panel members took into consideration that he hired a killer for the horse Pet of the Year, which received an electrical shock that caused its back to be broken and led to it being euthanized, as part of a scheme to defraud an insurance company, and that the evidence presented at the hearing established that death by electrocution causes pain to the horse. Additionally, there was evidence that MR. HEINSOHN had arranged for the killing of another horse owned by him, Jatomic Streaker, which was hit on the head with a sledgehammer. For his violation of the rules as charged, the committee determined pursuant to the provisions of Rule III, Article 302.6 and Rule VII, Article 703.1(b), (c) and (f), that effective immediately and until further notice, MR. HEINSOHN is hereby expelled from membership in the AHSA and denied all the privileges of membership including the ability to hold or exercise office in the association, attend or participate in association meetings, hold license(s) as an AHSA or FEI official, compete in international competitions or receive AHSA automatic insurance coverages or participate in AHSA group insurance programs and is found not in good standing and he and all horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his are suspended from competing or taking any part whatsoever in Recognized competitions and he is excluded from all competition grounds during Recognized competitions as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. The panel members also directed that the Hearing Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter, and MR. HEINSOHN may not apply to the Association for reinstatement any sooner than 15 years from the date he first became suspended by the Association on account of his indictment for the crime in question and then only based upon affirmative proof of total rehabilitation, including proof that he has taken steps to reform himself and has performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses.

Hugi alleged he SAW Jatomic Streaker killed by beating to death with a sledgehammer, but the way the HC words it, it doesn't seem like they are 100% convinced.

Lord Helpus
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:10 PM
Two points:

First: Would we even know if PV applied for reinstatement? I have not seen official notices of upcoming hearings, just notices of action taken. Anything to be done about that (like a mole inside the USEF...)?

Second: I think Erin and everyone at COTH has made a herculean effort to keep this thread open so we can continue to discuss this issue. It would have been far easier to close the thread many pages ago and stifle the discussion -- both easier on Erin and easier on COTH's legal counsel which has, undoubtedly, been called upon to make sure that COTH stays out of trouble by allowing this discussion to take place.

I think we all need to appreciate COTH and thank it for giving us this forum to express our opinions and concerns -- and even let some of us get right to the edge of the unacceptable, without closing the thread to the rest of us. (I speak as one who has had a post deleted, but still lives to post another day --- Thanks, Erin!)

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:12 PM
Thank you for posting that. I do think it fits our prescribed definitions. It says he arranged for the horse to be hit with a sledge hammer. I think I could go along with the opinion of the Hearing Committee in this case.


then only based upon affirmative proof of total rehabilitation, including proof that he has taken steps to reform himself and has performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses

This part is a little disturbing because the decision can be very subjective. I think someone convicted of Insurance Fraud and this huge abuse to horses should be banned for life as well.

I say "Jatomic Streaker" deserves to be remembered and respected. If we don't learn the same mistakes will keep happening.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:16 PM
Totally agree on both points, LH.

As to Point One: We are NOT going to know if PV or any of the others applies for reinstatement, any more than we knew when Nancy Banfield did. So the only alternative we've got, at least at this point, is to go by the dates upon which each one becomes eligible to apply, and make sure our petitions and/or letters are sent to the Committee in advance of that date...

As to Point Two: I completely agree that Erin has done and is doing a magnificent job, and it redounds to COTH's credit that they have let us come and play here.

So, thanks very much indeed to both COTH and especially Erin, who we all - on BOTH sides - have been running ragged for quite some time!!

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:30 PM
It says he arranged for the horse to be hit with a sledge hammer.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">then only based upon affirmative proof of total rehabilitation, including proof that he has taken steps to reform himself and has performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses

This part is a little disturbing because the decision can be very subjective. I think someone convicted of Insurance Fraud and this huge abuse to horses should be banned for life as well.

I say "Jatomic Streaker" deserves to be remembered and respected. If we don't learn the same mistakes will keep happening. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

...But therein lies the rub, Snowy - it doesn't QUITE say that; it only says "there was evidence that [he] arranged...". As far as I can find out, Hugi was the only witness; Hugi stated he saw the horse killed & then falsified the vet records; but then, Hugi had already perjured himself SO many times that he might not be considered the most reliable witness on the planet... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif It bothers me that the HC's wording is not "He arranged..." but "...evidence exists that he arranged". Not the same thing.

Much as it may not be fair to the memory of the horse - who I'm reasonably sure DID die as alleged - I'm not real comfortable putting his name on the shirts, b/c the Hearing Committee does NOT appear to have been fully convinced by the evidence.

So, having swung back & forth a few times today, I think I vote "no". Now we need some tie-breakers! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

As to the "affirmative proof" clause in the HC decision, the wording is exactly the same for ALL the suspended parties. It'll be interesting to see what qualifies as total rehabilitation, will it not?? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:40 PM
A reminder for the Bracelets one more time

Buy NOW! your own No-Reinstatement Bracelet (http://www.usAHSA.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm)

I still have some I can send out. Didn't make the mail because of the Holiday. The orders will go out tomorrow to anyone who orders tonight.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:41 PM
WA, the wording of the hearing committe might just be left slightly vague for legal reasons or something. I'll look back and see if I can figure out what the deal was.

Here is an excerpt from a press release from the then-AHSA, June 22, 1998, announcing the hearing committee's notice of penalty:


In deciding upon an appropriate penalty for the violations by Dr. Hugi, the panel members weighed in his favor that he had cooperated with the government; however, the panel also took into account that Dr. Hugi had admitted witnessing a trainer kill a horse, Jatomic Streaker, by flipping the horse out of a trailer and then finish the murder with a sledgehammer, and Dr. Hugi admitted that he thereafter falsified the cause of death of the horse to an insurance company.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:43 PM
Do we know who that trainer was? So we have the vet falsifying the medical cause for that horse but it's the trainer that's the culprit in my book.

I know that it's the same for all but I'm not sure what it means. Whenever something is subjective I get very nervous. These terms all can be stretched and bent.

What does "reform himself mean"? And what kind and how much community service.

I can see where the defenders of PV believe his has met the minimum requirements listed since they are not defined or in any kind of measurable language.

I can also see where there is no opportunity to question whether anyone doesn't meet this criteria. We have to give some serious consideration as to the best way to approach the question.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 04:54 PM
I also have the US Attorney's office press release announcing Heinsohn's indictment, and it deals only with the killing of his horse Pet Of The Year. So, it appears that he wasn't indicted for Jatomic Streaker, and thus the more vague wording about it.

He did plead guilty to one count of making false statements.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:20 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
I also have the US Attorney's office press release announcing Heinsohn's indictment, and it deals only with the killing of his horse Pet Of The Year. So, it appears that he wasn't indicted for Jatomic Streaker, and thus the more vague wording about it.

He did plead guilty to one count of making false statements.

Thanks so much for your help, Erin. The other problem, at least as I perceive it, is that every article I've got only says Hugi alleged that "a trainer" killed the horse, and does NOT identify Heinsohn as that trainer.

There's too much of a legal danger zone here for my preference; I think we need to leave the poor horse off the shirts, but keep him in our hearts, send some jingles his way and hope he's happy at the Bridge.... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:27 PM
I agree that we should leave the other horse off.

Erin- do you know if there were any transcripts of the proceedings (any of them) made public?

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:35 PM
Any court proceeding is public, but you'd have to be in Chicago and go down to the Dirksen Federal Building to see the transcripts. I have no idea about AHSA/USEF hearings, though.

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:38 PM
Thanks Erin.

rubytoo
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:50 PM
Well, I've waded through 10 pages of this thread...not enough stamina with the other 101....

However, we have a non-profit called LegUpUSA formed one year ago...

We could help with this cause. We also own our a web server, we could provide a website gratis.

As someone pointed out along the first 10 pages...getting people to the website is the problem.


Maybe we need to make up bracelets (like the Livestrong ones Lance Armstrong's foundation created to raise money for fighting cancer) that riders could buy - and WEAR - to show opposition to the reinstatement. I am thinking that seeing a bunch of red "DON'T DO IT" bracelets on every exhibitor at this winter's horseshows would be a h*ll of a statement...


I'll order 100 bracelets today http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

PT me if anyone wants to continue down this path.

eqnjumperrider
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:53 PM
Excuse me Erin, I wrote a lengthy post and I would like your reasons as to why you removed it. Thank you for your cooperation!

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 05:57 PM
Read back a couple of pages to where I said any posts that were not nice, respectful, polite, and contributing to an adult discussion would be deleted.

eqnjumperrider
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:00 PM
Please tell me where it was offensive?

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:05 PM
So we have the vet falsifying the medical cause for that horse but it's the trainer that's the culprit in my book.
Do Vets have to take an oath? Hippocratic in nature?

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:06 PM
You're a smart girl, right eqn? Figure it out. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

amandaw
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">So we have the vet falsifying the medical cause for that horse but it's the trainer that's the culprit in my book.
Do Vets have to take an oath? Hippocratic in nature? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

According to the AMVA site, they need to take the Veterinarian's Oath, although the site states that the oath was adopted by the AVMA in November 1999. I'm not sure if or what was in place before then.

The oath states: "[b]eing admitted to the profession of veterinary medicine, I solemnly swear to use my scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health, the relief of animal suffering, the conservation of animal resources, the promotion of public health, and the advancement of medical knowledge.

I will practice my profession conscientiously, with dignity, and in keeping with the principles of veterinary medical ethics.

I accept as a lifelong obligation the continual improvement of my professional knowledge and competence."

Edited to add: The oath was originally adopted by the AMVA in 1969 and was amended in November 1999.

SaturdayNightLive
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by rubytoo:
Well, I've waded through 10 pages of this thread...not enough stamina with the other 101....

However, we have a non-profit called LegUpUSA formed one year ago...

We could help with this cause. We also own our a web server, we could provide a website gratis.

As someone pointed out along the first 10 pages...getting people to the website is the problem.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Maybe we need to make up bracelets (like the Livestrong ones Lance Armstrong's foundation created to raise money for fighting cancer) that riders could buy - and WEAR - to show opposition to the reinstatement. I am thinking that seeing a bunch of red "DON'T DO IT" bracelets on every exhibitor at this winter's horseshows would be a h*ll of a statement...


I'll order 100 bracelets today http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

PT me if anyone wants to continue down this path. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Haha, wade through a few more pages - bracelets have already been ordered and are currently for sale in a number of locations. You might wanna talk with Snowbird for more info.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:15 PM
And that's two people currently enjoying a two-week vacation. Anyone else who wants to join them, feel free...

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:33 PM
What happened to Hugi? professionally?

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:35 PM
WA has a post on the previous page its the hearing committees response.

War Admiral
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:42 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
What happened to Hugi? professionally?

Hugi got a fine and six months in prison. Don't know what the veterinary association decided to do with him.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 06:52 PM
By all means be glad to accept your order

BUT NOW! No-REINSTEMENT BRACELETS (http://www.usAHSA.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm)

Click on and you can pay for for them by check, cash, or any crdit card. $2.00 each includes shipping postage and mailing.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by War Admiral:


Hugi got a fine and six months in prison. Don't know what the veterinary association decided to do with him. Anyone know?

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:27 PM
OK, War Admiral, found something else for you... Chicago Trib, July 13, '95. It's an article entitled "Jayne kin, 3 others tied to horse fires" and is primiarly about an indictment against Daniel Jayne.


In a separate incident, longtime equestrian Robert Cheska, 39, of Waukesha, Wis., and James Heinsohn, 66, of Glenview were indicted for arson in connection with the May 1984 fire that gutted Heinsohn's Lake Villa house, which was insured for $320,000 [Lake County State's Atty. Michael] Waller said.

Cheska grew up on land owned by Silas Jayne along Nesler Road in Kane County.

Cheska's father, Dick, and Silas Jayne were longtime friends in the show horse business, sources said.

Details of the Lake Villa fire emerged in federal court in August 1994 as part of the probe that spun out of the Helen Brach investigation.

In a hearing before U.S. District Judge Charles Kocoras, Ronald Mueller, formerly of Harvard, pleaded guilty to charges that he lied to federal agents in 1991 when he was questioned about horse killings.

In endtering his plea, Mueller said Heinsohn paid him $10,000 to burn down the Lake Villa house for insurance purposes. Mueller is expected to testify in the Heinsohn and Cheska cases, Waller said.

Mueller, who told Kocoras that he killed six horses in an insurance fraud scheme, said two of the animals belonged to Heinsohn.

He said he fatally struck Jatomic Streaker, a horse insured for $50,000, on the head wiht a crowbar in January 1984.

Mueller testified that he electrocuted Heinsohn's horse Pet Of The Year, which was insured for $40,000, in February 1987.

Heinsohn and Cheska are scheduled to surrender to authorities when they appear in court on July 20.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:37 PM
JM&J... why were these people so desperate for money?

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:38 PM
Xegeba- That's a really good question. I wonder where they keep records of vet. assn members or if his license was pulled. Kind of parallels the whole reinstatement issue doesn't it?

Wasn't there another vet involved as well in all of this?

hiddenlake
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:39 PM
I can confirm Dr. Hugi was still practicing as of three-four years ago.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:41 PM
Aaand here's something for xegeba. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

From the Chicago Trib, 10/4/95:


Veterinarian informant in horse scam is sentenced to 6 months

A longtime veterinarian whose greed overcame his love of horses was sentenced to 6 months in prison on Tuesday for helping convicted con man Richard Bailey swindle a widow in a worthless horse purchase.

Ross Hugi, 51, who operates a clinic in Mundelein, said that while he first "put blinders" on to the corruption in the horse business, he later "wallowed with the pigs of the industry."

"It didn't take me long to know I smelled like one," he told U.S. District Judge William Hart.

Confronted by authorities in 1990, Hugi became the first insider to cooperate in a massive federal probe of fraud in the equestrian industry that resulted in charges against him and 22 others last year.

Hugi helped detail for investigators how Bailey, a stable owner, schemed for years to swindle rich, lonely women and others into paying exorbitant prices for broken down horses, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Steven Miller.

Judge Hart rejected defense requests that Hugi be placed on probation, imposing the prison term, and fined him $4,000. Hugi was also ordered to pay another $18,000 to cover the cost of incarceration and 3 years of supervised release.

Hugi's lawyer, Steven Popuch, said he expected Hugi's veterinary license to be revoked as a result of his guilty plea to the federal wire fraud charge.

I'm sure his license status could be confirmed with the AVMA, if anyone wanted to know for sure.

jetsmom
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:41 PM
Hidden- was he ever suspended from the vet. assn? License pulled in a different state than three yrs ago?

Sorry...posted before seeing Erin's post.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:42 PM
Mueller was apparently another Sandman. Was he involved with AHSA and was he a Member?

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:42 PM
jetsmom, Dana Tripp is probably the other vet you're thinking of.

hiddenlake
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:42 PM
I should clarify that I know Dr. Hugi was practicing as of three or four years ago; I don't know if his license was pulled for a time before that.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:47 PM
I can confirm Dr. Hugi was still practicing as of three-four years ago. Lovely.

Jane
Feb. 20, 2006, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by hiddenlake:
I should clarify that I know Dr. Hugi was practicing as of three or four years ago; I don't know if his license was pulled for a time before that.

I recall seeing his name on a list of animal chiropractors recently, just went back and found it. If you scroll down to ILL area you'll find him, where he's listed as a DVM.

http://handicappedpets.com/animalchiro.htm

You'll also find a number of results if you google his name, where he's quoted quit a bit on various pet sites.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Do we know who that trainer was? So we have the vet falsifying the medical cause for that horse but it's the trainer that's the culprit in my book.
What if the vet suggested it to the trainer? I'll sign the papers and we split the payout. Trainers don't take no oath , Snowbird. And how do you feel about fine dining with Dr. Hugi? let's pretend he pays.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:04 PM
I recall seeing his name on a list of animal chiropractors recently, just went back and found it. If you scroll down to ILL area you'll find him, where he's listed as a DVM.
Do you think he recites a disclaimer to first time clients?

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:07 PM
I would imagine that you're still a DVM even if your license is revoked. They can't revoke your degree.

You just can't practice veterinary medicine without a license... and chiropractic is not (in most states) considered veterinary medicine.

But I'm just guessing here. Maybe a vet can clarify.

SCRM
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:09 PM
I hope so. The last thing anyone needs is a vet who testifies against them to save his own bacon.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
ahem... what is your major problem with snitches. Natalie Holloway's mother is praying that a snitch spills the beans. Snitches are an important part of the legal food chain.

Jane
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
I would imagine that you're still a DVM even if your license is revoked. They can't revoke your degree.

You just can't practice veterinary medicine without a license... and chiropractic is not (in most states) considered veterinary medicine.


Yes you're correct, they can't take away your degree. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif As far as chiropractic work, I believe it depends on the state, but I do know that in the state of New York you are rerquired to be a vet....not sure about a license though.

That said, he was referred to on some of the pet sites as an "equine veterinarian", and even though these articles aren't dated, I'm assuming they're fairly "recent".

BaliBandido
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:15 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
I would imagine that you're still a DVM even if your license is revoked. They can't revoke your degree.

You just can't practice veterinary medicine without a license... and chiropractic is not (in most states) considered veterinary medicine.

But I'm just guessing here. Maybe a vet can clarify.
My understanding is that you do have to be a vet to perform Chiro. That seems to be a big issue with AAEP that has included chiros, dentists, acupuncture etc. Of course I don't know if that means you have to be licensed if you can prove you were at one time and therefor posess the required knowledge. Seems to me for a whole host of reasons you would have to hold a medical license if only for the purpose of insurance. Theres some irony for ya, huh?

SCRM
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:16 PM
The horrible secret of adulthood is that all the snitches are the ones running the place!

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:19 PM
Oigh! I have not had enough experience with these sorts. xebeba you're right. It could have played either way.

With vets like that who needs crooks. I think the horse deserves to be on the list.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:21 PM
I'm pretty sure it varies by state as to whether or not chiros have to be vets.

Snowbird
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:23 PM
Rubytoo I can send your bracelets out tomorrow if you get your order in tonight.

BaliBandido
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
I'm pretty sure it varies by state as to whether or not chiros have to be vets.
I'm sure your right.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:31 PM
I know an "Equine Dentist" that moonlights as a truckdriver. He mows lawns as well. i think he graduated from High School.

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:34 PM
SCRM
Greenie
Posted Feb. 20, 2006 11:16 PM
The horrible secret of adulthood is that all the snitches are the ones running the place!
I disagree.

Erin
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:42 PM
xegeba... nice, polite, respectful, adult discussion. Two people already went on vacation tonight, and I have absolutely no problem with adding another name to the list.

Duffy
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:43 PM
So, it appears that we can add Jatomic Streaker to the official list?

xegeba
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:43 PM
Sorry.

Boberry
Feb. 20, 2006, 08:52 PM
It would be nice to add something for the unknown horses who died in the barn fires over the years.

Boberry
Feb. 20, 2006, 09:25 PM
A little Si history..."Despite his rough demeanor, Si was not terribly out of place in the horsy set. He knew horses well, and he could turn the charm on and off when needed. And like all good con men, he figured out a new angle. State Police investigator David Hamm and agent James Delorto of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms—both now working elsewhere—pieced together many details of Si’s operation. They say he preyed on the paternal instincts of the wealthy men who wanted to provide the best for their young daughters.

“He loved to get the daughters of well-to-do businessmen and professionals, 12- and 13-year-old girls,” Hamm says. “There’s a whole history of him escalating the price of the horse up and up. He would tell the father of a young girl, ‘Your daughter’s got talent; she could win a blue ribbon. But she needs a better horse.’ Now, what father won’t fall for that? Well, the next thing you know, her $1,500 horse becomes a $20,000 horse.”

The lawmen say that Si would often sell a “glue factory nag” that he doctored up to look good. “By the time the girl’s father started to figure out what was happening, the horse would mysteriously [develop] a broken leg and need to be destroyed,” Delorto says. To keep the heat off, Silas would insist that buyers purchase insurance right away; the policy payouts seem to have calmed the buyers." from the Chicago magazine link below...please be warned it is a disturbing article.


http://www.ipsn.org/news/blood_feud_by_gene_oshea.htm

War Admiral
Feb. 21, 2006, 05:22 AM
Yes, Duffy, I do think you're right, and we can add poor Jatomic Streaker. Sorry to be changing my mind so often on this. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

Thanks for your help Erin!

...And yes, I believe the laws on chiro vary by state.

VirginiaBred
Feb. 21, 2006, 06:15 AM
Boberry, I was afraid someone would eventually post something about Si Jayne on this thread, and now that you have, I have to say that I have been aware of him my entire life, as a horrible human being.

My mother, back in the 1940's and early 1950's had a wonderful TB purchased from the late Bill Perry that was trained by the late Jimmy Harris, to be an outstanding conformation hunter. She showed all through Virginia, the Garden and all the then big shows of the day, beating the big show stables. Upon marrying my father, whose family was from Naperville, Illinois, she moved her wonderful horse there, to a private barn, complete with security guard (always on duty) in the area.
As time went on, my mother would eventually do the big horse shows in Chicago and at Oak Brook, etc. and win, as she did in Virginia, beating all the big timers who had no idea who this girl from Virginia was.
Si Jayne was one of those big timers, whose riders and horses she beat. She was approached by Si to sell him her horse, and my mother flatly said he wasn't for sale! At the next horse show, Oak Brook, she was champion, winning every class and was again approached by Si, this time saying to name her price, of which she said there was no price, and to basically stop asking.
Si didn't like being told he couldn't have what he wanted, especially from some naive girl from Virginia, so three days later he hired a man to go to the barn where my mother kept her horse (late at night), knock out the security guard, and with one of the stall bars, shatter my mother's horses' foreleg. He was found early the next morning.
The hired man eventually talked, and the Si was charged with the killing of my mother's TB, along with the deaths of so many other wonderful horses.

My mother has an amazing scrapbook with all the newspaper articles and court documents.

It was a happy, happy day when that monster finally died.

rubytoo
Feb. 21, 2006, 06:24 AM
May I suggest you put a permanent post at the top of the Hunter/jumper forum which just has the link to the Bracelet website?

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:10 AM
Originally posted by rubytoo:
May I suggest you put a permanent post at the top of the Hunter/jumper forum which just has the link to the Bracelet website?

There was one, I believe Erin shut it down.

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:47 AM
VirginiaBred, I am so sorry to hear that. I know this is truely the ugly side of the horse world, but I think some people forget or do not know the magnitude of the situation.

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:35 AM
I don't think we'd be allowed to do that. That is strictly Chronicle space and I am certain they wouldn't appreciate the inquiry because they as a press would not want to take sides.

You certainly are welcome to post the link on all your sites or anywhere you think is pertinent. We can use more sales. I didn't get your order yet; if you want bracelets just post me there; any number doesn't matter just want to see them out.

17hTBmare
Feb. 21, 2006, 08:52 AM
Originally posted by filly3:
The bracelets are definitely showing up in Wellington and causing quite a bit of discussion.

Can you elaborate on that?

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:01 AM
Barney Ward excerpt from UTexas Law..

In July 1994, Defendant and others were indicted by a grand jury of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for crimes involving the killing of four horses in order to collect insurance proceeds for the horses. On March 19, 1996, Defendant pled guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Defendant admitted that he conspired with three others to kill a horse in order to enable one of them to file a false insurance claim as to that horse. Defendant further admitted that he told the horse killer to keep quiet about the people who hired the killer to slaughter the horses, and, if he kept quiet about Defendant's friends and business associates, Defendant would pay him money. Defendant also admitted that he later spoke with the horse killer and that Defendant said that he would kill the horse killer if he did anything to hurt Defendant. Defendant was sentenced to serve 33 months in prison, to be followed by three years of probation, and to make restitution of $200,000 to one of the defrauded insurance companies.

Defendant was charged by Plaintiff with violating Plaintiff's Rule III, Article 302.6 and Rule VII, Article 702(a), (d), and (f). Rule III, Article 302.6 provides:

Following a hearing, the AHSA's Hearing Committee may deny or suspend the privilege to participate in or go upon the grounds of Recognized competitions, and/or deny, expel or suspend the privileges of membership in the AHSA to any person, whether or not a member of the AHSA, whom an indictment, information or charge (criminal, administrative, or civil) has asserted, or whom any civil, criminal or administrative court or tribunal has found, to have committed or participated in any plan or conspiracy to commit, any act of cruelty or abuse to a horse, whether or not any such alleged or actual act, plan, or conspiracy occurred on the grounds of a Recognized competition, or was in conjunction with, or was an element of some other offense, actual or alleged. For purposes of this subsection, cruelty and abuse shall include, but shall not be limited to, any of the acts enumerated in Art. 302.4, and, in addition, killing, crippling, abandoning, mistreating, neglecting, or any other form of abuse of a horse. (See Art. 614).

Rule VII, Article 702 provides in pertinent part:

A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the AHSA, including but not limited to the following:

a) Violation of the rules of the AHSA.

....

d) Acting or inciting or permitting any other to act in a manner contrary to the rules of the AHSA, or in a manner deemed improper, unethical, dishonest, unsportsmanlike or intemperate, or prejudicial to the best interests of the sport and the AHSA.

....

f) Physical assault upon a person and/or cruelty to a horse defined in Art. 302.

A hearing was scheduled on the charges and held on July 10, 1996. Defendant did not appear at the hearing. Before the hearing, Defendant's attorney sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that, in light of Defendant's having pled guilty to one charge of the indictment and his admissions regarding his role in the death of one horse, Defendant was resigning his membership with Plaintiff, effective immediately. The letter further stated that Defendant did not intend to appear at the hearing or offer any evidence on his behalf. The charges were sustained by Plaintiff. Defendant was immediately expelled from his membership in Plaintiff, barred from competing in international competitions, and excluded from all competition grounds either as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. Defendant was given the right to apply to Plaintiff for reinstatement no earlier than August 29, 2009. http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/dawson/cases/cruel/cruel.htm

Can Barney apply for reinstatement in 2009?

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:06 AM
I would guess the Sidelines article had more influence on any discussion. I have mailed some to Florida and California. About 150 have been sent by me.

BUY NOW! Bracelets Available to support No-Reinstatement (http://www.usAHSA.org/Bracelets_for_Sale.htm)

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:06 AM
Good question. Thought the suspension was permanent. But from this, it does look like he can reapply.

War Admiral
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:14 AM
We'll need to verify that with USEF, but it has always looked to me like Ward is eligible to reapply at that point.

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:14 AM
I think perhaps we should consider to propose a Rule Change to the effect that if a Convicted Felon who has been suspended re-applies at any time a Notice of such should be published in advance in Equestrian Magazine the Official Publication. The Members should have the right to express their feelings for consideration of the Hearing committee by affadavit.

Or some such wording as reflects to a previous post for notification with which we all agreed.

War Admiral
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:14 AM
That's a great idea Snowy!!!

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:17 AM
I think it should be a separate thread specific for proposing the Rule Change. I'll start it and let's see where it takes us.

War Admiral
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:21 AM
Cool. Many thanks!!! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 09:37 AM
from an earlier post: "In a separate incident, longtime equestrian Robert Cheska, 39, of Waukesha, Wis., and James Heinsohn, 66, of Glenview were indicted for arson in connection with the May 1984 fire that gutted Heinsohn's Lake Villa house, which was insured for $320,000 [Lake County State's Atty. Michael] Waller said.

Cheska grew up on land owned by Silas Jayne along Nesler Road in Kane County.

Cheska's father, Dick, and Silas Jayne were longtime friends in the show horse business, sources said."

More about Robert Cheska...



"Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern
Division.
No. 96 CR 129--James F. Holderman, Judge.


ARGUED JANUARY 12, 1999--DECIDED JANUARY
31, 2000



Before BAUER, CUDAHY and ROVNER, Circuit
Judges.

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Robert Cheska was
charged with mail fraud in conjunction
with a scheme to kill horses for
insurance money. He was convicted by a
jury, but the district court granted a
new trial because of a remark made by the
prosecutor during closing arguments.
Because of the broad discretion accorded
district court judges in deciding whether
to grant a new trial, we affirm.

I.

Cheska and his co-defendant, Georg
Nuber, were charged with using the United
States mails to defraud an insurance
company in connection with the death of a
show horse owned by Nuber. Over the
years, Nuber purchased a number of horses
from Cheska, a professional horse
trainer. Nuber boarded his horses at
stables operated by Cheska, and Cheska
trained Nuber's daughters and their
horses in equestrian activities. Nuber
purchased a horse for one of his
daughters in the spring of 1986, using
Cheska as the agent for the transaction.
Nuber paid $6500 for the horse, which was
originally named Wanja, then renamed
Jolly Roger, and finally renamed
Valentino. Apparently, the horse did not
work well with Nuber's daughter, and she
wanted another horse named Silver Rabbit,
which was owned by Cheska's father. Nuber
decided to sell Valentino in order to buy
Silver Rabbit.

What happened next is in dispute, and
the jury ultimately acquitted Nuber on
mail fraud charges, so we must assume
they were not convinced by the
government's version of events as they
related to Nuber. In any event, the
evidence showed that Nuber had insured
Valentino's life for its full value, up
to $50,000. In January 1987, Nuber and
Cheska attended a horse show in
Wisconsin, where Cheska met with Timothy
Ray a/k/a Tommy Burns, a long-time
friend. Cheska told Burns that Nuber
wanted to have Valentino killed and was
willing to pay $5000. Burns, who had
killed several other horses for insurance
money, readily agreed. The two planned
for Valentino to be moved to Florida,
where Burns was living, so that the
killing could be accomplished. After the
horse arrived in Florida, Burns
electrocuted it in order to make the
death appear to be from natural causes.
Burns' girlfriend, Lisa Kinney, acted as
his lookout.

Nuber submitted a claim to his insurer,
including a sworn proof of loss valuing
Valentino at $50,000, the policy limit.
Nuber claimed he had paid for Valentino
with cash and trade-ins worth $50,000,
and attempted to establish the value with
affidavits and bills of sale. The
insurer, apparently skeptical of the
value claimed and the circumstances
surrounding the death, hired a
veterinarian to perform an autopsy. The
veterinarian could not determine the
cause of death, but found the evidence
was consistent with death by
electrocution or being struck by
lightning. The insurer ultimately refused
to pay on the claim, and Nuber sued the
insurer in state court. In the course of
this lawsuit, Nuber and Cheska told a
number of conflicting tales about the
value of Valentino, how Valentino was
purchased, and what was paid in cash and
trade for the horse. Not surprisingly,
Nuber lost his case before a jury, and
the federal government took an interest
in the allegedly false documents Nuber
and Cheska created and transmitted
through the mails in their attempts to
establish the value of Valentino. The
government charged Nuber and Cheska with
mail fraud. A jury convicted Cheska but
acquitted Nuber.

At trial, Tommy Burns testified for the
government, as he had in a number of
trials relating to the killing of horses
for insurance money. It was a topic with
which Burns showed a disturbing
familiarity. By the time of Cheska and
Nuber's trial, Burns had personally
killed fourteen other horses at the
request of their owners, all for the sake
of insurance fraud. Burns struck a very
favorable plea agreement, which required
him to cooperate with the government in
its investigation and prosecution of the
crimes in which he took a part. In
exchange for his cooperation, Burns
received a six month federal prison
sentence, which he had already served in
full at the time of Cheska and Nuber's
trial." http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=7th/982665.html

I do not believe it was only these horses killed, and only these people involved. It's an issue in the horse industry that needs to be taken seriously and result in permanent bans.

N&B&T
Feb. 21, 2006, 10:30 AM
Originally posted by anthem35:
As is the case with any article, only particular pieces of an interview are extracted, thereby often painting a diffrent picture.

I guess I just dont know what use of media he COULD use that would provide him a chance to speak to people in person.

Do you have any ideas of what you, as a USEF member, might like to see or hear?



With regard to this and other posts, some (probably rhetorical) questions:

Were you in a position to listen to both sides of the two interviews that took place? So that you know exactly which statements were omitted? Do you believe Nancy Jaffer (http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/jaffer/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1139722677231210.xml&coll=1) wrote a biased article?**

How do you reconcile your statements that PV wishes to speak to people personally and one on one with his refusal to speak to the second reporter?

Why has PV not come forward publically in the previous *ten years* that he has been suspended, as you say he is ready to do now? Is it a coincidence, do you think, that he discovers this readiness just as he becomes eligible for reinstatement and finds that reinstatement unexpectedly and widely opposed?

Why is and has PV been unable to find the words to publically and accurately describe his feelings, if in fact Nancy Jaffer's article inaccurately reflected them? Why does he need to have a client ask people what they want to hear? I would have assumed he would have excellent communication skills as an instructor...

PV received a short probation, a $5000 fine, and a 10 year ban from the showgrounds proper, during which he has conducted, from his old farm, with the same name, (under new ownership of course) what is by a number of his clients' accounts a thriving lesson and sales business.

Why does he need to push for more? Why does he think he deserves more?

I believe it is possible for people to change, especially in over ten years. Recognition of fault and remorse are possible at any time, of course, BUT, remorse and forgiveness are *personal issues*.

As far as organizational issues, why is the idea of permanent consequences for these absolutely appalling acts so difficult for so many people? Where will the USEF draw a line if not here? How will they deter and punish "current problems" if they will not take a stand here? Precedents exist in other sports organizations for a permanent ban.

Finally, while we're watching the Olympics--do we want any of these people in the spotlight of Olympic competition?

**Back to BW--I think it is somewhat ironic that the forgiveness McLain Ward mentioned in Nancy Jaffer's article was for PV turning in his father. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

DMK and others--Public hearing would be a very good idea, I think.

Sorry for length and lateness but I just finished reading 20 pages of new posts...

Edited to add yet more words...

SGray
Feb. 21, 2006, 10:48 AM
Originally posted by Yours Truly:
O.K.--the onus to file a complaint is on the person with proof of a violation. And you're telling me that no one has done that.

Is there someone out there with the proof and the desire to file a complaint?

or a Steward (or Technical Delegate in other disciplines) can file a Charge

nutmeg
Feb. 21, 2006, 10:49 AM
speculation - even of the urban legend variety - is not productive...

KristiKGC
Feb. 21, 2006, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by War Admiral:
We'll need to verify that with USEF, but it has always looked to me like Ward is eligible to reapply at that point.

I am giving an informative speech tomorrow (for a class) and chose the reinstatement issue. I actually found quite a bit of information out there! (i need cited sources http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif ) To answer this question though, Barney Ward is eligible to apply for reinstatement in 2009.

DMK
Feb. 21, 2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Boberry:

Do you feel this is urban legend or what is speculative?

Boberry, that is not what nutmeg wrote - that is an inserted moderator comment.

SGray
Feb. 21, 2006, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Jane:
Harry, now you're getting dramatic. I have not read any posts, especially recently, that stated PV should be reinstated. What I read were people defending PV's right to reapply, SHOULD HE DECIDES to even go there, as well as those who know him challenging the alligations that he's been breaking rules, nothing more.

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

Janet
Feb. 21, 2006, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">under the rules that went in to effect in Dec. '05

Are these new rules we have been reading? Which ones are new as of Dec 05? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
There is a lot of confusion about this. The rules (GR704 specifically) are not brand new. What got changed effective Dec 1 2005 (and the reason they appear as rules changes), was replacing "Federation Competitions" with "Federation Licensed Competitions".

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 02:49 PM
The rules I have posted are from the 2005 Rule Book. Thank you Janet, if that's the only change then we are on the right page. And, that change makes perfect sense.

ise@ssl
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:09 PM
And let's not forget that Barnie Ward repeatedly showed up at shows and the USEF (then AHSA) spent membership money on legal fees to assure that their ban on him coming onto show grounds was ENFORCEABLE.

I'm so tired of this "finger in your eye" attitude by people who break the rules - and in some cases HEINOUSLY. And are we to accept these were just totally isolated incidences? There are some mistakes in life that saying "I'm sorry" isn't ENOUGH. Living with the consequences IS THE PUNISHMENT.

And Snowbird is right - if the USEF pulls some candy-a**ed move here and let's anymore of these people back - they should be STRIPPED of the NGB TITLE by the USOC.

AHorseSomeDay
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:15 PM
I didn't read all 110 pages of this but who is Jatomic Streaker and what was his role in this?

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:21 PM
Jatomic Streaker is a horse who was flipped out of a trailer and "finished" off with a hammer to make it look like an accident for the insurance claim.

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:30 PM
ise@ssl I agree that it is time to define a line in the sand and say no more! We need to set examples for the new and younger trainers. Just as the IOC has started to get serious about Olympic violators we need to be seriously involved in those who have abused the sytem. There are not that many of them that we can't request the right to be notified and the opportunity to express our opinions. There have bee two we've been told I don;t know who the second might be but we caught on so now it's time for the "grassroots" to take a stand once and for all.

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by ise@ssl:
And let's not forget that Barnie Ward repeatedly showed up at shows and the USEF (then AHSA) spent membership money on legal fees to assure that their ban on him coming onto show grounds was ENFORCEABLE.

I'm so tired of this "finger in your eye" attitude by people who break the rules - and in some cases HEINOUSLY. And are we to accept these were just totally isolated incidences? There are some mistakes in life that saying "I'm sorry" isn't ENOUGH. Living with the consequences IS THE PUNISHMENT.

And Snowbird is right - if the USEF pulls some candy-a**ed move here and let's anymore of these people back - they should be STRIPPED of the NGB TITLE by the USOC.

In the past it was hard to get the evidence in front of the membership. Now that we have the internet more people can see the facts/impact and voice their opinion. I thank VirginiaBred telling her story b/c there are more like her.

Silk
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by Erin:
there are a million and one ways for it to "belong" to Paul and still legally show. ?

How many ways can a horse "belong" to someone and not really belong to them?

AHorseSomeDay
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Boberry:
Jatomic Streaker is a horse who was flipped out of a trailer and "finished" off with a hammer to make it look like an accident for the insurance claim.

Thanks for the info. I figured that couldn't be a person because of the name. When did this happen? Did it happen around the same time as Streetwise? Who hit the horse with the hammer?

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 03:44 PM
I think if you read the past 8 or so pages. The time, dates, court rulings are there as well as links about the people involved.

AHorseSomeDay
Feb. 21, 2006, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Boberry:
I think if you read the past 8 or so pages. The time, dates, court rulings are there as well as links about the people involved.

Thanks for the heads up. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I just read the last 10 pages so I understand what happened.
So the man who killed Jatomic Streaker, what happened to him? Did he end up going to jail because of insurance fraud and cruelty to animals?

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 05:10 PM
Read this...but it's a tough one.

http://www.ipsn.org/news/blood_feud_by_gene_oshea.htm

The people involved in the fraud somehow connect to Si. Some have already passed away. I am unsure if James Heinsohn is alive.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Feb. 21, 2006, 05:37 PM
I was a kid showing at Madison Square Garden the day Silas was released from prison...I remember the whole horse show being abuzz with the news, "Silas is out!".

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 06:21 PM
My trainer from the late 70's gave me a Si talk when I started catch riding for other people. I always think the best of people and thought it was just a Si issue. In the late 80's early 90's it's sad, but wasn't a shock when the indictments came down. Some of these people abused horses at the shows. Killing them for claims made business sense. Maybe some may seem to never be able to lay a mean hand on a horse, but look at the charm of Si.

HunterJumperLuv
Feb. 21, 2006, 06:52 PM
Barney Ward lives relatively close to me.. I've so often been tempted to leave him a letter in his mail box saying "Horse Killer".. But I've always been able to talk my self out of it, and my reasoning had always been "He'll never be back in showing" I am so appalled to think that in 2009 he will be able to apply for reinstatement.

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:03 PM
I think what bothers me the most is that Barney said Tommy Burns was like his son and lived with him. I guess he taught him all his skills. And, the other thing was when McLain said if he got to Olympics he was going for himself because this country never did anything for him.

When this was all breaking i got a phone call from a Reporter in Chicago. I asked him why he was calling me and he said because he heard I was an hones horseman. I asked and you had to come all the way to New Jersey to find one?

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
I think what bothers me the most is that Barney said Tommy Burns was like his son and lived with him. I guess he taught him all his skills. And, the other thing was when McLain said if he got to Olympics he was going for himself because this country never did anything for him.

When this was all breaking i got a phone call from a Reporter in Chicago. I asked him why he was calling me and he said because he heard I was an hones horseman. I asked and you had to come all the way to New Jersey to find one?

Is the MW statement in print or video?

SCRM
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:20 PM
You are all in biiiiiiiiiig trouble when Erin gets back.

Snowbird
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:23 PM
In Print in Arlene Newman's Magazine. Made me want to barf.

Boberry
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:25 PM
Biiiiig touble for what? Please explain.

SCRM
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:30 PM
I'll let Erin handle that.

HunterJumperLuv
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:46 PM
Really? I think even Erin (Bless her for dealing with us!) knows that all of the above posts are well written, informative, and honestly, are mature.

Thanks for the Edit Erin! Sometimes I need those little reminders after a long day working! I apologize for any nastiness!

Kap
Feb. 21, 2006, 07:52 PM
Oh, the irony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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