PDA

View Full Version : The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.



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

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 10:23 AM
I could use some help from anyone interested in campaigning against the reinstatement of ANY of the horse killers.

Think we can't do it? Maybe you've forgotten this little episode from 2004. (http://www.horseillustratedmagazine.com/horse/detail.aspx?aid=12754&cid=3553&category=)

What I propose for starters is an online petition, which can be circulated not just among USEF members and affiliate organizations, but among other national and foreign equestrian organizations as well, and then sent to USEF, the USOC, and the FEI.

I certainly don't mind initiating this. However, I could use a little help from all y'all with the wording. Would it be better to have the petition contain language against reinstatement of ANY/ALL of the convicted parties listed here (http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm) , or is it better to tackle the subject on a case-by-case basis?

Thanks for any comments/advice. If you're not comfortable posting on this thread, PM me. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jetsmom
Dec. 9, 2005, 10:51 AM
I'd sign it.

I think individually would pack more punch. Otherwise you are liable to get a group of people who are deciding who to reinstate, and they come up with a "compromise Verdict", and dissallow the "little guys" and let PV and other bigger names back in. You know that the Bigger Fish will be doing lots of lobbying, and their supporters will be doing the same.

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 11:20 AM
Yes, there is that. However, I certainly don't want to convey the impression of having a vendetta against any single person, either, because I don't. I just happen to think that the horse killings were a Very Bad Thing for our sport.

However - since the individuals in question will be coming up for reinstatement on different dates and on an individual basis, that may be the way to go.

The other question is - which would YOU be more likely to sign????

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Dec. 9, 2005, 12:31 PM
Now, dudes..I doubt reinstatement's gonna happen. Remember, while the rest of the usual suspects were in court getting real prison terms...our fair haired boy was wearing a wire, turning states evidence on the very people he approached to kill the horse..and parking his canary singing, Porsche driving, butt in the WPB parking lot, two feet away from Jane Clark.. expensive walkie talkie in hand. Now, you and I both know that there are a couple of folks on The List that aren't gonna be too happy if PV is forgiven, whilst they were offered up as bargaining chips...just a thought

wanna_be
Dec. 9, 2005, 12:31 PM
no offense- i really am playing the devils advocate here- but lets say best case scenario you have a couple thousand people from COTH etc sign your no reinstatement petition- do you really think that this will have any negative impact at all when put up against the thousands of *much more important* signatures/support for reinstatement from trainers, riders OLYMPIANS etc? i just think that while a nice idea, if 100,000 BBers signed a petition and 100 succesful GP riders supported him, well he will be welcomed onto any showgrounds. And for the most part, all of todays showjumping "heroes" DO support him, and have remained friendly with him, and have bought horses for themselves/ clients from him, and admire the way he has stayed in this business and continued to teach younger riders how to in turn become successful in the GP ranks.

I am not saying don't do this, because I believe you should always stand up for what you think is right, I am just saying Look who you are up against- it may be futile.

jetsmom
Dec. 9, 2005, 12:45 PM
wanna be- did you read the link by War Admiral in her opening post?

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 9, 2005, 01:02 PM
I am in agreement with wanna_be, this a a mountain too insurmountable for the average USEF member to overcome. Also, I feel that any action taken should be taken against the group, not a single individual. It is unfair to isolate one member, when there were several involved. The effort, while noble should be directed to a place where one CAN make a difference.

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 01:04 PM
OK, so we've got 1 person on this thread so far who thinks reinstatement is going to happen and one who doesn't. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here's how I see it: They would reinstate an awful lot of these people if they could.

And if we remain silent, it could well be presented to us as a fait accompli before we ever even know what hit us.

OTOH: You seriously think they *won't* sacrifice the suspended parties, plus the goodwill of a few current GP riders (GP riders having a fairly limited competitive life span, after all) if the million-pound PR sh*thammer is falling on them from every conceivable direction and they think there's a possibility USEF might get removed as NGB for all eternity???

I'm not fooling around. This is MY sport too, and yours as well. It's never going to be perfect, we all know that; but it should NEVER be a sport where breaking a horse's legs with a crowbar for money is seen by the NGB as O.K. I've got a horse sitting in my barn right now who would not be alive if these people had continued to roam unchecked.

It's time to stop this crap. I fully support USEF when they do the right thing. But like any other large corporate entity, sometimes they need a wake-up call.

Hopeful Hunter
Dec. 9, 2005, 01:11 PM
War Admiral, I'm with you.

I think that EACH time one of the people involved in truly egregious situations is up for reinstatement it's a good thing to make one's opinions known. Will they carry the day? We don't know. But I DO know that I personally have strong feelings and believe it to be my obligation to my equine partner to make them known.

Let's face facts, there will be some eloquent letters of support for PV, and others I'm sure, probably from some influential people. Yet, if enough of the much vaunted "grass roots" makes their small voices heard, the sound may carry enough to make a difference. Anyone remember the Dr. Seuss classic "Horton Hears a Who?" If the USEF truly wants to be for ALL riders, and wants to reach the grassroots as it says, well, this seems an ideal way to hear us peasants down here on the ground....

wanna_be
Dec. 9, 2005, 02:02 PM
jetsmom- yes, I did. I think there is a world of difference between PV judging a class while still under suspension, and having the suspension itself lifted. Also, while Paul himself stepped down from the position of judge due in part to peoples discomfort with the situation, I doubt he would do the same in this much grander one. I don't think for him the importance of judging a class is paramount to that of being a part of competetive showjumping again; he will probably fight for this.

and war admiral you said, "I'm not fooling around. This is MY sport too, and yours as well. It's never going to be perfect, we all know that; but it should NEVER be a sport where breaking a horse's legs with a crowbar for money is seen by the NGB as O.K. I've got a horse sitting in my barn right now who would not be alive if these people had continued to roam unchecked."

If the USEF does reinstate Paul, they are far from condoning what he did. If a person murders another person and gets out in 25 years, it is not because the government suddenly thinks its ok to kill people. maybe there were "interesting" conditions that surrounded the murder, or maybe they (government) simply doesn't have the means to keep the murderer anymore. It is possible that the USEF reinstate Paul while still recognizing that what he did was wrong. Maybe they feel he learned his lesson, or that helping to turn numerous others in should count for something, or they may simply listen to the VOLUMES of people that will be helping him. I don't know, I'm just saying the USEF as NGB is not neccessarily condoning Paul's actions should they reinstate him. And as for the horse in your barn right now, I feel the need to clarify: everyone involved in the killings was hardly "roaming unchecked". In fact, they were very systematic, hence the reason that horses actually died before they were stopped. I hardly think your personal horse was in danger.
For all of you that are anti-PV or anti-reinstatement for your horses sake and not just for the sake or argument, I think that is admirable. We should stand up for the wellbeing of all horses, because someone's got to.

jetsmom
Dec. 9, 2005, 02:21 PM
This is kind of off topic a little, but one of the things that I found so horrific, is that when the authorities were "on" to what was going on, they heard about a horse that was "scheduled" to be killed. They sent people to stake out the barn and videotape what went on. The video showed a horse having his legs being broken with a crowbar and turned loose so it would look like an accident. THe authorities did not intervene, because they needed to actually catch them filing an insurance claim in order to get them for more than a misdemeanor. After the "perps" left, a vet came out and put the horse down which was truly suffering and going into shock. This video was one of the most horrible things I have ever seen, and I think of it everytime the name of one of those involved is mentioned. I find it somehow equally troubling that what they did to that horse was allowed to happen because in the eyes of the law, torturing an animal is somehow a lesser crime than ripping off an insurance company. That seems so wrong to me.
Did anyone else see the video to which I am referring?

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Dec. 9, 2005, 02:25 PM
Oh yeah...as I've said before..Donna only got a 15 year suspension, but she better hope I don't meet her in a dark alley with a crowbar. Streetwise had a colic clause on his policy..so he HAD to be killed this way for that disgusting *&%$# to collect.

buryinghill2
Dec. 9, 2005, 02:42 PM
I have never understood how people have gone on dealing with Paul like this never happened. For over twenty years, I considered Paul a friend. He was someone I saw and spoke with on almost a daily basis, and I was good friends with much of his barn staff.
I left the business not long after all this happened. In fact, it had such an effect on me that it was a catalyst for me leaving the business.
Since I stopped going to the shows shortly after all this broke, I have never seen Paul again. However, if I passed him on the street tomorrow, I would not stop to speak with him.
I spent over twenty years taking care of wonderful show horses. Their life is far from an ideal one, and I was 100% dedicated to taking the best care of them I possibly could, to the point of sacrificing everything else in my life. I cannot imagine ever forgiving, or forgetting, that Paul could have so little regard for the lives of the wonderful animals that were entrusted to his care. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 9, 2005, 02:52 PM
Perhaps the saddest thing was, at least in his case, it was something he did not need to do, it was not a matter of survival, and in many cases these poor horses were laughed about after their untimely ends. If it were not commonplace, a name like the "sandman" would never have been given. Such a euphemism, as if getting a shock through one's anus was like drifting off to sleep. To this old goat, it is more horrifying because of the amount of trust these animals have for their caretakers. They live a pampered life, with generous care, until someone cannot figure out how to get more performance from them.

Flipper K.
Dec. 9, 2005, 03:02 PM
I would sign a petition voicing my opposition to reinstatement for "the list."

I think we owe it to those poor murdered (there, I said it) horses to try and keep these people banned. Forever.

I feel we can't sit here in silence -- the USEF must know how strongly we feel. If we don't tell them, how will they know?

What if PV does get reinstated and we all smack our foreheads and say, "Gosh, I should have put up a major stink!"?

-Flip

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 03:33 PM
Well, even if he does get reinstated, it doesn't necessarily end there. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'll try to draft something up this evening & see what you all think of it.

Meadow36
Dec. 9, 2005, 03:41 PM
I'd certainly sign it, but I don't think I'd be much help with the wording, etc. Honestly talking about crowbars smashing hind legs and electric probes up the butt certainly speaks for itself. Maybe you could get the ASPCA involved? I also keep in touch with some TB rescue groups and I'm sure I could get most of them to sign. I think a little networking by each of us and USEF will have quite a large contigent to deal with.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 9, 2005, 03:44 PM
I wonder if the ASPCA keeps an "eye" on PV and his horses?

twotrudoc
Dec. 9, 2005, 03:47 PM
how would you find out? where is PVs barn anyway? i think i would like to sign, too.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:01 PM
Just chiming in, but I too don't believe he will be reinstated. Two things, first there would be one helluva an uproar and second, no one would pay a whole lot of attention to the rules, if someone who was found guilty like PV, given a life suspension, then found to be okay to come back to the fold. It really would not be a smart move on the USEF's part what so ever. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

Oh Racetb, I think your bling with a shad belly would be dynamite. Now of course, you need to have the lining in hot pink with little sparkly things http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif You sure would catch the judges eye!

Due's Mom
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:05 PM
I'll sign....I don't want any of them back. Although it sounds like PV does ok even under suspension.

ss3777
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:09 PM
sign me up!

Thanks

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:10 PM
Radio...Sallie and Em are turning in their graves..but I might have to go for the hot pink vest points http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
....alright..here goes fatmouth; I hate to say it...but ya all just KNOW who is gonna seriously maim whom if the wire wearer gets reinstated http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif ..mark my words.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:12 PM
if someone who was found guilty like PV, given a life suspension, then found to be okay to come back to the fold. It really would not be a smart move on the USEF's part what so ever. no

Unfortunatley he was not given a life suspension, it is up this coming April. With USEF you never know and he has alot big time people still friendly with him.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:20 PM
Maim? Ya think it will only be maim? Come on we all know better than that. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Turning in their graves, hell they probably are getting ready to come up to the mick and speak. Listen hard younguns, you will hear them too. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Carol Ames
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:22 PM
I would defiitely sign!

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:23 PM
Sorry....I meant to say cut his head off with a rusty machete..but discretion IS the better part of valor.

Aptor Hours
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:24 PM
Very interesting link. I remember this guy being big really big back when I showed hunters and then all of this going down. I personally have no respect for somebody that would kill a horse for insurance money. I also cannot believe that those Equus Medal finals would ask Paul V. to judge...how stupid is that! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Carol Ames
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:24 PM
Were there not people who were given lifetimesuspensions because of that reserpine incident some years ago?

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:29 PM
OK guys, here is a first draft. I would really welcome any input you all may have. And again, if you're not comfortable posting here, feel free to PM me.

The reason it's this long is that this is going to cross the desks of a lot of people who are not familiar with the case. I wanted to use the Hearing Committee's own language to explain their reasoning.

*************************

PETITION DRAFT:

TO: The United States Equestrian Federation ("USEF"), the United States Olympic Committee ("USOC"), and the Fédération Equestre Internationale ("FEI"):

PURPOSE: This petition is in opposition to the reinstatement of Mr. Paul Valliere to full membership rights and privileges in USEF.

BACKGROUND: On March 12, 1996, a meeting of the Hearings Committee of the American Horse Shows Association (predecessor in interest to USEF) was held and the following resolution was adopted:

"Mr. Paul Valliere, of North Smithfield, RI, 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. VALLIERE, the committee members weighed in his favor that he had cooperated with
the government; however, the panel also took into consideration that he hired a killer for the horse Roseau Platiere, owned by him, which was electrocuted 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.

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. VALLIERE is hereby expelled from membership in the AHSA and denied all the privileges of membership including the ability to hold or exercise office in the association, attend or participate in association meetings, hold license(s) as an AHSA or FEI official, compete in international competitions or receive AHSA automatic insurance coverages or participate in AHSA group insurance programs and is found not in good standing and he and all horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his are found not in good standing and are suspended from competing or taking any part whatsoever in Recognized competitions and he is excluded from all competition grounds during Recognized competitions as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. The panel members also directed that the Hearing Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter, and MR. VALLIERE may not apply to the Association for reinstatement any sooner than 10 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."

PETITION: We, the undersigned, do not believe that Mr. Valliere has presented sufficient proof of total rehabilitation as required by USEF. We further believe that the reinstatement of Mr. Valliere would be in direct contravention of the USEF's own Vision Statement, contained in the USEF Bylaws, which states, in part:

"Bylaw 102: The vision of the Federation is to provide leadership for equestrian sport in the United States of America, promoting the pursuit of excellence from the grass roots to the Olympic Games, based on a foundation of fair, safe competition and the welfare of its human and equine athletes...."

We, the undersigned, believe that the killing of the equine athlete Roseau Platiere flies in the face of USEF Bylaws by failing to promote the welfare of equine athletes.

We further believe that the killing of Roseau Platiere is in direct contravention of the FEI Code of Conduct, which states in part:

"The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) expects all those involved in international equestrian sport to adhere to the FEI’s Code of Conduct and to acknowledge and accept that at all times the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial influences.

At all stages during the preparation and training of competition horses, welfare must take precedence over all other demands. This includes good horse management...

We, the undersigned, believe that in killing the equine athlete Roseau Platiere, Mr. Valliere directly violated the FEI Code. We further believe the reinstatement of Roseau Platiere's admitted killer, Mr. Valliere, is not in the best interests of equestrian sport, USEF, the United States of America, or the FEI, and does not promote the welfare of our equine athletes.

Respectfully submitted,

***************

Comments???

lizathenag
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:35 PM
too many words.
since you asked.
but I will sign
for what it is worth.

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:37 PM
I *think* I can get away with cutting most of the last paragraph of the Hearing Committee stuff. Would that make it better?

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:39 PM
War Admiral, unless you have someone on the committee willing to champion this for you, it is going to end up filed under waste in the mail room. Not that your intentions are not noble, and not that many are not in agreement, it is simply a case of the federation not being concerned with the opinion of the average member.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:43 PM
I think it very good, very professional sounding. Doesn't feel long to me when I was reading it. I would definately sign it. I just jogged my husbands memory on it. You don't want to know what he said (Erin would have a fit!! LOL). He was shocked that it was not a lifetime suspension.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:44 PM
it is simply a case of the federation not being concerned with the opinion of the average member.

If we don't stand up and have a say, then why should we be members. Why give us the rules, why go to meetings. It is our federation, everyone should be heard. We pay for it!

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
War Admiral, unless you have someone on the committee willing to champion this for you, it is going to end up filed under waste in the mail room. Not that your intentions are not noble, and not that many are not in agreement, it is simply a case of the federation not being concerned with the opinion of the average member.

It's interesting you should feel that way. To reiterate something I've said before, I have always had WONDERFUL responses from the USEF, whether it be on rules, on issues like this, or, earlier this year, a USEF rep spotting a question of mine in the Driving forum here and kindly sending me a personal e-mail.

You think they don't listen, I know they do. Because they've demonstrated that to my satisfaction many a time.

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 04:56 PM
So hows 'bout if I shorten that paragraph to this:

"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. VALLIERE is hereby expelled from membership in the AHSA.... The panel members also directed that the Hearing Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter, and MR. VALLIERE may not apply to the Association for reinstatement any sooner than 10 years from the date he first became suspended by the Association... 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."

Better??

Chanel05
Dec. 9, 2005, 05:01 PM
WarAdmiral,
Really good letter-I don't think it's too long. If we all get as many signatures as we can, not only will it spread the word to others in the industry who don't know what happened, but by flooding their mailroom they won't be able to say they didn't get our petitions.

BTW, if we send just one letter with a bunch of names on it as opposed to many letters, could they just throw it away and never respond? This could be a concern.

As soon as I heard about all of this several years ago, I made sure that everyone I know in the industry heard about it--because although it is public record, there are SO MANY people that had no clue.

Also, If I am just a "peasant member" of the USEF and I don't have the right to voice my opinion AND have them respond in some way, then I wan't my money back!

jetsmom
Dec. 9, 2005, 05:01 PM
I'd Delete the part that starts with "For his violation of the rules as charged" and add something along the lines of "As a condition of his suspension, he was ordered to not be on the showgrounds of any recognized event. His violation of this ruling has been blatant, as evidenced by his appearance at WEF. There have been no public displays of remorse, and in fact, he continues to train and make a living off of the same type of animals he had killed purely for the love of money. To allow reinstatement would be a slap in the face of those members who abide by the USEF bylaws."

Maybe not worded quite as dramatically, but something along those lines. I liked it though.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 9, 2005, 05:12 PM
If I am just a "peasant member" of the USEF and I don't have the right to voice my opinion AND have them respond in some way, then I wan't my money back!

I believe the word was average which I believe is a step above peasant. LOL!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I agree with Jetsmom. I like her wording. It is a slap in the face to all of us that try to do what is right and abide by the rules. He continues to show horses at rated shows by any means possible to him.

War Admiral
Dec. 9, 2005, 05:38 PM
I agree, I like that language too.

I'm kinda burned out at the moment - anyone else want to pull it all together, or can I go on vacation until tomorrow & tweak it some more in the a.m.?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 9, 2005, 05:43 PM
War Admiral, You have done more than enought today. You have had us all evaluate what is right and wrong. Lets try again tomorrow.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 9, 2005, 08:08 PM
War Admiral, I did not mean to minimize your efforts, I just feel that in this case it is a bigger battle than can be won by the grassroots members. This man has had a few years head start on his public relations efforts, and a good deal of money behind him.

jetsmom
Dec. 9, 2005, 10:12 PM
No comparing the magnitude of societal change verses a USEF suspension...but Rosa Parks was one person...talk about grassroots. Surely a large portion of membership in an association can bring about a desired result. Look at the approved helmet issue.

Lucassb
Dec. 10, 2005, 06:54 AM
I think the language of the letter is very good. I will sign, and would suggest that copies be sent to as many horse publications as possible in addition to the USEF. I'd start with HODV, PH, and COTH (of course) but there are many others. There are some PR mavens on this board who could probably come up with a list. The more publicity this attracts, the higher impact the letter will have.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:00 AM
My last night posts suggest I am against the "movement" so to speak, but indeed I am not, I just feel that it is not likely to get off the ground where it counts. It will need to be funded in some way, and perhaps advertising purchased for full page ads in these publications stating the mission. The support you need has to go beyond the horse world, so be large enough to be effective. I do not believe the professionals of our sport will touch the issue.

Lucassb
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:06 AM
Harry is right; this effort is likely to require funding.

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...

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:12 AM
Excellent thinking Lucas, not only a fund raiser, but a telling sign of support that is visible. What small child seeing their first horse show would not want the same bracelet that she/he sees the riders wearing? Of course this would required purchasing a booth or table at a show, or convincing a philanthropic show manager to allow the group to use a minimal space for the effort. That would be the difficult part, as the space would offend many cash-paying exhibitors, and I would have to believe the management would want to keep things running in a milk-toast fashion.

Duffy
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:16 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
My last night posts suggest I am against the "movement" so to speak, but indeed I am not, I just feel that it is not likely to get off the ground where it counts. It will need to be funded in some way, and perhaps advertising purchased for full page ads in these publications stating the mission. The support you need has to go beyond the horse world, so be large enough to be effective. I do not believe the professionals of our sport will touch the issue.

Harry, your last statement is just so sad. "But by the grace of God" should not be the norm with our professionals.

War Admiral - once the letter/petition is ready, I will sign it and will be happy to bring it to the shows I attend. (Unfortunately, I won't be headed to the sunny south.)

I would also be happy to contribute to trade ads and/or the bracelets for this purpose.

Lucassb
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:18 AM
not only a fund raiser, but a telling sign of support that is visible. What small child seeing their first horse show would not want the same bracelet that she/he sees the riders wearing?

Yeah, that's my thought too. The money raised might be somewhat marginal, but I think the sight of the bracelets might be persuasive.

I agree that most show managements would be unlikely to support such an effort publicly, but it would be easy enough to set up a simple website to handle orders. I think actually the biggest challenge would be the distribution. Probably we would need to find a vendor who was willing to do fulfillment, which would add to the cost.

The bracelets themselves are inexpensive to produce. (Less than 50 cents each.)

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:25 AM
The website is a good idea, but for people to actually come across it is another thing. One thing that might work, particularly in the WPB area is for groups to contact local businesses, a community awareness sort of thing, and have the bracelets placed in stores. The local ASPCA is often tireless, and would have local support with contacts in that area, the area where the shows are held, which despite giving safe haven to O.J. Simpson might be rather suprised to know of the goings on at their much touted Winter Festival. A local investigative reporter might like to have the scoop on the story and the bracelets............

Lucassb
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:26 AM
As another thought, an ad offering the bracelets (obviously saying something a bit provocative, like "ARE YOU OPPOSED TO REINSTATING THE HORSE KILLERS?") would be an easy way to get the word out about the effort, as well as to advertise the bracelets.

I wonder if Equestrian magazine would run it? I bet COTH has the b@lls to do so. They have taken strong stands for what is right in the past; for example, during the NGB battle.

Duffy
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:28 AM
COTH took money for the ads run on behalf of PV. I can't see why any of the pubs would not take money for this purpose.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:28 AM
A local investigative reporter might like to have the scoop on the story and the bracelets............
I love that idea. It would be great for the investigative team set up a hidden camera on PV at a show and watch how he "coaches". Once they explain the whole situation I bet a lot of people would be interested. Plus the USEF could not ignore that kind of publicity.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:29 AM
Equestrian magazine would problably take the advertisement on ONLY if an opposite-view advertisement was placed by supporters. One would have to think that they are forced to be bi-artisan in this matter.

Duffy
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:34 AM
Harry, I don't understand that logic. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Accepting a paid ad does not mean a publication is partisan. I can see where they wouldn't be able to do it for a discount - unless they offered the same discount to the opposing ad, if such ad were done. (The pubs could do their own statement - like the product shows on TV. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) Or, the editors could actually show where they stand on the issue...

adventurebeachponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:35 AM
I am person who is involved in the criminal justice system on a daily basis and I see both sides of cases including the impact on the subject and his family. I am also a passionate horsewoman and this crime to those who love horses creates the same type of emotional response that child molestors or killers evoke in society in general.

The facts, stripped of the emotion, are that PV was suspended and could request reinstatment if he could prove rehabilitation and that he has provided community service to benefit the welfare of horses. I don't think anyone can argue effectively that he hasn't complied with those requirements so the only argument left is that he should be expelled for life with no hope of ever being reinstated simply because of the horrific nature of the original offense and that in many minds, can never, not even in a million years ever be forgiven.

My question to each member of this board who has a strong opinion on this subject is : What would you rule if you were the sole judge and are charged with meting out justice after reviewing the past 10 years and PV's behavior? Do you wipe out what he was told 10 years ago to encourage his charitable activities and rehabilitation and tell him it was all in vain and he will NEVER be reinstated or given an opportunity to rejoin the show horse community officially?

Every day I deal with criminals who do really vicious things to other human beings and it is just another day at the office. Battery, Aggravated Assault, Rape and even Murder. Most of these criminals are sentenced, many times to probation for a first offense and they re-enter society none the worse for wear for the most part. We are USED to man's inhumanity to man and that is almost "accepted"...however, man's inhumanity to a horse to a horseperson sends us over the edge into a state of complete unforgiveness.

While I agree that PV's crime is horrible I also see the value in that through his cooperation he made it possible to take out the entire ring of conspirators. This does have value that many of you cannot appreciate if you haven't seen how many times offenders get clean away with crimes because no one will do the dirty work of a CI. Right now I could take you on a tour of my county and tell you the names of the biggest crack dealers and even which houses have cooking pots making crack every day. I can take you "THE HILL" where sentinels are watching and it is veritable enclave of houses of dope dealers that the cops want NOTHING to do with. Those folks have guns and it would be a war to go in there and no one wants to be the CI to take those crowds out.

PV's role in making that case happen and so many people being convicted was instrumental in saving many horses that would have potentially died in the future. That has value and was considered by the board as it should have been.

At some point, every person who has ever made a mistake should have an opportunity to start over and my question is: Does PV ever get that chance?

By the way...I don't have any connections to the man whatsoever and no dog in the fight.

Lucassb
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:48 AM
Adventurebeachponies, your point is well made, but I would argue that PV has come pretty d@mn close to getting away clean. His business continues to thrive, and is only marginally impacted by the suspension which prevents him from personally setting foot on the competition grounds.

In that respect, he doesn't really NEED the chance to start over - because he hasn't lost much; there is nothing to rebuild!

Convicted child molesters can do their time and go on to be reintroduced to society. That does not mean they will be given the opportunity to be a grade school teacher or daycare worker.

I would argue that PV's case is much the same. And yet he has been able to remain in the horse industry, and continues to earn a very good living doing so.

Yes, he cooperated with the authorities *after he was caught*. You could not convince me he did it out of remorse for his actions. Those who "cooperate" in such exercises almost always do so out of personal interest - in the hopes of getting lighter sentences - and I don't doubt that that was the motivation in PV's case as well.

Reinstatement for this individual is more of a moral statement than any type of economic or professional issue. That official "forgiveness" is not something that I feel is appropriate, especially coming from a governing body that claims as one of its principal objectives the goal of protecting the welfare of our competition horses.

Duffy
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:49 AM
I guess my rebuttal to your very well stated post is that PV has hasn't had to start over. He just continued on and has thrived, even though he hasn't been allowed at sanctioned shows. He hasn't been hurt financially. Neither has he been hurt professionally, for the most part.

Yes, he helped put others away. But, as with the judicial system, that meant he helped himself as well.

Someone else said on another thread - that other professionals are NOT allowed to practice their profession after doing a like crime within their profession. PV has been doing quite nicely in his profession. He's had limits put on exactly what/where he can do it. But, that's all.

Personally, I would still feel better about his "rehabilitation" had I read/heard a statement from HIM about the horrific act he took part in, seen remorse, seen him not flaunt the sanctions, etc. That's what some of us "outsiders" see or not see. I have to think those close to him have seen this non-public side - or they wouldn't support him.

Sorry about the rambling...Please know that I'm one of those people who always thinks the best of others for too long. I'm one who has to be beaten over the head multiple times for me to not trust someone, etc. But, premeditated cruelty to a helpless animal or person is not something easily forgiveable in my heart and soul.

Duffy
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:50 AM
Lucasb - talk about the same thoughts! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Lucassb
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Duffy:
Lucasb - talk about the same thoughts! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

<grin>

Gotta admit that one was a no-brainer!!

monicabee
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:57 AM
My question to each member of this board who has a strong opinion on this subject is : What would you rule if you were the sole judge and are charged with meting out justice after reviewing the past 10 years and PV's behavior? Do you wipe out what he was told 10 years ago to encourage his charitable activities and rehabilitation and tell him it was all in vain and he will NEVER be reinstated or given an opportunity to rejoin the show horse community officially?

My question to each member of this board who has a strong opinion on this subject is : What would you rule if you were the sole judge and are charged with meting out justice after reviewing the past 10 years and PV's behavior? Do you wipe out what he was told 10 years ago to encourage his charitable activities and rehabilitation and tell him it was all in vain and he will NEVER be reinstated or given an opportunity to rejoin the show horse community officially?

Every day I deal with criminals who do really vicious things to other human beings and it is just another day at the office. Battery, Aggravated Assault, Rape and even Murder. Most of these criminals are sentenced, many times to probation for a first offense and they re-enter society none the worse for wear for the most part. We are USED to man's inhumanity to man and that is almost "accepted"...however, man's inhumanity to a horse to a horseperson sends us over the edge into a state of complete unforgiveness.

Well, if you were the CEO of a corporation and a candidate came to you for a job, recommended to you by the wife of a member of the Board of Trustees, because he had done excellent work for a charitable organization she ran, and he was personable, likeable, knowledgeable, everything you could want in a Chief Financial Officer, with just the one little snag that twenty years ago he embezzled a lot of money from a company he worked for, would you hire him?

Sorry about the elaborate metaphor, but I was trying to find a transgression with less emotional content. It’s a common sense issue. You don’t give an official position to someone who had violated the fundamental tenets of your business.

PV is still making a living in the horse world, still brokering sales and training behind the scenes. Its not that he’s stigmatized even to the extent that I would have expected. He is not living in a trailer, unable to get a job. He does not need reinstatement to survive.

Chanter
Dec. 10, 2005, 08:00 AM
While I agree that PV's crime is horrible I also see the value in that through his cooperation he made it possible to take out the entire ring of conspirators. This does have value that many of you cannot appreciate if you haven't seen how many times offenders get clean away with crimes because no one will do the dirty work of a CI.

Sorry, but this does not make my heart bleed in the least. He did this purely to save his own a<span class="ev_code_GREEN">$$</span>. Which by some of the other posts in this forum shows it quite clearly worked, for the man still has clients up the a$$.

It was all about the MONEY. It is still all about the money. MONEY FOR HIM.

What a world when a group of such purported high "class"/high dollar people are so eagerly willing & wanting to play with such ilk. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

*use of $$ signs is extremely intentional

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 08:03 AM
I think Adventurebeachponies, with a much better way with words, is stating what I was trying to express in earlier posts, when I was accused of vacillating between two sides. There is an emotional side to this, as well as a technical side. One point that Adventurebeach made was that he was encouraged to do charitable works - I for one am not certain anyone (other than PR people encouraged him), BUT, this old goat finds it pertinent that these charitable works just did not happen until the eve of his reinstatement.

adventurebeachponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
I think Adventurebeachponies, with a much better way with words, is stating what I was trying to express in earlier posts, when I was accused of vacillating between two sides. There is an emotional side to this, as well as a technical side. One point that Adventurebeach made was that he was encouraged to do charitable works - I for one am not certain anyone (other than PR people encouraged him), BUT, this old goat finds it pertinent that these charitable works just did not happen until the eve of his reinstatement.

If this is the case, then this is a fact that the committee needs to evaluate.

When a subject comes up for review after committing a crime by a parole board or some other committee called together for that purpose then those are the kinds of things that should be considered.

The quesions that should be answered are:

1. Did PV abide by the original terms and conditions of his suspension?

2. Is there clear and substantial evidence that he is "rehabilitated"?

3. Did he perform charitable works that contributed to the welfare of horses?

His sentence was pronounced 10 years ago and that cannot be changed at this point. It can be argued it was too lenient in the first place but it is unfair to change the game 10 years later in my opinion as that is not fair dealing.

Just my opinion.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 08:17 AM
Indeed his sentence cannot be changed after it was handed down, not in the legal system. The USEF suspension however, did give him right to apply for reinstatement. In all of it's ambiguity, the terms with which the reinstatement shall occur are not laid out cast in stone. Thus, with a convincing appeal, he will make it in. I think, as I have said before, that there is egg on the face of USEF, due to the fact that he has complied with the letter and not the spirit of the law. I do agree that showing remorse is not a condition of reinstatement, he has shown none, other than the remorse that he was caught. Other than that, it has been business as usual for him, it is significant in my book however, that Pete Rose has yet to make it back into the graces of the baseball commission, but I truly believe that Mr. Valliere will make it back in to the horse show world on his first go round.

Erin
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:03 AM
Hasn't PV been running ads about his "charitable works" for several years now? I know there was one regarding his making donations to animal charities after 9/11, so it's been at least four years.

To play devil's advocate for a moment, a couple of points to consider...

Although I know many feel that PV was thumbing his nose at the suspension by continuing to train and be involved in the horse world... consider it from another point of view for a moment. Obviously, from the get-go, he has hoped to be reinstated. It was possible for him to continue to have somewhat of a career and still follow the rules by not being on show grounds. Do you really think it fair to expect him to go out and earn a living as a stockbroker or something for 10 years and THEN come back and ask to be reinstated and come back into the horse world?

A second point to consider... does "no reinstatement" apply to EVERYONE who was suspended as a result of the insurance fraud scandal? PV has been in the public eye somewhat since he has continued to be involved in showing, so he's kind of borne the brunt of the wrath. But there are a whole bunch of other people who were suspended for 10 years -- it's just that I'm guessing no one really knows what they've been up to for that time.

I think adventurebeachponies makes an excellent point in that the suspensions are what they are. You might not agree with them, you might think that the then-AHSA should have banned the whole lot of them for life. But, since this is what the AHSA decided to do, as adventurebeachponies said, the game can't be changed at this point.

I'm also guessing that this has probably happened many times before in the history of AHSA/USEF, and there are probably many people who are members who have done egregious things and been reinstated... it just happened to be before the time of the internet, so the "little people" weren't as aware of it.

On a separate note, y'all might want to take a look at what the folks on the eventing forum did with their Save the Three-Day campaign. They had an online petition and a website, took out ads in the USEA magazine and COTH, and had a booth at Rolex. You can see the website at http://www.savethe3day.org and I think there are links there to some of the BB discussions.

Oh, and also, anyone who is interested can submit a Horseman's Forum for the COTH. It's meant for exactly this kind of thing -- starting a dialogue about important issues in the horse world.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:12 AM
Well said Erin. The man is indeed eligible to apply to be reinstated. I would wonder why, at the time of the suspension, more were not concerned enought to petition for a life suspension at that time, and who determined his to be the ten year variety.

adventurebeachponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:20 AM
Good post Erin.

Is there any evidence that the committee suggested to PV that he was expected to give up his profession in order to comply with the "spirit" of their ruling?

I think that would have been completely unenforcable and unreasonable and that it was expected of PV is simply wishful thinking by some people. By continuing to work in the industry and being successful is not necessarily "thumbing his nose" at anyone.

We all have only one life to life and then we die. The man enjoys horses and apparently has a great deal of talent and ability and he has every right to pursue happiness just as every other American on the planet. It is called freedom and something every one of us cherishes for ourselves but are quick to want to take away from others who offend us.

Right now our government is about do things they promised they never would including National ID cards that will have GPS capabilities and national ID numbers. Everytime we empower those in authority to chip away at our rights we give them more power to invade our privacy.

USEF recently ruled against a woman who had a private telephone conversation with a client and now some of you seem to want USEF to be able to have some authority and ability to destroy careers of offenders.

Let USEF run horseshows and let the Courts run the criminal justice system and keep an eye on both of them that they do not abuse their powers overmuch.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:27 AM
I think that the objection that most of the people has stems from his "pushing the envelope" so to speak - the training sessions via walkie-talkie while within inches of show grounds, enjoying the horse show camper areas which are conveniently called "not part of show grounds", and the fact that the same sort of offense earned one of the suspendees a life suspension. I grant you that the other offender did actually visit ringside, but then again he was not profiting by doing so. Again, the USEF can pretty much do what they want with it, and I do suspect that Mr. Valliere will have more power on his side than the general masses. If the USEF were to bend to what may be a majority of members who did not want him reinstated, I would bet that a civil suit would be in the making on his behalf.

adventurebeachponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:33 AM
Harry,

If those in opposition can provide specific instances and proof that PV was coaching by walkie talkie or cell phone that should be taken into consideration. I am intrigued by the thought of how he could help his client if he couldn't see her rounds however.

Did they have closed circuit television and a cameraman filming the rounds live and he saw it real time in an RV? So as soon as the rider existed the ring they were handed a radio to recieve instruction? Seems like this would be pretty hard to hide and would be frowned upon by USEF.

That would be pretty high tech and expensive and have to wonder who paid for all that gadgetry and labor?

So far, all we have are allegations on a BB and to my knowledge no specific complaint with evidence has been lodged with USEF. Unless some witnesses were willing to come forth with testimony and evidence I would have to say this is heresay.

Again, I have no dog in the fight and this thread would be awfully boring if everyone wanted to grab a torch and join the lynchmob http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:46 AM
Adventure, one of my biggest points has consistently been that no one is truly willing to come forth with anything concrete against him. He enjoys much respect, and I do suspect if the people on here who feel dead set against him were to approach their trainer(s) and speak of this matter, they would be told to back off and let the USEF decide. Anyone wishing to organize had best also take into consideration the repercussions that may arise in doing so. The walkie talkie incidents have been pretty much given as common knowledge, I have as much as heard people laughing about him chatting with Jane Clark in the parking areas, but then again, prisoners often get visits from nuns, so Jane Clark talking to him is not that absurd.

adventurebeachponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:52 AM
OK...

I will let the cat out of the bag so to speak. I am a licensed bail agent that does a lot of private investigative work in my trade.

If the issue is that PV is violating the terms of his original sentence then bust him. If he is blatently doing this then it would be cake to get video evidence to bury his efforts to get reinstated.

Just takes money to hire a PI. You want names in South Florida? PM me.

See. I don't have a dog in this fight. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Midge
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:53 AM
He schools his students at WEF on schooling day. I think that's pushing the envelope pretty hard.

And I wouldn't be so quick to assume all trainers feel he should be reinstated. I know several who have severed friendships with other people involved in horse killing fiasco.

I also wouldn't equate the willingness to do business with him with respect.

jetsmom
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:55 AM
I'd be willing to donate toward a PI to get proof...

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:00 AM
I would believe, that because he is at the ring "on schooling day" it is considered not being on the grounds of the horse show, because the horse show states it runs from Wednesday to Sunday. Again, the walkie talkie incident(s), he is careful not to go on what is considered "official horse show grounds", again, not in violation of the letter of his suspension, only the spirit of it. He disregard for the feelings of others is not part of the terms of his suspension, and you can rest assured he is not going to actually violate those terms in the next few months. Those against his suspension reinstatement need also consider this, he has had ten years to prepare himself for the moment, this grass roots effort has only a few months to organize against him, and not the very deep pockets of he and his supporters.

adventurebeachponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
I would believe, that because he is at the ring "on schooling day" it is considered not being on the grounds of the horse show, because the horse show states it runs from Wednesday to Sunday. Again, the walkie talkie incident(s), he is careful not to go on what is considered "official horse show grounds", again, not in violation of the letter of his suspension, only the spirit of it. He disregard for the feelings of others is not part of the terms of his suspension, and you can rest assured he is not going to actually violate those terms in the next few months. Those against his suspension reinstatement need also consider this, he has had ten years to prepare himself for the moment, this grass roots effort has only a few months to organize against him, and not the very deep pockets of he and his supporters.

Talking by walkie talkie is not a violation in my mind...but...actual coaching would be.

If his client is telling how her round went but he isn't "seeing" it by camera I don't think this is a big deal. It would be normal to want to know how his client did and it would be unreasonable to expect them not to communicate after the round.

It would be wrong for him to be actually seeing and coaching her "like" he was actually present at ringside.

I don't blame the guy for trying to make a living and doing the best he can to help his clients.

Erin
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:08 AM
One other thing to think about... (I know, I am SO annoying with the devil's advocate stuff! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif )

There's always been a lot of anger on these boards toward the people who ARE in good standing who continue to do business with PV.

I have a feeling that had PV actually been shunned from the show world *by the people in it* for the last 10 years, there might be a different feeling toward his reinstatement.

PV wouldn't have been able to continue making a good living in the show world if there weren't a market for his services. And although I'm sure there are plenty who feel that's just plain sucky, and reflects rather poorly on our little horsey universe, it is what it is.

I'm just pointing out that a lot of the anger involved in this issue might not actually be ALL due to PV.

At any rate, kudos to all for making this an actual rational and interesting discussion, rather than the usual "you suck" "no, YOU suck" variety of PV thread. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

CollectAll
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:16 AM
I don't know any of these people. But from my reading of the AHSA's statement from 10 years ago, PV has the right to file for reinstatement. I don't read anything promising to reinstate him regardless of what ammends he has made, merely that they would be taken into consideration. I agree with War Admiral in that his actions so completely violated the USEF's vision statement and the FEI code of conduct that it would be impossible to welcome him back. We would be giving the PETA and animal rights people ammunition that would make sense to the general population, not a good PR move for the USEF. I also agree with HJ that USEF will reinstate. Unless it becomes too uncomfortable for them to do so. Taking this info to the grassroots and also to the general animal loving public can make a difference. Let's not limit ourselves to horse people. As NGB, USEF represents all of us who feel an obligation to protect the animals in our care.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:21 AM
Quite the contrary, Erin!!!! As you pointed out, many of us are on good "terms" with the posters on here who support Mr. Valliere, although we may not agree with them in this case. I too am glad to see it has remained to be a discussion, as I am sure we all are. It is agreed in full that all of us on here are passionate about our horses and our sport, and we can agree on that. I for one would definitely not do business with him in any way, but will not deny the fact that he has some wonderful horses in his care. Do I think he is capable of lapsing into the same behavior that got him where he is today - indeed I do. Can I offer proof, no, of course not. I respect his marketing genius and his apparent transformation, and respect the rights of those who chose to work with him. I question how they can, but it is their choice, not mine.

Erin
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:28 AM
Point taken, HJ... I think it's mostly people outside the show world who are shocked and outraged that anyone would consider doing business with someone like PV. People inside the show world are probably not shocked and outraged by much these days. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I have seen posts from people here who have worked with PV and have found it very beneficial, even if they were uneasy about it in the beginning. I don't mean to imply that *I* think those customers are horribly wrong and devoid of morals or anything like that. Personally, I don't know if I'd want to do it myself, but it's hard to say.

I was mostly just making an observation that a lot of people have posted here in the past and been extremely offended that anyone would continue to work with PV.

CollectAll
Dec. 10, 2005, 10:50 AM
I do not have a problem with people who choose to give their business to PV. I could not personally, but I don't expect others to share my standards. I also don't mind that he is on the parking lot with his walkie talkie. I kind of like the mental imagery of that. The fact that he is there speaks volumes about his place in our sport and I think we need to do whatever it takes to make sure he stays there.

crystalacresponies
Dec. 10, 2005, 11:03 AM
Feel free to send that petition my way! Only too happy to help keep him in the parking lot where he belongs. No one can prevent others for continuing to do business with him, but I don't want him on the same showgrounds with my child.

jn1193
Dec. 10, 2005, 11:25 AM
Feel free to send the petition my way too. I would agree that it should be applied to all who were convicted and suspended, not just PV. There were others who killed more horses and created more misery, so the playing field needs to be kept even.

I submit that if PV is allowed to be reinstated, then the precedent is set for others to be reinstated as well even Tommy Burns.

So let's not make the petition about PV: he does have immense support. Let's make it about doing what's right instead of what's easy.

Seal Harbor
Dec. 10, 2005, 12:15 PM
There are a few points in this entire issue that I think are completely lost.

1) this point is not just about PV but all of the people who were found guilty – by the time someone gets to thinking it’s alright to kill someone or something for money then their moral compass has long been off kilter. What other nefarious acts have these people been party to? This is just the time they got caught and it is the most heinous act they committed. These people didn’t just wake up one morning and think, “I will have to have this horse killed for the insurance money but I am a really honest, decent person in everything else I do.” Frankly I think there is a whole pile of things that these folks have done and probably will continue to do that led them to think this was an ok thing to do. I don’t want people like that in this business there are too many of them already. People who lie, cheat and steal and abuse the very animal that their business is based on and the people who own them.

2) The other thing is where in the world are the laws that apply to other animal abuse cases? People convicted on animal abuse charges aren’t allowed to own any or be involved with them sometimes for a short period of time sometimes for life. I know they probably weren’t charged with animal abuse, they were charged with wire and mail fraud and other things that are considered more important than animal abuse, but they should have been. All of these people should not be allowed ever again to be involved with horses. There is just something so very wrong in allowing someone who would do what these people have done access to horses, let alone making money from this sport again.


I do understand that PV is a talented trainer – and that he screwed up big time but there are many folks that were talented or brilliant in some way that have made huge mistakes in their lives and they have to pay and accept responsibility for those actions. That is life. You made your choices you live with the consequences. I am fairly certain that when a medical doctor loses their license to practice because of some nefarious act you surely aren’t going to take your children to them, even if they are brilliant. To me this is no different. Then again it's obvious that at least in PV's case his clients don't think so. It would take some fairly saint like acts for me to think any of these people have changed their ways. They truly aren’t horseman. The horses are just a means to an end.

JMHO

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 12:52 PM
Good leter and, I would certainly sign!though I I dothink will reuire support from a //bnRT/T or sponser to make it effective.

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 12:54 PM
Good letter and http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif , I would certainly sign http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif !though I I do think it will require support from a //bnRT/T or sponser to make it effective.does anyone remember CarlnKnee? Has anyone contacted Equus about this?

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 12:56 PM
[Q
Good letter and http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif , I would certainly sign http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif !though I I do think it will require support from a //bnRT/T or sponser to make it effective.does anyone remember CarlKnee? Has anyone contacted Equus about this? Were they sponsoring the finals he was to judge?

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Dec. 10, 2005, 01:12 PM
What about Carl??

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 01:14 PM
Who wrote t book onte scam? Actually after readingthat book , and, talking with some would be employersI really asked myself if I wanted tobe part of the h/j world.?

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 01:31 PM
Let's get back tothe cruelty issue.Eventing was forced to undergo a major change in ordr to stay in the Olympics, and quiet the "humaniacs in .Let's be honest,the drug issue in h/jland id out of control; I know of barns where it takes 45 nunurtes to pout nedications in the feed of 20 horses, and,this at home, in the winter..

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 02:15 PM
Let's get back to the cruelty issue. Eventing was forced to undergo a major change in order to stay in the Olympics, and quiet the "humaniacs in Europe. Let’s be honest, the drug issue in h/land is out of control; I know of barns where it takes 45 minutes to put medications in the feed of 20 horses, and, this at home, in the winter http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ..and then there are these internal blisters. which seem to be the "rage" at the moment. I cannot imagine how an internal blister might feel, but, I do know how injecting a joint feels; and, it is not good, certainly later when ththeete lidocaine has worked into the joint capsule, pain upon movement is gone, but, even knowing that as a human being, itis VERY PAINFUL I advise friends who are considering being injected that initial pain is severe.At one point I was considering having my si injected, until a friend inmed schol talked with me about it, since chiropractic, osteopatthic, and, PT mde the joint functional again with a minimum of pain.I admit I would have e g fought anyone doingthat to my "backside", yet horses are twitched twitched, shanked down with lip chains in order to be injected.This goes on as part of the "picture " of being successful in the show ring., and, I suspect humane societies who fought so hard against the soring of gaited horses would be equally upset if they knew what is considered "daily maintenance " in the show ring;and then,there is the issue of killing for hire; Would It not be better to show that we do look after our horses’ best interests, and, penalize seriously those convicted ofcruelty “, is that not what was cited in the decision?, "cruelttty?"Unfortunately all horse sports are subject to being accused of doping , andf""fixes"could we not take the higher moral road, show that we consider cruelty, especially as perpetrated int this case.to be abhorrent I understand, and, respect the point about having "paid " the penalty. served time, etc. and, one day behind bars is certainly horrible, especially to someone used to being outside, and,

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 02:19 PM
There were others who killed more horses and created more misery, so the playing field needs to be kept even.
Absolutely!

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 02:28 PM
[Is he not in Europe? IO was told thathe, and others caught in the "resrpinesting" were facing life suspensions, and , so moved out of the country . Anyone know?

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 02:29 PM
[Is he, Carl knee not in Europe? I was told thathe, and others caught in the "resrpinesting" were facing life suspensions, and , so moved out of the country . Anyone know?+

Carol Ames
Dec. 10, 2005, 03:03 PM
Agred, Lynda!
agtrd People who lie, cheat and steal and abuse the very animal that their business is based on and the people who own them.

Snowbird
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:27 PM
Having been down this road several times I find it invigorating that there are some people left who are so passionate about the treatment of horses and the punitive measures not employed by our Federation.

I feel the same way about all convicted felons. They don't belong in our sport. I sent a letter to John Long requesting he use existing rules to suspend from particiaption at any horse show Joe Plemmons. He sat on National TV discussing how he had shot Helen Brach twice in the head and how he had disposed of the body. He winters at Wellington to sell horses. Her crime? She was going to turn the crooked horse dealers in to the DA. I am still waiting for a reply.

Then we have Wally Holly who I believe has been suspended but ignores it and is frequently seen at shows in the company of his girlfriend who is a Tack Shop vendor. We have people who although they know Barney Ward is in disguise but present at a horse plead for forgiveness for him as well.

So where do you all want to draw the line? The Drugs and Medications Committee tried several times to tighten the drug rules but there was a huge cry from our leading trainers that it was unfair and unkind to the horses to have them clean of drugs. Isn't it interesting that they seriously believe they should be allowed to drug and medicate in other ways horses at the lower levels but then suddenly they have to go clean for an FEI Class. Doesn't that make you wonder?

Does anyone remember the the dirty money scandal? it seems only at the hunter shows the money is so loaded with cocaine that the horses get it second hand and tested positive. I think someone even claimed that a horse could test positive if they followed a horse in the same stall even just for a few minutes. Imagine that? I heard the amazement by Dr.Lengel when there was no dirty money at the Arabian Shows and only at our Hunter Jumper Shows.

The conclusion was that the current testing methods are too good and they find even little amounts in the system of the horses which is always accidental. So why not forgive PV and Barney Ward afterall they have both repented. They're really nice guys and they have a lot of important friends.

It's just us "little people" who get all bent out of shape because we don't know them. And who is there that even cares what we all think?

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:36 PM
I am sorry, but this has gone to far. How could anyone disguise Barney Ward?

Snowbird
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:37 PM
Hey don't ask me? Look at the old threads from the people who saw him.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:42 PM
Snowbird, come now, how would one disguise Barney Ward? He surely could not wander into WPB as a fairy princess.

Racetb*Aefvue Farm*Biziz Ltd.
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:50 PM
LMAO!!! I think I saw him in a tutu at The Nutcracker Suite last week. Anyway, another way around things, a ploy CK used for years, is to lease a farm abutting WPB, or any other permanent venue that hosts a steady stream of horse shows for that matter, and set up shop. I can't see a way for the powers that be to do much about this. Although, in animal cruelty cases, even on a local level, an offender can be barred from any association with animals. Much as a sex offender with children..Oh yeah, we have one of those too..I forgot!!

Snowbird
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:55 PM
Oh! Harry I wasn't there but I would imagine he could be duded up without having to look like a fairy princess, don't you think? Especially when no one seems to care if these suspensions are enforced or not. Maybe he was the guy selling hot dogs and pop?

I mean really, it was just bad judgment and it was just a horse. Cash flow is what really matters don't you think? We've heard all the same kind things said about Barney that we've heard about PV. What the heck they did their time.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 10, 2005, 04:58 PM
I wonder if PV were to be "disguised" he would be as easily outted as Barney. The powers that be seem to have more disdain for BW than for PV, and in this old goats mind, which is the more offensive?

eventable
Dec. 10, 2005, 05:01 PM
Having waded through the entirety of this thread, the thing that I find most disgusting and embarrassing as a horse person is not the length of PV's ban, but that he was allowed to continue owning / training and being in other ways involved with animals. I can only imagine what a person can do if they view a horse as a commodity and not an animal - if someone is able to dissociate themselves from all feelings of morality enough to electrocute a horse or smash its legs, are they not just as likely to employ cruel training methods? Here in New Zealand I would expect to see the SPCA or ILPH becoming involved in similar cases. A situation like this would almost definitely come to court (whether because of the insurance fraud or the cruelty aspect). I believe any right-minded judge would enforce a life ban on both owning and being involved in the training of horses.

Snowbird
Dec. 10, 2005, 05:01 PM
Well, I can tell you that to me anyone who disposes of a horse for money can't be trusted. And, if this sport is going that route then it will indeed be a very small power base.

Will the elite folks stay when it all shrinks down so there are so few to beat?

Boberry
Dec. 10, 2005, 05:04 PM
There's more of us here. Not only would I sign the petition I would also pledge to get 200 more signatures to help. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Dec. 10, 2005, 05:26 PM
Ya just never know HJ. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Boberry
Dec. 10, 2005, 07:30 PM
Help me with this. I thought PV horses were banned from shows yet they do show:

http://community.webshots.com/photo/465247268/309906482pPSkeX

Snowbird
Dec. 10, 2005, 08:30 PM
Only if he owns them outright. He can be a partial owner and if the other owner is permitted the horse or pony can compete.

Enforcement of the rules depends on whether people are willing to respect those rules. I'm not certain that as a Non-Member if he assisted and was not the trainer of record there is anyway to prevent his presence at a show; or that of any Non-Member.

I think he is courteous to be technically legal with a view to re-instatement.

Boberry
Dec. 10, 2005, 09:07 PM
and is found not in good standing and he and all horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his are found not in good standing and are suspended from competing or taking any part whatsoever in Recognized competitions and he is excluded from all competition grounds during Recognized competitions

doesn't "any partnership" include this horse...PV isn't even being technically legal and thus looses his re-instatement http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Snowbird
Dec. 11, 2005, 08:59 AM
But we are licensed now and I specifically asked that question when Legal Council was present at our meeting. I would be pleased if it is not so except for the extra work chasing down who all owns a horse. Besides they would just sell the horse for a $1.00 or call it a Lease.

War Admiral
Dec. 11, 2005, 09:29 AM
Hey y'all, sorry I was MIA yesterday. We had a dressage clinic at our barn & the schedule got royally FUBAR'ed owing to recent monsoons and freezes wrecking the footing, so, having expected to be there for 15 minutes, I was there all day! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

I loff, loff, LOFF the idea of wristbands or some other visible form of support. I wonder if rather than wristbands, little badges or buttons might be more visible? But whichever way y'all want to go is fine by me. If anybody is good at design, or has suggestions for designs, let me know. I'd think http://www.cafepress.com would be the best way to get the job done...???

Another aspect of the letter-writing campaign is that we probably need to start writing to USEF's corporate sponsors and telling them we will boycott their products/services if any of the horse killers are reinstated. The Marketing/PR VPs are the ones who will really wig when 800 letters land on their desks. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Anyone care to volunteer to draft that letter?? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So, do I take it correctly that y'all would rather have this be in the form of a letter-writing/e-mailing campaign than an online petition?

The only thing really in favor of an online petition is that I'd like to see pressure brought to bear from outside the USA, as well as within the USEF membership.

Anyhoo, here's another draft. Unfortunately it makes it even longer http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif but I hope it takes into account Jetsmom's well-stated and IMO very important concern that we make it clear Mr. Valliere has pretty much blatantly flaunted the terms of his suspension.
I've bolded the additional language - or I hope I have! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Oh and BTW, Harryjohnson, you've got mail. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

************************

TO: The United States Equestrian Federation ("USEF"), the United States Olympic Committee ("USOC"), and the Fédération Equestre Internationale ("FEI"):

Purpose: This petition is in opposition to the reinstatement of Mr. Paul Valliere to full membership rights and privileges in the United States Equestrian Federation ("USEF").

Background: On March 12, 1996, a meeting of the Hearings Committee of the American Horse Shows Association (predecessor in interest to USEF) was held and the following resolution was adopted:

"Mr. Paul Valliere, of North Smithfield, RI, 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. VALLIERE, the committee members weighed in his favor that he had cooperated with the government; however, the panel also took into consideration that he hired a killer for the horse Roseau Platiere, owned by him, which was electrocuted 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.

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. VALLIERE is hereby expelled from membership in the AHSA and denied all the privileges of membership including the ability to hold or exercise office in the association, attend or participate in association meetings, hold license(s) as an AHSA or FEI official, compete in international competitions or receive AHSA automatic insurance coverages or participate in AHSA group insurance programs and is found not in good standing and he and all horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his are found not in good standing and are suspended from competing or taking any part whatsoever in Recognized competitions and he is excluded from all competition grounds during Recognized competitions as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. The panel members also directed that the Hearing Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter, and MR. VALLIERE may not apply to the Association for reinstatement any sooner than 10 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."

We, the undersigned, do not believe that Mr. Valliere has presented sufficient proof of total rehabilitation as required by USEF. While we acknowledge that Mr. Valliere has taken some steps to be seen to adhere to the terms of his suspension, we believe that he has demonstrated flagrant disregard for the spirit and intent of the suspension in the following ways:

(1) He has arranged for advertisements in equestrian publications touting his support for charitable activities.

(2) He has routinely coached and trained horses and riders on the grounds of USEF rated shows on "off days".

(3) He has judged non-rated classes on the grounds of USEF rated shows on "off days".

(3) He has routinely coached and trained horses and riders just outside the physical boundaries of the grounds of USEF rated horse shows when those shows are in session.

(4) He has coached and trained horses and riders on the show grounds of USEF rated horse shows via walkie-talkie, while he physically remained just outside the boundaries of the grounds.

We further believe that the reinstatement of Mr. Valliere would be in direct contravention of the USEF's own Vision Statement, contained in the USEF Bylaws, which states, in part:

"Bylaw 102: The vision of the Federation is to provide leadership for equestrian sport in the United States of America, promoting the pursuit of excellence from the grass roots to the Olympic Games, based on a foundation of fair, safe competition and the welfare of its human and equine athletes...."

The killing of the equine athlete Roseau Platiere flies in the face of USEF Bylaws. It is also in direct contravention of the FEI Code of Conduct, which states in part:

"The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) expects all those involved in international equestrian sport to adhere to the FEI’s Code of Conduct and to acknowledge and accept that at all times the welfare of the horse must be paramount and must never be subordinated to competitive or commercial influences.

At all stages during the preparation and training of competition horses, welfare must take precedence over all other demands. This includes good horse management, training methods, farriery and tack, and transportation."

In killing the equine athlete Roseau Platiere, Mr. Valliere directly violated the FEI Code. The reinstatement of Roseau Platiere's admitted killer is not in the best interests of equestrian sport, USEF, the United States of America, or the FEI, and does not promote the welfare of our equine athletes.

Respectfully submitted,

Seal Harbor
Dec. 11, 2005, 10:07 AM
WA -
I vote for both. Letters to sponsers and a petition. Get them from both sides. Can't ignore us then, or at least it will be much more difficult.

Lynda

War Admiral
Dec. 11, 2005, 10:22 AM
Works for me, if it works for y'all!!

Anybody want to help compile the list of e-mail addies?? We need: the USEF officers/directors, USEF Executive Committee, Hearings Committee, Ethics Committee. And so on. Of course, you can also get them all at http://www.usef.org, but from the last time we got together & did this, it seemed people were more likely to actually send e-mails if there was a list right in front of them on their puter screens. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

We also need contact names at the USOC and FEI.

If no one else can, I'll do it tonight or tomorrow. But I find myself in dire need of a horse hug, so I'm going out to take Avery for a nice little drive with his new jingle bells now. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

jn1193
Dec. 11, 2005, 11:02 AM
Okay, I have printed off War Admiral's petition and will get this ball rolling. It will go to four show barns in NoVa this week and I will get signatures. Just an FYI: for the signatures. Have people sign, print their name and address. If they know their USEF # it should be included as well. Or, just a check off Member/non-member. Signatures need to be somewhat "verifiable."

I urge everyone to do the same: take them to your barns, give copies to friends who ride at other barns, and set a date to collect them.

Now: who is going to the USEF convention who can deliver the petitions to the powers that be? Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to go. But we need a central "collection point" Volunteers?

LeesaM.
Dec. 11, 2005, 01:35 PM
I have not read enough to know if these people should be reinstated or not, but I do know I did not see this many posts about people convicted or proved to be guilty of crimes against people and are still allowed to go to shows. Just find that fact interesting.

Boberry
Dec. 11, 2005, 01:49 PM
LeesaM. These people were convicted of crimes against people.

http://www.animalpeoplenews.org/94/7/horse_killers.html

Boberry
Dec. 11, 2005, 01:55 PM
don't forget these guys...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=...navby=case&no=982665 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=7th&navby=case&no=982665)

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 11, 2005, 04:42 PM
War Admiral's petition is impressive, and she has an excellent point with making certain the sport's sponsors also get contacted. The wristbands happen to be a popular show of support right now, you can see the Lance Armstrong Livestrong ones here: http://www.store-laf.org/wristbands.html I have seen them for other causes as well, but the particular ones escape me at the moment. How to market them does remain a mystery - any ideas?

Snowbird
Dec. 11, 2005, 05:03 PM
You need a fundraising reason for people to buy. There's no legal fund so the only thing would be to donate to a horse charity. Maybe a scholarship for a young rider.

War Admiral
Dec. 11, 2005, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
You need a fundraising reason for people to buy. There's no legal fund so the only thing would be to donate to a horse charity. Maybe a scholarship for a young rider.

To my mind, the fundraising reason for people to buy would be to contribute toward the purchase of advertisements in opposition to reinstatement. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

However, that gets into 501(c)(3)s and charitable LLCs and all kinds of crap I really can't deal with right now. Is anyone better placed to volunteer to start setting up same??

Let's face it: This is going to be an ongoing battle, because each of these people becomes eligible for reinstatement at a separate time. So this could (I hate to break it to you) go on for years. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/dead.gif

BUT repeat after me: We've done it before, we can do it again!!!!

CollectAll
Dec. 11, 2005, 07:09 PM
War Admiral,
While I agree this could go on for years, PV will be the first and probably most supported of those seeking reinstatement. We should take the opportunity to use his application to set a precedent for those to follow. If we succeed this time, it will just get easier, however if he is reinstated, it will be a difficult arguement to keep the others out.

gf
Dec. 11, 2005, 08:05 PM
just wanted to say that I would be happy to sign the petition.

War Admiral
Dec. 11, 2005, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by CollectAll:
War Admiral,
While I agree this could go on for years, PV will be the first and probably most supported of those seeking reinstatement. We should take the opportunity to use his application to set a precedent for those to follow. If we succeed this time, it will just get easier, however if he is reinstated, it will be a difficult arguement to keep the others out.

You are SO right!!!!

Lizzie Skyrocket
Dec. 12, 2005, 06:17 AM
I would be happy to sign any petition to keep PV or any of the other convicted horse killers from being reinstated

EasterEgg
Dec. 12, 2005, 06:33 AM
How can he possibly be reinstated?? Here in the UK if you're convicted of any kind of animal cruelty you get banned from keeping animals - in this case that would almost certainly be a lifetime ban on keeping horses and probably a ban from being involved in the industry..
As for being asked to judge a class, well, if I was entered in that class I'd withdraw and demand my money back from the organisers - I wouldn't let any horse killer judge me, that's for sure.
This whole thing makes me so angry - I was livid when I first heard about it, and I'm fuming now, and as for people that want to be involved with him now, ugh, I'm not sure I could find the words http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 12, 2005, 07:18 AM
Originally posted by Snowbird:
You need a fundraising reason for people to buy. There's no legal fund so the only thing would be to donate to a horse charity. Maybe a scholarship for a young rider.
How about a scholarship named after Roseau Platiere for a junior rider? BTW War Admiral, I like the addition to the petition.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 12, 2005, 07:29 AM
The funds raised will need to go towards the objective, if you will, rather than to a charitable act. If the mission were to fail, and Mr. Valliere is reinstated, a charity in the name of Roseau Platiere would then be in order, especially if it could be awarded at a show that Mr. Valliere is certain to attend. I tend to think that a scholarship might not be the best choice, given that most of the juniors who ride also have the means to further their education. Just a thought, I am willing to be shot down on this opinion.

buryinghill1
Dec. 12, 2005, 07:29 AM
I don't have time to read the thread, so my apologies in advance for repetition - if I am doing so...
Valliere and Ward make more money now, on suspension, than they EVER did before. They can train off grounds, watch videos of rounds and critique back in the comfort of their living rooms. Their horse sales are world famous!
GLL, Jr (Lindemann) doesn't NEED more money (every time you buy one of them there CELLULAR phones you're paying little Georgie...).
Yes, ban them for life, but sadly it won't affect them at all. Busine$$ as usual.

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 12, 2005, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
The funds raised will need to go towards the objective, if you will, rather than to a charitable act. If the mission were to fail, and Mr. Valliere is reinstated, a charity in the name of Roseau Platiere would then be in order, especially if it could be awarded at a show that Mr. Valliere is certain to attend. I tend to think that a scholarship might not be the best choice, given that most of the juniors who ride also have the means to further their education. Just a thought, I am willing to be shot down on this opinion.
How about having a grand champion hunter award in Roseau Platiere name at a horse show that would be in PV's area that clients would be attending. Trophy and cooler would be given and purchased with the money raised.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 12, 2005, 07:36 AM
Perhaps someone can inspire the Mr. Valliere, with all his works of charity on behalf of animals to donate!

buryinghill1
Dec. 12, 2005, 07:38 AM
http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
Like any passerby of a car wreck, I just HAD to go scan the "Genesis thread." Now I'm back!
SHAME on you, David Olinyk for going off to THE DARK SIDE.

Yes David, it's hard to make a living in the horse business, but do you have to stoop so low? You were THERE in Sugarbush when they dragged away that horse! How can you ever forget? God tells me to forgive, but I can't forget.

au_panda
Dec. 12, 2005, 08:02 AM
War Admiral: I will gladly sign the petition. Thank you for initiating it. It is unimaginable to me that the USEF would even consider reinstating any of these people. I would also recommend that anyone and everyone consider sending email directly to Mr. USEF president and all committee members (emails are listed on the USEF website).

Limitless
Dec. 12, 2005, 09:15 AM
One change to the petition, PV is now in Plainville, MA, not Smithfield, RI

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Dec. 12, 2005, 12:56 PM
Actually his main digs are GP Village in Wellington, unless he has moved out.

Carol Ames
Dec. 12, 2005, 01:01 PM
If it wil be necesary to hire an attorney or PI, funds should go toward that.

CollectAll
Dec. 12, 2005, 08:08 PM
What information do we need to send to get a petition? Email or snail-mail?
Thanks to everyone for your efforts.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 12, 2005, 08:58 PM
I would think you would want to snail mail your documents to the appropriate individuals, with a real signature. Someone also needs to make a list of who these recipient individuals are, I do believe someone suggested earlier that not just the USEF, but perhaps sponsors, and, well why not the ASPCA, seeing as they are involved in the Maclay classes. I also understand that it is important to be sure such things are documented to the "right" person within an organization, so that the document will actually be read and recorded.

In the Air
Dec. 12, 2005, 09:04 PM
Where do I sign?

cartera45
Dec. 13, 2005, 05:35 AM
"We don't need no stinking horse killers."

Obviously, the only thing PV should be allowed to do is be the head of FEMA. I'll qualify this by saying that I have not read the entire thread(s) but if killing horses is not enough to warrant a lifetime ban, what is? Is there such thing as a lifetime ban from the organization? If not, seems to me a rule change is in order so that certain people never even come up for reinstatement. They wouldn't grandfather in these scumbags, but it would be there if needed. I really don't understand people who are aware of the circumstances hiring any of these people to do anything relating to horses.

texang73
Dec. 13, 2005, 07:41 AM
Where do I sign?

Duffy
Dec. 13, 2005, 07:49 AM
texang73 - just wanted to say - went to your website - gorgeous photographs!

SmileGee
Dec. 13, 2005, 08:01 AM
I want to read more about this so I am sure to get all of the facts. What is the name of the book written about it (referred to in an earlier post)? Where can I find out more information?

War Admiral
Dec. 13, 2005, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by SmileGee:
I want to read more about this so I am sure to get all of the facts. What is the name of the book written about it (referred to in an earlier post)? Where can I find out more information?

Hot Blood by Ken Englade is a good starting point. However, it's now out of date b/c it fails to take the Joe Plemmons situation into account.

For the rest, it's best to Google. Or just do a search here.

Snowbird
Dec. 13, 2005, 08:53 AM
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif And isn't it a pity that Joe Plemmons a man who himself confessed to shooting Helen Brach in the head twice when he realized she was not already dead; and then disposed of the body is still at our prestigious horse shows selling new horses to new unsuspecting clients.

I hope none of them intends to report his activities to the DA in Florida.

Janet
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by SmileGee:
I want to read more about this so I am sure to get all of the facts. What is the name of the book written about it (referred to in an earlier post)? Where can I find out more information? You could start here
Excerpt from Hot Blood (http://chronicleforums.com/groupee/forums/a/tpc/f/7076024331/m/746201328)

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:45 AM
Also check the other thread, legal documentation was posted.

War Admiral
Dec. 13, 2005, 11:13 AM
While we're all waiting for petitiononline.com to get its act together... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Is anyone good with graphics? I stink at them.

In addition to the online petition, I'm doing a little microsite that contains a printable and re-useable version of the petition for those who want to take it to shows. But I'd loff to have a logo, and what I want is very, very simple.

Please PM me if you would like to take a shot at it. So to speak. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 13, 2005, 12:02 PM
Is there any deviation of USEF rules when one's trainer is under suspension, and the trainer of record on the entry blank is a trainer in the employ of the suspended trainer? In and of itself, that seems to be deceitful at best, but if the training money for the day's activities were to go to Mr. Valliere, is it not as if he were the trainer for that day of showing?

Janet
Dec. 13, 2005, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
Is there any deviation of USEF rules when one's trainer is under suspension, and the trainer of record on the entry blank is a trainer in the employ of the suspended trainer? In and of itself, that seems to be deceitful at best, but if the training money for the day's activities were to go to Mr. Valliere, is it not as if he were the trainer for that day of showing? Yes

GR702 Violations.
1. A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the Federation, including but not
limited to the following:
a. Violation of the rules of the Federation.
b. Disqualification by a Licensed Competition. BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
c. Penalization by an administrative agency, humane society or court of law for
violation of Federation rules.
d. Acting or inciting or permitting any other to act in a manner contrary to the rules of
the Federation, or in a manner deemed improper, unethical, dishonest, unsportsmanlike
or intemperate, or prejudicial to the best interests of the sport and the Federation.
e. Any act committed or remark made in connection with the competition considered
offensive and/or made with the intent to influence or cast aspersions on the character or
integrity of the licensed officials, approaching a judge before or after a decision without
first obtaining permission from the show committee or steward/technical delegate,
inspecting a judge’s card without the judge’s permission, or public verbal abuse of
competition officials.
f. Physical assault upon a person and/or cruelty to a horse as defined in GR302.
g. Failure to obey any penalty imposed by the Federation.
h. Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.
i. Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or
satisfaction of a suspended person.
j. Failure to pay indebtedness to the Federation or indebtedness for hearing
transcripts or other hearing expenses arranged through the Federation.
k. Participating in any manner at a recognized competition while not in good standing
or competing horses not in good standing at a licensed competition. (See GR134)
BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
l. Prescribing, dispensing, or administering a drug by a veterinarian which results in a
finding of a forbidden substance. In the event a positive report is received by the
Federation for a horse or pony to which a forbidden substance has been administered
in any manner and the veterinarian is identified in any manner as the source of said
forbidden substance, said violation will be addressed pursuant to GR412.
BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
GR703 Penalties.
1. If found guilty, the accused will be subject to such penalty as the Hearing Committee
may determine, including but not limited to:
a. CENSURE. A vote of Censure will be listed under the defendant’s name in the
Secretary’s Record of Penalties. If found guilty of a further violation the defendant will
be subject to a heavier penalty than for a first offense.
b. SUSPENSION of such person for any period from showing or having others show,
exhibit or train for him or her.
(1) A suspended person is forbidden for the time specified in the decision from the
privilege of taking any part whatsoever in any Licensed Competition and is excluded
from all competition grounds during Licensed Competitions, as an exhibitor,
participant or spectator. BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
(2) In addition, a suspended person is forbidden from participating in all Federation
affairs and activities, to hold or exercise office in the Federation or in any Licensed
Competition, to attend, observe or participate in any event, forum, meeting,
program, clinic, task force, or committee of the Federation, sponsored by or
conducted by the Federation, or held in connection with the Federation and any of
its activities. BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
(a) Not withstanding the above, a Director may be removed from the Board or
Executive Committee only in accordance with the applicable provisions of the
Bylaws.
(b) If the Hearing Committee deems it appropriate, it may send its findings
concerning a Director to the Board for its consideration.
(3) Where practical and appropriate in the opinion of the Hearing Committee,
suspension may include the comparable dates during which the violation occurred.
c. SUSPENSION for any period of the horse or horses, owned by him or her, or shown
in any name or for his, her, or their credit or reputation, whether such interest was held
at the time of the alleged violation or acquired thereafter. The Executive Committee or
the Hearing Committee may at a later date remove the suspension of said horse or
horses if it is demonstrated to their satisfaction that a sale or transfer thereof was made
by such person, partnership, or corporation in such as to be a bona fide transaction and
not with the intention of relieving the suspended owner of penalty. See GR135.
d. SUSPENSION for any period of any volunteer or any employed person who rides or
exhibits for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of another suspended person.
e. EXPULSION from all Licensed Competitions. BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
f. EXPULSION or SUSPENSION from membership in the Federation.
g. FORFEITURE of trophies, ribbons, prize money, and/or sweepstakes won in
connection with the offense committed, which will be redistributed accordingly and
payment of a fee of $200 to the competition in question. Federation points may be
nullified and redistributed at the discretion of the Hearing Committee.
h. SUSPENSION from office as steward, technical delegate, judge, course designer or
competition official.
i. REVOCATION of judge’s, steward’s, technical delegate’s or course designer’s license.
j. FINE.
2. Federation Affiliated Associations must honor all Federation penalties. See GR205.
GR704 Regulations as to Suspended Persons.
1. The purpose of this Rule shall be to prevent the avoidance by suspended exhibitors,
trainers, coaches and other persons of the terms and conditions of their suspensions, or the
penalties intended by the Hearing Committee as appurtenant to such suspensions. This
Rule shall apply to the spouse of a suspended person as well as to any other persons or
entities, including, without limitation, companions, family members, employers, employees,
agents, partnerships, partners, corporations or other entities, whose relationship, whether
financial or otherwise, with a suspended person would give the appearance that such other
persons are riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or
satisfaction of the suspended person.
2. No suspended person’s spouse or companion shall assume any of the suspended
person’s responsibilities whatsoever at Federation competitions during the term of said
suspension. Companion shall be defined as any person who co-habits with, or otherwise
shares living accommodations with, a suspended person.
3. No suspended person’s spouse or companion may fill out any entry blanks for any of
the suspended person’s customers for Federation competitions during the term of the
suspended person’s suspension, or pay or advance entry fees on behalf of customers for
Federation competitions during said period.
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.
5. An individual who takes over the horses of a suspended trainer or coach must:
a. Bill customers directly on his/her own bill forms for any services rendered at or in
connection with any Federation Licensed Competitions; BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
b. Maintain a personal checking account totally separate from and independent of that
of the suspended person for purposes of paying all expenses of and depositing all
income from customers;
c. Pay all his/her employees working at Federation competitions, none of whom may
be employees, directly or indirectly, of the suspended person;
d. Keep checks, books, employee records and make withholding of taxes and other
regular deductions from his/her employees’ paychecks;
e. Pay all feed bills, motel, van bills, travel expenses, etc. from his/her separate and
independent checking account and preserve, for six months after the date that said
suspension is terminated, invoices for said bills;
f. If such individual makes use of any equipment of a suspended trainer, the use of
said equipment must be enumerated in detail in a written lease, the form and substance
of which must be satisfactory to counsel for the Federation and shall be at the fair rental
value for said equipment and said price must be included in said agreement;
g. File such federal and state tax returns as will reflect as his or her income the income
from said training or coaching responsibilities at Federation Licensed Competitions;
BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
h. Not borrow funds from a suspended trainer or coach, his/her spouse or companion,
their families, corporations, partnerships or any other entities owned or controlled by
said suspended trainer or to any other person for the purpose of going into business for
himself or herself at Federation Licensed Competitions during the period of said
suspension, nor will he/she allow any of the above-named parties or entities to sign or
guarantee any notes or any type of loans to enable him or her to go into business as
described above. BOD 1/16/05 Effective 12/1/05
6. Suspended trainers and coaches, and individuals taking over the horses or customers
of a suspended trainer or coach may be requested to make their books, canceled checks,
invoices, tax returns and other evidence available to Federation representatives to verify
and affirm the details of any relationship between them and suspended trainer or coach.
7. This Rule is intended to provide guidance for suspended persons and anyone
contemplating taking over the responsibility for the riding, exhibiting, coaching, or training,
of an unsuspended horse from a suspended person. It is not intended to anticipate every
potential circumstance in which the intent of a suspension may be frustrated, and the
Hearing Committee shall have the power to determine whether the facts and circumstances
peculiar to any particular case compel a finding that there was or is a violation of the rules
prohibiting exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer,
or riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of a
suspended person (see GR702h and i).
03-general rules 12-2-05 12/2/05 1:59 PM Page GR70

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 13, 2005, 01:02 PM
So in that case, except for perhaps some creative bookkeeping and accounting (something which he would never ever do), he might be in violation of the terms of his suspension.

Seal Harbor
Dec. 13, 2005, 01:28 PM
It appears that some of the people who are posting on these threads and admitting to riding with him could possibly be in violation of the rules. Nice to have it all spelled out and saved for eternity on a server.

Some of these or some parts of these are new, since they have only going into effect on the 1st of December of this year. Looks as though someone is tired of watching him train from the parking lot at shows. Now that they are in effect does anyone think people will step up and protest? Put their money where their mouth is? Perhaps we can start a fund for that. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Lynda

Janet
Dec. 13, 2005, 01:31 PM
Notice that many of the specific clauses only went into effect at the beginning of December 2005. But if he continues to "do it", then yes, he would be in violation.

What I didn't make bold origninally is a statement that says that "intent counts".
It is not intended to anticipate every
potential circumstance in which the intent of a suspension may be frustrated, and the
Hearing Committee shall have the power to determine whether the facts and circumstances
peculiar to any particular case compel a finding that there was or is a violation of the rules

LeesaM.
Dec. 13, 2005, 05:21 PM
Boberry, Yes crimes against people. The most vicious crimes-someone guilty of being a pedophile. Snowbird mentioned someone admitting to shooting Helen Brach.

rickyanne
Dec. 13, 2005, 05:29 PM
He should be barred for life...period...no discussion. Anything less is a joke and a copout.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 05:41 PM
Looks as though someone is tired of watching him train from the parking lot at shows.
I'm confused on the logistics of this.

radio talk Aefvue Farms RCA
Dec. 13, 2005, 05:42 PM
When exactly is his suspension up?

And all of these things must be proved, as if you were in a court of law. No heresay or assumptions. Having been down this road with another, all the proverbial ducks need to be in order.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 05:46 PM
This Rule is intended to provide guidance for suspended persons and anyone
contemplating taking over the responsibility for the riding, exhibiting, coaching, or training,
of an unsuspended horse from a suspended person.
What exactly does this mean?

rickyanne
Dec. 13, 2005, 06:13 PM
A convicted felon in the U.S. is no longer allowed the right to vote. Period...This same philosophy should apply here.....

Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division
Dec. 13, 2005, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by radio talk:
When exactly is his suspension up?

And all of these things must be proved, as if you were in a court of law. No heresay or assumptions. Having been down this road with another, all the proverbial ducks need to be in order.
I believe it is April 2006

War Admiral
Dec. 13, 2005, 06:45 PM
He becomes eligible to apply for reinstatement in April 2006. Again (I mentioned this on t'other thread but it's worth repeating here) WE DO NOT KNOW whether he has yet applied. But it's safe to assume he will.

Some other updates:

We've got a domain name! Nothing on it yet, just a parking meter, but we will have a web site very shortly thanks to a kind volunteer. You know who you are. Bless you. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

We also have a couple of staggeringly gorgeous LOGOS in the works, thanks to that same volunteer.

I never did hear back from petitiononline so I'm going to go fix some linkies in the temporary microsite, and will BBL. You call can use the petition on that site to take to shows and whatnot.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 07:01 PM
But it's safe to assume he will
Why?

War Admiral
Dec. 13, 2005, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it's safe to assume he will
Why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ohhhhh please. Every public action he's taken in the last 10 years has been in aid of reinstatement. All those egregiously self-serving ads???

slainte!
Dec. 13, 2005, 07:41 PM
War Admiral -
don't you realize that other "horse killers" have already been reinstated? Nancy Banfield (as I was corrected on another thread) had the same 10 year punishment. She's been reinstated.

I don't see clearly how you are truly passionate about this no-reinstatement for horse killers. You are only zooming in on PV because he happens to be in the spot light.

And as for the person who asked if the ASPCA keeps an "eye" on Paul's horses.... I will gladly inform you that they are some of the best kept, best looking, and best treated animals on the circuit.

Also, FYI - Acres Wild Farm is not suspended from USEF. Horses can be owned by AWF and shown under the name, legally, rightfully so.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 13, 2005, 08:06 PM
I am sure Mr. Valliere's horses are some of the best kept, best looking, and best treated animals on the circuit. He bills his clients quite regularly for the service, and the care of Roseau Platiere received is an indication of such. And of course Acres Wild Farm is not owned by Mr. Valliere, at least not on paper.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 08:26 PM
Ohhhhh please. Every public action he's taken in the last 10 years has been in aid of reinstatement. All those egregiously self-serving ads???
Maybe the guy is trying to atone.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 08:28 PM
He bills his clients quite regularly for the service,
Are you saying that he should provide the service and facility for free?

Janet
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This Rule is intended to provide guidance for suspended persons and anyone
contemplating taking over the responsibility for the riding, exhibiting, coaching, or training,
of an unsuspended horse from a suspended person.
What exactly does this mean? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Person A is suspended. Person B is NOT suspended.

Horse C WAS trained (or ridden, exhibited, coached) by (suspended) Person A, but Horse C is not itseldf suspended.

The rule provides guidance on how Person B can take over the Training ( or riding, exhibiting, coaching) of horse C, without being charged with "riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person."

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:30 PM
No, xegeba, that is not what I am saying, what I am saying is the Mr. Valliere damn well ought to take excellent care of the horses in his care, he certainly charges enough to do so. He also should have taken care of the horse he chose to electrocute, he was making enough profit ten years ago where he did not need to off a horse for the insurance money.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:33 PM
Person A is suspended. Person B is NOT suspended.

Horse C WAS trained (or ridden, exhibited, coached) by (suspended) Person A, but Horse C is not itseldf suspended.

The rule provides guidance on how Person B can take over the Training ( or riding, exhibiting, coaching) of horse C, without being charged with "riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person."
Who owns horse C? or does it matter? if I own Horse C... and I decided that I want to take LESSONS with Person A... and then I show Horse C... what is this considered?

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:38 PM
No, xegeba, that is not what I am saying, what I am saying is the Mr. Valliere damn well ought to take excellent care of the horses in his care, he certainly charges enough to do so.
So... you have no arguement with the poster that said his horses are well-cared for... and what he charges and what people are willing to pay means what?

Mardi
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
War Admiral, unless you have someone on the committee willing to champion this for you, it is going to end up filed under waste in the mail room. Not that your intentions are not noble, and not that many are not in agreement, it is simply a case of the federation not being concerned with the opinion of the average member.

http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif Nope....USEF will listen, and they'll pay attention. The credibilty of the NGB will be seriously damaged both domestically and internationally if the reinstatement is allowed. If the mainstream media got a hold of the story, should it happen, you can kiss any future horse show coverage by any major network goodbye. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Now is not the time to shrink back, but instead to go FORWARD.

Janet
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:49 PM
It doesn't matter who owns horse C, as long as horse C is not suspended (if horse C were owned by suspended person A, then Horse C would be suspended and this wouldn't apply).

If horse C is "in the care, training or custody of" person A when you show it, then you are in violation.


If you are riding/exhibiting Horse A "the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of" person A, thren you are in violation.

If your "relationship, whether
financial or otherwise, with suspended person A would give the appearance that" you "are riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or
satisfaction of suspended person A", then you are in violation.

So, no, I don't think that "taking a few lessons" from person A, and then showing would necessarily put you in violation.

This rule is aimed more at the "assistant" or "alternate" trainer (person B) who is the one who shows up with horse C on the show grounds, while suspended person A is still collecting training fees for Horse C, and paying person B for being there.

harryjohnson Aefvue Senior Gardens
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:53 PM
xebega, of course I have no argument with the poster that said his horses are well-cared for - certainly each of them gets as good of care as the horse he so sanctimoniously had killed. And what he charges and what people are willing to pay means that for what he charges, he does not have to extend himself in any manner to provide such care.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:58 PM
This rule is aimed more at the "assistant" or "alternate" trainer (person B) who is the one who shows up with horse C on the show grounds, while suspended person A is still collecting training fees for Horse C, and paying person B for being there.
So as long as A is not getting any renumeration ... and not paying B, then C's owner is good to go?

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 09:59 PM
huh... harry? and are you still maintaining that you are "ambivalent" on this particular issue? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

Mardi
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
If the USEF were to bend to what may be a majority of members who did not want him reinstated, I would bet that a civil suit would be in the making on his behalf.

Bring it on !

Again, if this were to get out into the mainstream media, that our NGB reinstated a horse killer, our industry is finito, done, no mas, nada, niente. And the USEF would be cooked, or toast, pick your favorite.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:06 PM
Again, if this were to get out into the mainstream media, that our NGB reinstated a horse killer, our industry is finito, done, no mas, nada, niente. And the USEF would be cooked, or toast, pick your favorite.
Serious? Kinda like that boycott of Aruba?

Boberry
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:10 PM
serious, like the pulling of sponsors

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:13 PM
There was an article in SI about this mess... did sponsors jump ship?

Boberry
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:22 PM
I think the SI article was about the mess coming out and people getting prison time. This is about reinstatement. Letting the fox back into the hen house is against mainstream mores. Sponsors don't like to be associated with that http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:25 PM
Posted Dec. 14, 2005 01:22 AM
I think the SI artticle was about the mess coming out and people getting prison time. This is about reinstatement. Letting the fox back into the hen house is against mainstream mores. Sponsors don't like to be associated with that
One would think that sponsors would be more apt to pull the bucks then... but hey... I'm sure that the Average American would really be twisted over the re-instatement.

Boberry
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:28 PM
It's about press isn't it. Hence the petition.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:31 PM
If this is about press,Broberry... than why waste time with the organization that handed down the suspension? Call Greta, Rita ,Bill and Geraldo... this is something the American Public can really sink their teeth into.

Janet
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:42 PM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This rule is aimed more at the "assistant" or "alternate" trainer (person B) who is the one who shows up with horse C on the show grounds, while suspended person A is still collecting training fees for Horse C, and paying person B for being there.
So as long as A is not getting any renumeration ... and not paying B, then C's owner is good to go? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>That is how I read it- but I am not a steward, nor a representative of USEF.

Of course, if the owner of horse C takes out an ad giving "all the credit" to suspended person A, then horse C's owner might be in violation for exhibiting "for the reputation" of suspended person A.

oxer
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:54 PM
Nope....USEF will listen, and they'll pay attention. The credibilty of the NGB will be seriously damaged both domestically and internationally if the reinstatement is allowed. If the mainstream media got a hold of the story, should it happen, you can kiss any future horse show coverage by any major network goodbye.

i think this is called delusions of grandure. don't you people have anything else to do than spend all day and night conjuring up a vendetta against a human being? what gives? you must live loveless lives. without forgiveness there can be no love.
from "seat of the soul" by gary zukow"
"though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start right now and make a brand new ending. that is what paul is doing. to those of you that refuse to forgive hime for his past mistakes, allow me some words to help guide you out of your self-imposed darkness.
one forgives to the degree that one loves. when you choose not to forgive, the experience that you do not forgive sticks with you. when you choose not to forgive, you basically agree to wear very dark gruesome sunglasses that distort everything, and it is you who are forced every day to look at life through thoses contaminated lenses because you have chosen to keep them."

and finally:

there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us that is doesn't behoove any of us to talk about the rest of us.

and finally for those in spite of everything will never give paul his due,words from benjamin jowett :never retreat, never explain. get it done and let them howl"

vanessa redfern, one who considers paul a great and loyal friend, a great horseman, and the finest trainer i have ever ridden with. my horses have never gotten better care, not have i ever gotten better instruction. and to boot he is truly one of the kindest, most giving person i have been lucky to have had in my life for 15 years. it doesn't get any better than to ride at acres wild farm. we are a joyfull family in every way. drop in some day and you'll see.

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 10:57 PM
Of course, if the owner of horse Cakes out an ad giving "all the credit" to suspended person A, then horse C's owner might be in violation for exhibiting "for the reputation" of suspended person A.
owners give 'all the credit' to anyone other than themselves? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Thank You maybe... Does the rule prohibit appreciation?

xegeba
Dec. 13, 2005, 11:09 PM
Really... what? edited to say... broberry... where did your "Really' go?

Boberry
Dec. 13, 2005, 11:15 PM
hold on I'm still typing...

Boberry
Dec. 13, 2005, 11:18 PM
Oxer... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_razz.gif I wish you the best http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Hugs and Kisses http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif Do you sell the glasses you're wearing?

Boberry
Dec. 13, 2005, 11:42 PM
first it was one horse. secondly it was not cruely put down., three tell me your source for the "ratting out his friends and wearing a wire" fourth--do you know paul?, have you ever trained with him?, do you know how he feels about horses?, do you know how long he has suffered over this? and if you don't train with him why do you care? is this your goal in life to interfere with other people and decide for them whom they should ride with depending on your criteria? do you do this just in riding or in other areas of your life as well?
why don't you simple mind your business and ride with whomever you wish. that's your business and those of us who ride with paul feel that it is our business. so that would be a good start. ok?
-Oxer

Apparently PV trains people as well...

Seal Harbor
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:57 AM
friend, a great horseman, and the finest trainer i have ever ridden with. my horses have never gotten better care, not have i ever gotten better instruction

Sorry, not a horseman. That word and his name should NEVER appear in the same sentence together. What is it that you do not understand? A true horseman would not kill a horse for insurance money, to save face, because of greed, because of pride. They would find the horse another job, realize they made a mistake and move on. That is the nature of the sport.

When is someone going to realize the horses come first? Everything should be about them, making them comfortable, happy and keeping them safe. It is our responsibility to make sure they are safe, not murder them because they didn't pan out. They allow us to ask them to do things they really weren't meant to do, they trust us and rely on us to take care of them.

You do know that people who commit crimes in a profession, while they may have served their time, are NOT allowed to practice their chosen profession. That goes for Doctors, Lawyers, Stockbrokers, Teachers, Accountants. Why is he so special that it should be different for him? He has managed to not really have served his suspension, he has managed to be too special for that too.

PV needs to get a new profession = "Do you want fries with that? "

Maybe then people would let it go. He does not belong anywhere near a horse. It's not a vendetta, it's not vengence, it's just wrong. The horses have no voice, we are their voice.

I wish the man a long and happy life, just not in this business.

Lynda

JustJump
Dec. 14, 2005, 04:13 AM
This thread is pretty intense. As it should be. The subject is controversial, and is a perfect illustration that deeds once done can't be undone, and will follow the doer throughout life, and beyond.

That in itself is a pretty intense statement, and is one reason I'm ambivalent about reinstatement.

Reinstating these individuals within the parameters of the rules of the NGB isn't an effort by anyone to negate what they have done in the past. That will ALWAYS hang over them, and those who associate with them. They have been judged according to the rules; the suspensions they received are drawing to an end. So in this sense, I can't see a reason that those who have sat out their time shouldn't be readmitted, not with a clean slate, but on a probationary basis.

However, it can be argued, and should be, IMO, that certain of these individuals have adhered to the letter, but not the spirit of the parameters of their suspensions. Insofar as this is an indication of a lack of respect for the NGB's rules, a failure to accept the gravity of their situation, and has not resulted in as severe a level of punishment as was intended by the original period of suspension, I would support an extension of the suspensions in these cases, even by several more years.

<<The credibilty of the NGB will be seriously damaged both domestically and internationally if the reinstatement is allowed. If the mainstream media got a hold of the story, should it happen, you can kiss any future horse show coverage by any major network goodbye.>>

Statements like this bother me, alot. Neither "coverage by major networks" nor our NGB's credibility is hanging in the balance here. If as much effort as planned by those on this thread were directed toward petitioning the networks FOR COVERAGE, instead of aiming at a few individuals whose fate should PROPERLY rest with the committees within the NGB whose job it is to deal with them, we might actually get coverage.

Then again, I'm not sure a cyber mob of overexited ladies bent on exacting their own brand of vengence would fit any particular sponsor's demographic.

To clarify, I am on the fence here. The question that is facing the NGB on these people is NOT about whether what they did is right or wrong-it was very wrong, as wrong as it can get. And I don't agree with those who continued to do business AT THE HORSE SHOWS, or on the immediate periphery of the horse show grounds with these folks.

But our rules don't allow for the NON-consideration of these people for reinstatement--they must be allowed to ask for consideration. If the rules don't allow for an extension of their suspensions, then they must be readmitted. I'm betting that it won't be so black and white in some cases, and that a probationary status will be devised, as it should be.

But however well-intentioned, the mob mentality gathering steam here should not influence the process one way or another, and should not be the basis upon which the hearing committee makes their decisions.

Midge
Dec. 14, 2005, 05:31 AM
First of all, forgiveness does not equal the reacquirement of all past rights and priveleges. Forgiveness is much more about the person doing the forgiving than it is about the person being forgiven. I can forgive the doctor who ruined my friend's life, but it doesn't mean I think he should be allowed to practice medicine.

It is also my personal opinion that RP was not the first horse Paul had killed. I believe it was the first time he was caught.

Lastly, as recounted elsewhere on one of these threads, I have encountered Paul in other situations and he did nothing to endear himself to me then, either.

I have no doubt your barn is a happy, cheerful place. After all, you all share the exact same moral code. The children following the Pied Piper of Hamlin were also all glad to do it.

Timex
Dec. 14, 2005, 05:41 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">But it's safe to assume he will
Why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

why? is right. why should he even bother? you are all so insistent that he's training/schooling/coaching from the parking lot (i've never seen it, so wouldn't know, nor do i care to know) so why should he even bother applying for reinstatement?

Flipper K.
Dec. 14, 2005, 05:43 AM
Originally posted by Oxer:
my horses have never gotten better care.

Yeah, it's all great until that morning you get the call that your horse is dead.

Unless you think something would prevent him from figuring out a way to do this again.

That's why I couldn't keep my horse there. I'm positive they all receive top-notch care while they are ALIVE, it's what could happen to them if they are not performing "up to par" that scares me.

But that's just me.

-Flip

HHG-N
Dec. 14, 2005, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by Flipper K.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Originally posted by Oxer:
my horses have never gotten better care.

Yeah, it's all great until that morning you get the call that your horse is dead.

Unless you think something would prevent him from figuring out a way to do this again.

That's why I couldn't keep my horse there. I'm positive they all receive top-notch care while they are ALIVE, it's what could happen to them if they are not performing "up to par" that scares me.

But that's just me.

-Flip </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He probably TOLD her he would not do it to her horse, so, therefore, it is true http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Lori B
Dec. 14, 2005, 06:07 AM
The question that I would like answered by those who seem to support reinstatement for these people, or who question the value of keeping them out of the USEF, is this: Do you or do you not believe that they killed, or arranged for the killing of, horses? Because, if you don't believe that they did the things they were convicted of, that seems like one kind of crazy. And if you DO believe they did those things, and you still want to see them included in this organization which states that a concern for the welfare of horses is part of its bylaws, then that strikes me as a different variety of crazy. But either way, crazy. If someone harms or neglects an animal because of ignorance, or poverty, or a momentary cruelty born of anger, those are all terrible things, but under proper circumstances can be forgiven if the guilty party mends their ways and accepts their punishment. But if a person who knows better, who suffers no inability to supply proper care, CHOOSES to do what these folks were convicted of doing, then I think that regardless of boards or bylaws or organizational politics, that person should be forbidden to engage in any business involving animals, and it's the responsibility of those who claim to care for the wellbeing of animals to do their part to enforce such restrictions. Hardly hysteria, but simple justice. The example given above regarding the permanent disbarment of lawyers and doctors for certain kinds of crimes related to the practice of their profession seems relevant here.

cartera45
Dec. 14, 2005, 06:17 AM
Forgiveness is highly overrated, and in this circumstance, irrelevant. We could choose to forgive every murderer in prison but that wouldn't involve letting them out to be among those he hurt. There is something so morally bankrupt in what these people did that I would personally never forgive them and could not be in their presence without feeling physically ill. And, as usual, I am astonished that everyone does not feel as I do.

Kim
Dec. 14, 2005, 06:22 AM
Please count me in on the petition.

A donation to the ASPCA in honor of the horses who were killed during these scandals would be nice. I lent out my copy of "Hot Blood" years ago, and never got it back, so I don't remember all of the names - can anyone refresh my memory?

Rub the Lamp
Belgium Waffle
Rainman
Roseau Platiere
Empire
Charisma

Janet
Dec. 14, 2005, 06:26 AM
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Of course, if the owner of horse Cakes out an ad giving "all the credit" to suspended person A, then horse C's owner might be in violation for exhibiting "for the reputation" of suspended person A.
owners give 'all the credit' to anyone other than themselves? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Thank You maybe... Does the rule prohibit appreciation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE> I have no idea. But it is a POSSIBLE interpretation.

llt
Dec. 14, 2005, 06:41 AM
In all fairness, I don't think he kills horses without the kind owners getting advance warning.

Mardi
Dec. 14, 2005, 07:48 AM
Lori B - excellent post. You said it all.

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 07:59 AM
Originally posted by Mardi:
Lori B - excellent post. You said it all.

Seconded!!!

This is probably also the right time to namecheck Lori B. for her *amazing* (to me, anway, given I can't draw a straight line even with a mouse) design work on our behalf.

Check this out.

horse_poor
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:02 AM
I LOFF it!!!!!!!

I am writing an article about this for our barn newsletter to indirectly "spread the word" and point them in the direction of the petition--the more the merrier!

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
I am sure Mr. Valliere's horses are some of the best kept, best looking, and best treated animals on the circuit. He bills his clients quite regularly for the service, and the care of Roseau Platiere received is an indication of such. And of course Acres Wild Farm is not owned by Mr. Valliere, at least not on paper.

FYI- most trainers bill quite heavily for the care of their customers horses, PV is not alone in charging for his services

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:11 AM
Question- if the issue is reinstatement why is PV being singled out?

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:15 AM
Originally posted by scout33:
Question- if the issue is reinstatement why is PV being singled out?

He's not, and I apologize if that impression is being created.

The only way we can approach this situation is to take the same approach USEF has taken - that being, to deal with each suspended party on an individual basis. Each of the nine people listed here in the Hearing Committee minutes (http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm) received a different length of suspension. Thus, each person becomes eligible to apply for reinstatement at a different time.

USEF really had no choice in the way they handled this; we don't either.

llt
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:16 AM
Most likely because he is a start.

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:20 AM
UPDATE: THE PETITION IS NOW ONLINE!!

Here is the link:

http://new.petitiononline.com/valliere/petition.html

If you can find it in your heart to sign the petition, that will be great.

If you are in a position to pass this link along to friends/acquaintances in other USEF breed/discipline affiliations, other equestrian-related organizations (AQHA, APHA, foreign organizations) and ask for their support, that's awesome too.

While the priority is probably to demonstrate support from within the USEF membership, it's also going to be very nice if we can demonstrate that the international equestrian community is watching.

I'm still working on the microsite but in all honesty it probably will NOT go live today. I've simply got other stuff I've got to get through. But please, please, do pass the petition link along to anyone you can think of who can help.

Seal Harbor
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:33 AM
Thanks WA for all your work on this.

If you believe he should not be reinstated please go sign the petition.

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:39 AM
Originally posted by War Admiral:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by scout33:
Question- if the issue is reinstatement why is PV being singled out?

He's not, and I apologize if that impression is being created.

The only way we can approach this situation is to take the same approach USEF has taken - that being, to deal with each suspended party on an individual basis. Each of the nine people listed here in the Hearing Committee minutes (http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm) received a different length of suspension. Thus, each person becomes eligible to apply for reinstatement at a different time.

USEF really had no choice in the way they handled this; we don't either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And the reason why there was no uproar when Nancy Manfield applied for reinstatement?

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:40 AM
Haha, y'all are QUICK!!! Congrats to Lori B. for being our first signer!!

It crossed my mind that Yours Idiotically had not yet renewed her membership http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif and I didn't want to sign until I was active again, so I'm #7.

Now it's up to y'all to get this thing circulating throughtout the equestrian community. Many, many thanks for your support.

Indy
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:41 AM
WA -- a small nitpick on the petition...you have two #3s in your reasons why PV has disregarded the spirit and intent of his suspension. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Indy:
WA -- a small nitpick on the petition...you have two #3s in your reasons why PV has disregarded the spirit and intent of his suspension. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I know. I apologize. I fruitbatting HATE it. But they won't let you change it after it's submitted. I can see their reasoning, which is that if some people signed it when it was worded one way, and others signed it after it was "fixed", ALL THE SIGNATURES WOULD BE INVALID.

Sorry y'all, I am a crap proofreader and an unlettered asp-pole!!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif But we'll have to live with it. The good news is that it is not going to invalidate anything.

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 09:02 AM
Here's some drafty language of a letter or e-mail you can send folks to encourage them to sign the petition. Feel free to edit it however you want.

******************
In 1996, the American Horse Shows Association ("AHSA"), predecessor in
interest to the United States Equestrian Federation ("USEF"), the national governing body for equestrian sport, suspended nine (9) of its members for varying lengths of time as a result of said members' conviction on various counts of fraud and conspiracy. Most, if not all of those suspended, had either killed horses, caused horses to be killed, or conspired with others for horses to be killed in attempts to defraud insurance companies. These co-conspirators have become colloquially known in the equestrian sports field as "the horse-killers".

The complete list of USEF "horse-killers", together with the terms of
their respective suspensions, can be found in a report of the meeting
minutes for the meeting at which action was taken to suspend them,
contained <a href="http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm">here</a>.

The USEF "horse killer" who received the shortest suspension term was Mr. Paul Valliere, now resident in Wellington, Florida and Plainville, Massachusetts. Mr. Valliere received an indefinite suspension, but becomes
eligible to apply for reinstatement of full USEF membership privileges
in April of 2006.

In anticipation of Mr. Valliere's eligibility for reinstatement, a
petition has been drawn up opposing his reinstatement to full USEF
membership. You may view and sign the petition here:

http://www.petitiononline.com/valliere/petition.html

We are an ad hoc group of horse owners, trainers, admirers and competitors, most of whom are members of USEF or one of its affiliate organizations. We met on <a href="http://www.chronicleforums.com">an online forum</a>
and informally agreed to work together to prevent reinstatement of any
of the "horse killers" to full membership privileges in the U.S. Equestrian Federation.

We do not believe any of these so-called "horse killers" is entitled to
reinstatement of USEF membership privileges. We fully intend to proceed
in like manner against each "horse killer" in turn as they respectively
become eligible to apply for reinstatement.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR USING THE PETITION:

We encourage you to sign this petition and circulate it in any way you see fit. Send a link to it as an e-mail, print it out and obtain signatures, or simply e-mail links to the press, or people involved in the equestrian industry.

PLEASE NOTE, however: it is imperative that the language of the petition not be altered in any way whatsoever. Any signatures on copies of the petition where the language has been changed could be rendered invalid.

Please encourage your signers to provide their full information, including e-mail address and USEF Membership Identification Number, if any. If your signers are members of other horse-related organizations, that is important information to present to USEF, too. We promise your information will not be transmitted or sold to any third parties other than the appropriate committees of the USEF, the USOC and the FEI.

Thank you so much for your support.

Flipper K.
Dec. 14, 2005, 09:05 AM
War Admiral -- maybe you can change the name of this thread so people know you have a petition going, and put the link in your original post?

Just a thought. Thanks so much for all your effort in getting this together.

PS - I signed!

-Flip

Snowbird
Dec. 14, 2005, 09:12 AM
Boberry, Yes crimes against people. The most vicious crimes-someone guilty of being a pedophile. Snowbird mentioned someone admitting to shooting Helen Brach.

I was duly horrified when Joe Plemmons admitted that he was a part of the murder of Helen Brach. I heard his confession on Channel 7(ABC) in person and he was interviewed in front of his farm barn sign. The name of the farm eludes me at this point.

I wrote to John Long and explained that as CEO he had the authority to immediately suspend Mr. Plemmons from any presence at any horses show until there was a hearing. Mr. Plemmons said he was in Florida to sell horses but business was slow for him. Mr. Plemmons said that Helen Brach was delivered to him and a cohort in the trunk of a station wagon. She was supposed to be dead and she was still fighting to survive and moaned. Good citizen that Joe Plemmons is instead of calling for medical help he shot her twice in the head and then took her body to be incinerated.I am certain he did not refuse payment for his actions.

After several years of trying to make a difference I think that the problem is in this merger we went from a Members Association to an "elite Athlete" association. The AHSA started as a Horse Shows Association and then learned better and became a Members Association.

My suggestion is that copies of whatever you wish to send to USEF; be sent not to the media who will have a flash of news but accomplish nothing but to the USOC who is mandated by the Congress to manage all NGB Associations. The Congressional Committee authorized to investigate such things is the Commerce Committee. John McCain is on the Senate Commerce Committee and it might be a good idea to send a copy of all correspondence directly to him. If any of you are from Arizona then you should be the spokeman for these issues.

In 1978 the Congress created the USOC because they felt that the Educational Institutions that had been in charge of would be Olympians was not reaching down to the "grassroots". If you want to read those papers they are in the
Gerald Ford Library.

One of the reasons for the new usAHSA is to provide a way for the "grassroots" of all disciplines and breeds to have a old fashioned co-operative with no officers just Leadership Councils and electronic communication to keep costs down. Here we can with this non-profit perhaps accomplish giving those of us who still believe this is a sport and not a money machine a chance to organize so we can accomplish good things for the "HORSE".

Whichever route you choose I wish you good luck and I will keep up on the new website. We will also link to it from usAHSA.

War Admiral
Dec. 14, 2005, 09:25 AM
Yes, the online petition will MOST DEFINITELY be sent to the USOC, and the FEI as well.

Though media attention certainly never hurt anyone. Perhaps we might contract a certain Florida-based company to consult!! http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

SmileGee
Dec. 14, 2005, 09:32 AM
All of this talk has made me very interested in researching this topic...I was wondering if anyone had any links to photos of the horses? I think seeing these amazing animals will drive home the insane amount of cruelty involved to commit such heinous (sp) acts. I cannot imagine.....

Kim
Dec. 14, 2005, 10:03 AM
was wondering if anyone had any links to photos of the horses? I think seeing these amazing animals will drive home the insane amount of cruelty involved to commit such heinous (sp) acts. I cannot imagine.....

I was wondering the same thing. I looked but was unable to find any online. I searched for Rub the Lamp, Streetwise, and Belgium Waffle...

SmileGee
Dec. 14, 2005, 10:31 AM
I also searched for these horses and was unable to find any information at all on any of them except for on this forum.

lizathenag
Dec. 14, 2005, 10:43 AM
I signed it and sent the link to everyone in my horse related address book.

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 10:44 AM
Moi aussi.

Sebastian
Dec. 14, 2005, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by scout33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by War Admiral:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by scout33:
Question- if the issue is reinstatement why is PV being singled out?

He's not, and I apologize if that impression is being created.

The only way we can approach this situation is to take the same approach USEF has taken - that being, to deal with each suspended party on an individual basis. Each of the nine people listed here in the Hearing Committee minutes (http://www.ienn.com/break/mayjune97/indict.htm) received a different length of suspension. Thus, each person becomes eligible to apply for reinstatement at a different time.

USEF really had no choice in the way they handled this; we don't either. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


And the reason why there was no uproar when Nancy Manfield applied for reinstatement? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Didn't know about it.

Plus, just because one shark gets through the net doesn't mean you don't try to keep the rest out.

Seb

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 10:58 AM
Question- does anyone know that PV has in fact started his appeal to the USEF to apply for reinstatement?

Note: the "PR ads" issued in the Chronicle were done by clients, not PV. He does not have a team of hired PR staff

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:04 AM
Maybe he doesn't need to hire a PR staff since his clients are doing it for him.

I didn't know that Nancy had applied for reinstatement either. However, I'd never heard of her, other than the fact that she was one of the horse killers. Paul Valliere is a much more visible entity, in part because of the Eq judging issue earlier.

Sebastian
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by oxer:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Nope....USEF will listen, and they'll pay attention. The credibilty of the NGB will be seriously damaged both domestically and internationally if the reinstatement is allowed. If the mainstream media got a hold of the story, should it happen, you can kiss any future horse show coverage by any major network goodbye.

i think this is called delusions of grandure. don't you people have anything else to do than spend all day and night conjuring up a vendetta against a human being? what gives? you must live loveless lives. without forgiveness there can be no love.
from "seat of the soul" by gary zukow"
"though no one can go back and make a brand new start, anyone can start right now and make a brand new ending. that is what paul is doing. to those of you that refuse to forgive hime for his past mistakes, allow me some words to help guide you out of your self-imposed darkness.
one forgives to the degree that one loves. when you choose not to forgive, the experience that you do not forgive sticks with you. when you choose not to forgive, you basically agree to wear very dark gruesome sunglasses that distort everything, and it is you who are forced every day to look at life through thoses contaminated lenses because you have chosen to keep them."

and finally:

there is so much bad in the best of us and so much good in the worst of us that is doesn't behoove any of us to talk about the rest of us.

and finally for those in spite of everything will never give paul his due,words from benjamin jowett :never retreat, never explain. get it done and let them howl"

vanessa redfern, one who considers paul a great and loyal friend, a great horseman, and the finest trainer i have ever ridden with. my horses have never gotten better care, not have i ever gotten better instruction. and to boot he is truly one of the kindest, most giving person i have been lucky to have had in my life for 15 years. it doesn't get any better than to ride at acres wild farm. we are a joyfull family in every way. drop in some day and you'll see. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


"Forgive" and "Forget" are two vastly different things. And, just because we forgive does not necessarily mean we should forget.

Reinstatement to USEF would be to "Forget" and those horses deserve a better legacy than that...

And, if my "sunglasses" are distorted and contaminated...? It is only because of the crap PV and his buddies splattered on them when they decided to kill horses for profit and pride.

Seb

Ghazzu
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by oxer:
to those of you that refuse to forgive hime for his past mistakes.

Once more, since many of you supporters of PV seem to keep missing this point:

Some of us feel that the action of ordering a horse electrocuted for money is a wee bit more serious than a "mistake".

A "mistake" is something like entering a second year horse in the first year greens.

Killing a horse for reasons of misplaced pride is more on the order of "heinous act".

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:19 AM
Duffy- I was simply responding to the statements made by some who think that PV has hired a professional PR staff.

Quinn
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:20 AM
Well said Ghazzu. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif I think that pretty much sums it up doesn't it? I don't believe that ANY amount of time should dull the pain of this issue. Period!

http://community.webshots.com/user/ballyduff

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:22 AM
scout33 - don't worry about me. I could care less whether or not PV hired or didn't hire a PR staff.

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:28 AM
didn't know that Nancy had applied for reinstatement either. However, I'd never heard of her, other than the fact that she was one of the horse killers. Paul Valliere is a much more visible entity, in part because of the Eq judging issue earlier.

Well, I thought you were against all those who were involved in the horse killings not just those who are "much more visable entities". If you only attack those who are high profile then that to me would seem like a vendetta against one person and since this entire forum only talks about PV and his actions I wonder why this is not defined as a vendetta.

Midge
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:32 AM
Mistake: PV is giving an IV injection and accidently hits the carotid. Horse dies.

Greivous error in judgement: Lying about the cause of above horse's death.

Unforgivable act: This horse is such a piece of crap!!! I cannot believe I made a mistake in buying this horse and let's not make anybody lose their 'investment', even though I know better than anyone the 'investment horse' is an oxymoron. So, I'll give my good buddy Barney Ward a call, who can give his good buddy Tommy Burns a call and when we go to the horse show next week the horse can get offed. We will then rip off all of my fellow horsemen who insure horses so that I don't lose anything, the poor schmuck I sold him to doesn't lose anything (wasn't that poor schmuck his brother??) and I don't have to admit that I cannot train this piece of crap.

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:33 AM
WE DO NOT KNOW whether he has yet applied. But it's safe to assume he will.

War Admiral, why is it safe to assume that he will apply for reinstatement?

Midge
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:36 AM
Scout, dear, the reason this whole thing came up at all is because Anthem, one of PV's customers, came onto this board and praised his horsemanship to the skies.

The ensuing debate sprang from that one post. If she hadn't said anything, there would not be three threads about PV on the first page.

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:37 AM
Originally posted by scout33:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">didn't know that Nancy had applied for reinstatement either. However, I'd never heard of her, other than the fact that she was one of the horse killers. Paul Valliere is a much more visible entity, in part because of the Eq judging issue earlier.

Well, I thought you were against all those who were involved in the horse killings not just those who are "much more visable entities". If you only attack those who are high profile then that to me would seem like a vendetta against one person and since this entire forum only talks about PV and his actions I wonder why this is not defined as a vendetta. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

scout - sorry you misunderstood. I am totally against any and all horse killers being allowed into the USEF. I hadn't gotten involved before, because I didn't know that anyone was close to their possible reinstatement date. Because Paul has made himself such a visible entity and is better known, his possible reinstatement is more publicly known about. That's all, at least for me.

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:43 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Midge:
Scout, dear, the reason this whole thing came up at all is because Anthem, one of PV's customers, came onto this board and praised his horsemanship to the skies.

The ensuing debate sprang from that one post. If she hadn't said anything, there would not be three threads about PV on the first page.



So if anthem hadn't praised PV would there be no uproar, no threads about him and no petition to revoke his application for reinstatement, that seems a bit odd considering how adamant many are that this is about stopping those who committed a crime in the past.

PS-Midge I would appreciate it if you didn't patronize me when responding to something I have written.

Lori B
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:46 AM
So therefore, thanks, Anthem. Your post may have helped us prevent further reinstatements.

BarbB
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:49 AM
Originally posted by Ghazzu:

Once more, since many of you supporters of PV seem to keep missing this point:

Some of us feel that the action of ordering a horse electrocuted for money is a wee bit more serious than a "mistake".

A "mistake" is something like entering a second year horse in the first year greens.

Killing a horse for reasons of misplaced pride is more on the order of "heinous act".


Amen.
And it should never be forgotten, swept under the rug or dismissively labeled "a mistake."

When these discussions pop up I am always horrified at the supporters of these people who lobby for them to go about their business in the horse world as if nothing had ever happened.
I am relieved to hear the outrage of many who NEVER want to see ANY of these people within rock throwing distance of a horse again.

When that outrage goes away....I think I will go to NASCAR...for a classier crowd.

Midge
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:51 AM
scout33, odd as it may seem, that's exactly what I am saying. For example there was no uproar about Nancy Banfield because no one knew she had reapplied. Had I known, I would have raised a stink.

Go back and look for yourself. It's incredibly easy to track. Each post has a date on it so you can lay out the entire progression of the threads.

It started with the Genesis Farm thread.

Midge
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:53 AM
How does the reinstatement process work and is there any public announcement of such on the website or in Equestrian magazine?

Do we just find out someone has requested reinstatement when they are welcomed back to the fold?

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:55 AM
I was wondering the same thing, Midge.

scout33
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:56 AM
And according to these posts and what War Admiral has said your don't have any idea that PV has in fact reapplied you just are assuming he will.


Although it may not seem I know how to direct myself through the on-line community I actually am able to do so all on my own.

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 11:59 AM
It's a logical thing to assume, given the PR ads that have been run over the past several years.

Starting the process now, for the "no reinstatement" side, makes logical sense, given the time frame.

If Paul does not re-apply, that's fine. The ball will be easier to keep rolling if others attempt it.

Lori B
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:04 PM
scout33:

Whether PV or any other specific individual from the group in question do or do not apply for reinstatement, it's a safe bet that one of them will consider it, particularly since, as has been reported by other posts, some of these folks are still engaged in equestrian-related businesses. So, we are saying, as clearly as possible, that they will not be welcomed by us, should they choose to do so. Any equestrian organization that feels inclined to have a short memory about their misdeeds is now on notice that reinstating any of these folks will produce a s$$$storm of bad press, petitions, e-mails, phone calls, etc.

findeight
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:04 PM
Killing a horse for the sole reason of defrauding an insurance company goes way past a "mistake".
He paid to get something killed. It's dead. Then he lied so he could get money for it being dead.

How does that define the highest standard of horsemanship and why is it in the best interest of the animal?

He's reformed???

What happens if he gets another horse for a client that disappoints?? Or finds himself short of cash??

Make no mistake, if he'd just have gone out and shot it, I wouldn't be signing that petition.
But the hiring a hit man, financing the elaborate execution scheme then defrauding the insurance company???

Past what should be allowed to publically represent my sport.

Midge
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:06 PM
Yes, Scout, that is the case. Someone heard a rumor he had applied, but no actually knowledge. However, since Nancy Banfield reapplied and was reinstated 'under the radar', so to speak, it's probably better that we get our ducks in a row regardless of the when.

Scout, I am sorry if I seemed to imply you didn't know how to navigate through an on-line community. Since you were surprised at my statement of how the whole thing started, and since you didn't know I had made a post asking if, in fact, we KNEW he had reapplied, I thought you might need a bit of help. My mistake!

Duffy
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:09 PM
I wonder what other training "techniques" were used on these horses before they were given up on and murdered.

Limerick
Dec. 14, 2005, 12:11 PM
Originally posted by findeight:
Killing a horse for the sole reason of defrauding an insurance company goes way past a "mistake".
He paid to get something killed. It's dead. Then he lied so he could get money for it being dead.

How does that define the highest standard of horsemanship and why is it in the best interest of the animal?


He's reformed???

What happens if he gets another horse for a client that disappoints?? Or finds himself short of cash??

Make no mistake, if he'd just have gone out and shot it, I wouldn't be signing that petition.
But the hiring a hit man, financing the elaborate execution scheme then defrauding the insurance company???

Past what should be allowed to publically represent my sport.

Also, he must have also "acted" remorseful in front of his clients and staff over the "colic death" of Roseau Platiere. It makes me sick just thinking about all the plotting that was involved......

I don't think I can forgive too easily and I'm NOT going to forget. If that makes me a founding member of the "Little People" clique so be it. It's something I can do for the memory of that poor horse.