Trainers Sued for Selling "Unruly" Show Horse [Archive]

spina

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by runspotrun:
Too bad this story is all too commen in h/j world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all:
The h/j world? The h/j world?!
I guess that's because you'd NEVER see someone in ANY other riding discipline buy a horse that spooks and the rider falls and gets hurt. And that's IF it was the horse that spooked, and not that the rider was beating it, or yanking and kicking or whatever to make a horse (especially a four year old) react with bad results.
Secondly:
What IS all too common (in the USA), is that someone feels they have to sue someone else whenever they have the opportunity.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to have the rider take responsibility for the fall, or acknowledge the possibility that it wasn't anyone's fault - that horses are unpredictable and can behave in ways that can be dangerous to people around them.
Yes, it would also be refreshing for the sellers of a horse to offer to take a horse back if a buyer felt that was was misrepresented, but I don't think that's going to happen very often.
If the horse, which was represented as calm and quiet, began striking out shortly after it arrived at the Chapman's farm, I would think THAT would be the time to have a discussion with the sellers, not wait for something serious to happen and then sue.
Sorry to rant.

Fuzzy Navel

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:07 PM

Caveat Emptor.... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Silver Bells

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:08 PM

Unfortunately, litigation has become as American as apple pie. Anyone can file suit in this country for just about anything.
Until all the facts are in, and all alleged claims are sustantiated, we should all hold off passing judgement.

sit up

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:13 PM

While I am not advocating suing to make a buck, sometimes lawsuits are justified.

If I had bought a 4 yr old prospect for $30,000 and he was representated to me as a quiet, sane horse and then he started striking out at people, I would be furious. There is a difference between standing up (which I hate) and striking out while standing up (which is something I can't live with) and aiming as the case was stated. The latter is definately a giant cause for concern and I can't believe that behavior like that was learned overnight unless some drastic form of abuse was happening.

I don't know either party, so I am not standing in judgement of either party.

If the horse stood up one day because the new owners pushed a sensitive horse, that is one thing. Striking out is agressive behavior and horses, while they can be unpredictible usually don't exhibit aggressive behavior out of the blue.

runspotrun

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by spina:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by runspotrun:
Too bad this story is all too commen in h/j world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all:
The h/j world? The h/j world?!
I guess that's because you'd NEVER see someone in ANY other riding discipline buy a horse that spooks and the rider falls and gets hurt. And that's IF it was the horse that spooked, and not that the rider was beating it, or yanking and kicking or whatever to make a horse (especially a four year old) react with bad results.
Secondly:
What IS all too common (in the USA), is that someone feels they have to sue someone else whenever they have the opportunity.
Wouldn't it be refreshing to have the rider take responsibility for the fall, or acknowledge the possibility that it wasn't anyone's fault - that horses are unpredictable and can behave in ways that can be dangerous to people around them.
Yes, it would also be refreshing for the sellers of a horse to offer to take a horse back if a buyer felt that was was misrepresented, but I don't think that's going to happen very often.
If the horse, which was represented as calm and quiet, began striking out shortly after it arrived at the Chapman's farm, I would think THAT would be the time to have a discussion with the sellers, not wait for something serious to happen and then sue.
Sorry to rant. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course this happens in other diciplines! I never said it didn't. What I DID say was that was common in the h/j world. I stand by that statement. That isn't to say that it isn't common in the dressage/eventing/whatever world, but my expertise is in h/j, so I talk about h/j. I clarify, so I can be sure that what I am saying is accurate. If I told you this was all too common in a horse sports, I'd be lying; or at the very least, telling you something that I don't know to be factual.

Its clear that you misunderstood my post. My point, was that very frequently, there is a severe horse/rider mismatch, in which one party acted irresponsibly. I'm not condemning either party, I'm just saying, just as you pointed out, that someone should have done something before it got to a litigious stage. The fact is, the ones who suffer the most from this are the horses, and I find that sad.

Other

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:51 PM

Well, before we all jump on any bandwagons...

Does anyone have any details about what really happened?

The story said she took a fall; I would assume that meant she fell off, not that she was struck at. Do we know about the rider's skill level? There's a big difference if this is a pro or some young ammy. I mean, it is a 4 year old, and given that it's a WB, it couldn't have been under saddle for all that long. Given its low price tag, it clearly hasn't done TOO much or really proven itself yet.

Maybe the horse was "gentle as a lamb". Maybe they didn't know what they were doing (new owners) and the new barn changed his diet, cut back his turn-out, kept it in a high stress situation. I am not making any judgements, and perhaps the Chapmans are very knowledgeable hunter jumper people as well (in which case, disregard this), but I know from working in a race horse barn for quite a while that owning track TBs is a different ballgame than h/js.

Anyone care to share any real info?

clearound

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:57 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Interesting. What are we voting for, folks? Fluphen? That'd be my guess. What a shame...............http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ESG - Let's just jump to conclusions without proof, why don't you! I can only hope you never have to serve on a jury.

Box-of-Rox

Jul. 11, 2004, 02:57 PM

you really can't comment on a horse's behavior from an article. For one, it doesn't say "striking out," it says "striking people." If a horse were to rear up and strike someone, then it's hard to imagine that person wouldn't be SERIOUSLY hurt. more seriously than if someone were to just fall off. So when an article claims that a horse has been striking people, with no mention of causing further injury to people, I become suspicious that there has been some exageration, which, if you're suing, is only natural.

as to the whole "you sold me an unruly horse" argument, well...a lot of people have been sold stoppers, runaways, and otherwise poorly behaving horses that were "lamb" like under their previous trainers. OK. Let's be cynical. Jeff is a BNT and so naturally everything in his barn is drugged to the gills. Well, this is why it's a good idea to have a vet on call when you're trying a horse so you can vet it on the spot and make sure that there isn't anything in it's system. Furthermore, a lot of people are willing, especially in the case of a young horse, to let you live with it for a week and make sure that it's a suitable.

More realistically, not to be cynical myself about the whole self-care thing, but going to a barn where it seems an amateur (?) is doing all her own stuff, from one where the horse is probably in a really strict program, is bound to create some issues if the person cannot recreate the training environment. Recently I watched two horses go from grand-prix-like training schedules--individualized feed programs, several good schools a week interspersed with work outslide of the ring, etc.--to one that was much more generalized, with six (seven?) days a week of 20 minutes of light hacking in the ring with a few small jumps. Both their performances and their behavior deteriorated, with both becoming very hot and sometimes "unrideable..." according to their new trainer.

Who's to say the same thing didn't happen here?

Molly99

Jul. 11, 2004, 03:52 PM

I won't comment on the article, as I don't think it really gives very many facts.

However, I will state that I have known Donna for many years. Last I knew she was an amateur, but an amateur that has been around horses for many many years. Her family has been very involved and she horses were always kept at home. She is not a "young amateur" in any sense.

On the other side, I have to say that the time frame stated by the article it would seem that the horse was purchased while said trainer was on a "vacation." In a strange way I would think that would imply to me, if I were a judge, that you would have been very foolish to purchase said horse and not run a drug test.

That is not to say that the horse wasn't misreprented, but one would think given the other set of circumstances that a buyer would go the extra mile to make sure the horse they were purchasing was not enhanced.

Additionally, all these people would have known each other, at least by reputation, for years. They are all located in the same area.

I know none of them well enough to know the facts, but those were just some things that popped into my mind when reading the article.

Jul. 11, 2004, 04:15 PM

In case just being a good horseman isn't enough reason to not drug your horses, here's another one -- It can't be helpful to Mr.Ayers in this situation to be sitting on top of a USEF suspension..... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Lord Helpus

Jul. 11, 2004, 04:16 PM

Boy, is everyone full of assumptions!

"Going from a strict program to a barn where it seems an amateur is doing all her own stuff..."

HUH? Where did the article say that? Did you read something I didn't?

The only background FACTS I know are:

The Chapmans are in their 70's. This is a late marriage for them. If the person in question is also named Chapman, she is the daughter of Chappy Chapman. She is probably in her 30's - early 40's given her dad's approximate age. So, she is not a naive 20 year old.

I have read that horses have been a long term love in the
family -- I believe that the Chapman kids grew up with them.

This is the family whose horse reared up and fractured its skull in the starting gate. I think that no one has to tell them that horses are unpredictable and will do unexpected things. This family has owned horses for decades; they did not just fall off the turnip truck yesterday. Most people involved with race horses understand the realities of horse ownership. The Chapmans are hands on owners -- they know their horses -- they are horse people.

I do not know how often this kind of thing happens in different disciplines. No one does. But I betcha dollars to donuts that one of the major reasons that this one is going to court, instead of being settled (and going quietly away), is Smarty Jones. When your elderly dad has a horse which has earned $7,000,000 in 6 months, you can then afford to stand on principle rather than economic necessity. Ouch, Jeff! Bad timing, eh?

clearound

Jul. 11, 2004, 04:38 PM

How do you guys know that drug tests weren't taken before the purchase. Anyone buying a 4 yr. old for $30,000 from Mr. Ayers, any other BNT or SNT would be nuts not to have taken drug tests.

I also wonder if there would be this fuss over this transaction is Ms. Chapman was not the daughter of the owner of Smarty Jones. Just a thought. Wonder if there will be this much attention in the event that Mr. Ayers is exonerated.

Silver Bells

Jul. 11, 2004, 04:56 PM

Well I can see another thread heading for heated discussion. Until ALL the facts are before us, we will not be able to form a fair conclusion. Until such time, and it will probably be a long time from now, since a case like this could take years to reach a court room, I expect to see an abundance of speculation and opinionated rhetoric.
I guess this is one way to avoid the "dog Days" of summer. Unfortunately at someone else's expense...

Box-of-Rox

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:06 PM

sorry, i hope my sarcasm didn't get misconstrued--

I'm sure that they did vet the horse, and therefore would have taken blood. What I said was in response to the first comment suggesting that the horse was probably on something. If you are buying a young horse from a trainer with a "reputation," then you simply arrange to have blood taken immediately. I've bought horses from trainers that I wouldn't trust--I don't think that the horse was druged in the first instance, at all, and i think it's a silly thing to assume, but any knowledgeable or sane buyer would have NOT prearranged a vetting with the seller.

My assumption that the rider was working primarily without a trainer (which is not to say that she doesn't have one, most people do) came because there was no mention of one in the article, which, if a trainer was a primary caregiver, would seem odd. The way a horse would be cared for at a personally owned farm (what it sounded like the owner had) would be different from how one would be cared for at a sales barn, where they are most likely on a stricter regiment than the average person keeps their horses one (and yes, I know this is a huge assumption).

I simply feel that if the horse was drugged or otherwise inhumanely prepared, then it is the buyer's fault for not diligently checking the horse's preperation needs. However, given the buyer's family's, and i'm sure personal, experience, I find this hard to believe. Rather, the horse's program obviously changed, and he is no longer going well.

Professionals do not, in my experience, make a habit of having unrideable horses in their barns. They have to deal with them until they are sold, and not only does being a nice horse increase the chance of turnover for a good price, but it also makes the trainer's life easier while the horse is under his care.

I've honestly never heard of anyone doing this (If anyone has, let me know), and agree with Lord Helpus in that this is probably being done on principle, I just happen to not agree with the principle of it.

hunterpa

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:06 PM

It seems to me that if someone really wanted a dead quiet show horse, they would buy something older and more experienced. No horse is predictable, especially a 4 yr. old. If I bought any horse and it started standing up or it dumped me, I really don't think I would go after the person who sold me the horse with a lawsuit. There could be any number of reasons a horse would start misbehaving... lack of training, soreness, abuse, misuse, etc.

I'm not saying the person in this case did anything bad to the horse to cause it to act like this, but it's unfair to sue the seller of the horse. It's 4... it's bound to act out or not be perfectly behaved at that age.

JMO

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:07 PM

Just to clarify -- I'm making no statement (obviously) in regards to Mr. Ayers treatment of this horse. I am saying that his treatment of at least one previous horse, as recognized by USEF sanctions, does not help him -- perception of one's character does count in this type of suit.

If they're exonerated, hopefully that will be publicized as well.

ESG

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by clearound:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Interesting. What are we voting for, folks? Fluphen? That'd be my guess. What a shame...............http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ESG - Let's just jump to conclusions without proof, why don't you! I can only hope you never have to serve on a jury. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, please. Don't tell me it didn't cross anyone else's mind. I just happened to say it. And if you truly don't think it happens, I hope the weather is nice in your world.................http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ESG

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Box-of-Rox:
sorry, i hope my sarcasm didn't get misconstrued--

I'm sure that they did vet the horse, and therefore would have taken blood. What I said was in response to the first comment suggesting that the horse was probably on something. If you are buying a young horse from a trainer with a "reputation," then you simply arrange to have blood taken immediately. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And one would assume that the folks that formed the syndicate to purchase Cigar would have insisted on a fertility test to make sure this superhorse wasn't shooting blanks, but no one did. Just because folks are capable of buying expensive horses doesn't mean that they're always smart about it. And as Lord Helpus said, the fact that Mr. Ayres is sitting under a suspension doesn't help his case any, IMHO.

Just an observation....................http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

WWCountry

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:20 PM

From what I read in the article, it seems as though they were trying to come to a settlement when Chapman filed suit. Maybe she wasn't satisfied with the Equi-Ventures offer. Donna is a professional has probably known Jeff/Scott for 20 years. Maybe she trusted them and didn't do a blood test on the horse. This is NOT the 1st time they've been sued for similar cause. It must be hard to make a living on "vacation".

Glimmerglass

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
But I betcha dollars to donuts that one of the major reasons that this one is going to court, instead of being settled (and going quietly away), is Smarty Jones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure if I follow the logic LH. Are you saying that simply because parents M/M Roy Chapman have one a horse that has earned over $7M and was just syndicated out for $40M she filed suit? The Chapmans were by no means poor prior to Smarty's run for imortality. Roy's Philly-area car dealerships have made him a millionaire for years.

Messers Ayers and Stima were reportedly close to a settlement so I really see no benefit of it going to court and into the public record - except to air the issue for others to see.

The Chapmans, as you know, are indeed savy owners with wins in steeplechasing (VA Gold Cup) to the Kentucky Derby. However, I can list off tons of big name owners who couldn't ride their way out of a paper bag let alone around their lovely estate houses with the miles of perfect fencing .... No idea if this is the case here whatsoever so we'll just see how the courts settle this one.

MistyBlue

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:29 PM

Has anyone taken into consideration that some horses don't do well being moved...and if not handled appropriately to help conquer new place fears a youngster can easily go from a gentle lamb at it's home barn/comfort zone to a raving lunatic if moved to a new scary place with lots going on. Some will settle in a day or so...some will remain nuts if they're in an environment they personally can;t handle. I have a 16 year old mare...I moved her one time from a boarding situation that was ideal in every aspect except for the fact she hated it there. She went from an easy to handle horse to a horse that was running through fences to attack other horses and rearing on lead and dragging people around. Moved her...within 24 hours I had a gentle lamb again.
Not that this is extremely common...but happens.

Mav226

Jul. 11, 2004, 05:51 PM

Does no one do a drug test or take horses on trial anymore? It would seem that if I were to drop 30K (wishful thinking!) I would certainly have the vet draw a vial of blood. Who was the vet that vetted a horse and didn't suggest a drug test? Who buys a horse without even a brief trial period?

Interresting point about the seller's current questionable reputation--seems like this will make for a complicated and long court brawl. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Lord Helpus

Jul. 11, 2004, 06:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
And one would assume that the folks that formed the syndicate to purchase Cigar would have insisted on a fertility test to make sure this superhorse wasn't shooting blanks, but no one did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to clarify your evident confusion regarding fertiity insurance on Cigar and other stallions like him:

It is not as if Coolmore LTD "forgot" to test Cigar's fertility. That is not the way fertility insurance works.

Insurance is also known as "risk management". One of the basic tenents of risk management is that one cannot insure against a known event. Therefore, if Coolmore, who paid $25M for Cigar, wanted to insure him against infertility and other associated risks of Cigar's stallion career, they HAD to do it before he ever covered a mare.

Once he covered a mare and his fertility (or lack thereof) was a known quantity, he would have been uninsurable for it. Paulson could not have sold him, Coolmore would not have bought him. So the parties transferred the risk to the underwriters at Lloyds of London and consummated their deal to turn Cigar from a race horse into a stallion.

Unfortunately, the sale was the only thing that was consummated.

Please beleive that Allen Paulson and John Magnier are not the type of people to transfer a $25,000,000 horse and forget to find out if he is fertile. OOPS! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

wtywmn4

Jul. 11, 2004, 06:43 PM

LH, is Cigar still around? For some reason, my aged brain keeps thinking he was put out to pasture or gelded? Oh, maybe thats me, the pasture part http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Got to see this horse when he was a three year old. He was a real gentleman. Nice to be around.

And like someone already posted, none of us know the facts in this case. News articles love to set the hook, then maybe if we're real good the actual story will come. Donna Chapman is no novice to the industry. In other words, she didn't fall off the melon truck yesterday.

Kellsboro Jack

Jul. 11, 2004, 07:06 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wtywmn4:
LH, is Cigar still around? For some reason, my aged brain keeps thinking he was put out to pasture or gelded? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Still around in the "living" sense, yes, but racing at 14, nope http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Cigar residing at the KHP (http://www.imh.org/khp/champions/cigar.asp)

Technically he is still owned by the Italian insurance company who underwrote the policy that paid out the $20M + settlement. He is not for the record owned by the Horse Park.

Scootie

Jul. 11, 2004, 07:08 PM

I think Cigar is still at the Kentucky Horse Park, where he participates in the "Parade of Champions". We saw him there a couple of years ago. He seemed like quite the ham! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merry

Jul. 11, 2004, 07:09 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wtywmn4:
LH, is Cigar still around? For some reason, my aged brain keeps thinking he was put out to pasture or gelded? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually, I use him as a pony horse/trail riding companion. He just looks absolutely marvelous in a western roping saddle! I'm so proud when I ride through town on him and wave at my neighbors. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

Truthfully, Cigar resides at Kentucky Horse Park in the Hall of Champions barn. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Edited to add: Dang, I thought I'd be the first to post the answer! I never win anything!

wtywmn4

Jul. 11, 2004, 07:15 PM

Thank you both, ahh just not quick enough on the draw there Merry... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif His lovely tail which has grey all thru it from top to bottom. He is a very handsome horse.. Too bad no kiddies..

Carol Ames

Jul. 11, 2004, 08:10 PM

it wasn't anyone's fault - that horses are unpredictable and can behave in ways that can be dangerous to people around them. Spina, I agree, isn'tthis part of dealing with horses?
Yes, i.

Carol Ames

Jul. 11, 2004, 08:16 PM

Does anyone know more aboutthis horse? what was hisbackground/eperience, and, was he purchased for the show ring?, or pleasure/trail?

Et Tu

Jul. 11, 2004, 08:52 PM

Has anyone else noticed that article says, the horse reared and struck people. That eludes that this happened BEFORE she rode. So EVEN if the horse was drugged, the drugs had clearly worn off. She made a conscious choice to sit on that horse, Jeffery Ayers and co. did not force her to ride said horse. She purchased it, took it home, observed unruly behavior and rode anyway. Welcome to my life as a trainer.

That's not to say that the horse was or wasn't drugged, but a drug should have been done, and if she's suing for ANYTHING it should ONLY be the purchase price and court costs. The injuries sustained are inherent risks of riding.

If this is the direction that horse sales will take, remind me not to sell one.

Glimmerglass

Jul. 11, 2004, 09:57 PM

Some more details from this article:

The Allentown (PA) Morning Call 7/11/04 (http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-b1_2smartysuitjul10,0,6502121.story?coll=all-newslocal-hed)

Suit: Show horse 'Blue' injured daughter of Smarty Jones owners

East Rockhill woman seeks $130,000 from trainers, saying equine's temper not as billed.

By Hal Marcovitz
Of The Morning Call

The daughter of Smarty Jones owners Roy and Pat Chapman said in a lawsuit filed Friday in Bucks County Court that a horse she thought had the ''temperament to be a first-class show horse'' turned out to be a bucking bronco that trampled her at her East Rockhill Township farm, causing severe injuries.

Donna Chapman, who lives at 614 Schwenk Mill Road, said in the suit that the horse named ''Blue'' knocked her unconscious at the farm on May 14, causing a concussion, whiplash, a broken hand and a number of other injuries. She said in the suit that a farm worker found her unconscious that day and took her to a nearby hospital.

Chapman filed the suit against West Rockhill Township horse trainers Jeffrey S. Ayers and Scott Stima and their company, Equi-Ventures Inc. She seeks repayment of the $30,000 she paid for Blue as well as $100,000 in damages.

Chapman was unavailable for comment and her attorney, Stephen B. Harris of Warrington, did not return calls.

The suit described Blue as a 4-year-old member of the Trakehner breed, and that Ayers and Stima told Chapman the horse ''was calm and had a quiet disposition.''

The Web site of the American Trakehner Association said Trakehners trace their blood lines back to a farm in East Prussia that started breeding the horses in the 1700s.

''Perhaps the most outstanding attribute of the Trakehner is its temperament,'' the site says. ''It is keen, alert and intelligent, yet very stable and accepting and anxious to please.''

Blue turned out to be something quite different, according to the lawsuit. Soon after arriving at the Chapman farm on May 4, the suit said, ''the horse began to rear up and strike out at people who were handling the horse.'' Ten days later, the suit said, Chapman was struck down and trampled by the horse.

Chapman's parents, who live in Solebury Township, are the owners of this year's winner of the Kentucky Derby and Preakness. Smarty Jones just missed winning the Belmont Stakes, the third leg of racing's Triple Crown.

Randi Vladimer, a Delaware County attorney who represents Ayers and Stima, said Blue had been quite demure before Chapman took possession of the horse.

''We have hours and hours of videotape of this horse showing him to be as gentle as a lamb,'' said Vladimer. ''This lawsuit is frivolous.''

Vladimer suggested the horse may have suddenly reared for any number of reasons, including being bitten by a fly. Vladimer said she understands Chapman was walking ahead of the horse and leading it when the horse reared.

''This horse is a legitimate show horse,'' she said. ''It never did what she alleges it did. It has never done it before or since.''

The lawsuit alleges that at the time of the sale Chapman asked Ayers and Stima for the horse's Coggins test, which determines whether the horse suffers from the virus Equine Infections Anemia, but the trainers failed to provide the test results.

Vladimer responded that Chapman was told the test results were available for her to pick up. She said, ''The Coggins test was there for Miss Chapman two days after the sale. She never picked it up.''

Vladimer said Ayers and Stima were negotiating a resolution to their financial dispute with Chapman when she filed the suit.

xegeba

Jul. 11, 2004, 11:18 PM

The Chapmans are suing because the 4 yr. old TRAKEHNER was unruly? Heaven Forbid! A 30,000.00, 4 yr.old TRAKEHNER was unruly? Dumped her? Struck out? Was the bath water too cold? Maybe the groundspeople were weed whipping. Perhaps a Butterfinger wrapper was blowing across the ground outside the arena. I can see if it was a Holsteiner, but a TRAKEHNER? I'll be the expert witness for the defendant. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

LucianCephus

Jul. 12, 2004, 03:29 AM

A probably dumb question, but something I've always wondered about... When one "draws blood," exactly what drugs are looked for??? I mean, does the normal test screen for reserpine and the like or just the more simple formulations? Based on the fact that the USEF has its own labs for testing, I just question whether standard blood work is sophisticated enough to truly determine whether the horse in question has been medicated.

(As you can probably guess, I've never had one tested. I'm an idiot. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/winkgrin.gif

runspotrun

Jul. 12, 2004, 04:34 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
But I betcha dollars to donuts that one of the major reasons that this one is going to court, instead of being settled (and going quietly away), is Smarty Jones. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Not sure if I follow the logic LH. Are you saying that simply because parents M/M Roy Chapman have one a horse that has earned over $7M and was just syndicated out for $40M she filed suit? The Chapmans were by no means poor prior to Smarty's run for imortality. Roy's Philly-area car dealerships have made him a millionaire for years.

Messers Ayers and Stima were reportedly close to a settlement so I really see no benefit of it going to court and into the public record - except to air the issue for others to see.

The Chapmans, as you know, are indeed savy owners with wins in steeplechasing (VA Gold Cup) to the Kentucky Derby. However, I can list off tons of big name owners who couldn't ride their way out of a paper bag let alone around their lovely estate houses with the miles of perfect fencing .... No idea if this is the case here whatsoever so we'll just see how the courts settle this one. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I, too, have to disagree with the Smarty Jones logic. Quite honestly, some cases can't be settled. The Chapmans are asking for a lot of money in damages, and I doubt that the defendendents are going to be willing to shell out at least a good fraction of that money, when they have a very winnable case.

ESG

Jul. 12, 2004, 04:40 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
And one would assume that the folks that formed the syndicate to purchase Cigar would have insisted on a fertility test to make sure this superhorse wasn't shooting blanks, but no one did. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just to clarify your evident confusion regarding fertiity insurance on Cigar and other stallions like him:

It is not as if Coolmore LTD "forgot" to test Cigar's fertility. That is not the way fertility insurance works.

Insurance is also known as "risk management". One of the basic tenents of risk management is that one cannot insure against a known event. Therefore, if Coolmore, who paid $25M for Cigar, wanted to insure him against infertility and other associated risks of Cigar's stallion career, they HAD to do it before he ever covered a mare.

Once he covered a mare and his fertility (or lack thereof) was a known quantity, he would have been uninsurable for it. Paulson could not have sold him, Coolmore would not have bought him. So the parties transferred the risk to the underwriters at Lloyds of London and consummated their deal to turn Cigar from a race horse into a stallion.

Unfortunately, the sale was the only thing that was consummated.

Please beleive that Allen Paulson and John Magnier are not the type of people to transfer a $25,000,000 horse and forget to find out if he is fertile. OOPS! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you for posting that, LH. After having asked anyone I could think of why things went as they did with Cigar. Yours is the first explanation I've heard that makes sense of it all. I also appreciate you calling it my "confusion" regarding this matter rather than the ignorance it clearly was. Thanks again. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Just out of curiosity, what happened in this case? I mean, I guess no one could argue misrepresentation since there was evidently no effort to conceal something that no one knew for a fact. But I'm curious as to who has the financial responsiblity. So did Lloyd's have to cough up the $25m?

Backstage

Jul. 12, 2004, 05:21 AM

Since he has entered the topic of conversation, Cigar doesn't seem displeased with his life...and I believe his policy paid out.

Cigar grazing:
http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL486/2218613/4332828/59723543.jpg

Cigar walking
http://pic13.picturetrail.com/VOL486/2218613/4332828/59723536.jpg

As for the matter at hand, the sum of 130k seems high regardless of the situation. What offends me about the sue-happiness is the sums. If the sellers misrepresented the horse or covered up behaviour issues, they probably should be held responsable, but 130k is pushing it. A more reasonable sum would be sensible.

I don't agree with some of the posters arguing that a 4 year old might act like that. Sorry, but green/young does not excuse behaviour *as it is described* in the article.

DMK

Jul. 12, 2004, 05:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Backstage:
As for the matter at hand, the sum of 130k seems high regardless of the situation. What offends me about the sue-happiness is the sums. If the sellers misrepresented the horse or covered up behaviour issues, they probably should be held responsable, but 130k is pushing it. A more reasonable sum would be sensible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think $30K for the amount spent on the horse and $100K for injuries (they were described as neurological in nature) is not excessive from a "cost" persepctive. While the insurer may have negotiated amounts less than $100K for that treatment, once the insured person recovers an individual judgement, the insurer is entitled to be refunded the money they spent in care and treatment and the providers of care are no longer bound by their contract with the carrier and can come back against the person who won the settlement and get full charges (or whatever they subsequently negotiate down to). In that scenario, $100K is not unthinkable. Not even close.

All things considered, if the suit has merit, it looks like Donna Chapman is showing restraint and limiting it to true damages.

On another note, I don't think I have definitively seen it stated that she was thrown while riding the horse - that second article seems to indicate she was on the ground and the first one was just unclear in general. Just my personal experience, but if you grew up around TBs in training (and I have no idea what her daily exposure was), you are pretty well versed in dodging airs above the ground from fractious young horses.

Magnolia

Jul. 12, 2004, 05:45 AM

I would think that a family with a history of training and buying champion racehorses would be savvy enough to do all the required testing to insure purchasing a non drugged horse...... And I would think that a pro would think twice about selling a drugged horse to such a family. And that a breeding facility should be able to deal with rambunctious animals.

Jumphigh83

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:04 AM

ALL horses can act unruley, ALL horses buck, rear strike kick bite etc etc..that is the nature of being a HORSE. I think it is sad that the first line of defense when someone embarrasses themselves with their lack of common sense and horsemastership is to go to a lawyer. Why not spend that money on a TRAINER to supervise the children when interacting with big, relatively simple minded large animals. I dont see how JA can control the actions/reactions of a horse when it is on someone elses farm. Now let the flames fly because maybe there was some kharma that Smarty didnt win....What goes around....comes around.

elizabeth

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:15 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by DMK:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Backstage:
As for the matter at hand, the sum of 130k seems high regardless of the situation. What offends me about the sue-happiness is the sums. If the sellers misrepresented the horse or covered up behaviour issues, they probably should be held responsable, but 130k is pushing it. A more reasonable sum would be sensible.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually, I think $30K for the amount spent on the horse and $100K for injuries (they were described as neurological in nature) is not excessive from a "cost" persepctive. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DMK is right. I didn't read the article because, well, I don't care, but it sounds like, if the horse's unruly behavior was hidden (read: drugs, LTD, something), punitive damages likely would be appropriate.

If Chapman was hurt (or her agent was hurt) and she is not suing for punitives (read: $1 M in punitives), she is showing restraint, in my view.

Fun stuff.

wtywmn4

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:18 AM

Lucien, if one pulls blood, you do have to designate what you are looking for. Flags will come up on the tests, but without the proper identity thats all they are. So specifically, yes. You look for narcotics of any kind, and anything which might preclude the sale. This is costly. Could be why it might not have been done. Also, time consuming, you wait weeks for results. Not like CSI.

JumpHigh, wonder if this might not be the first time she (Donna) has been hurt? Thus the legal manuvering. Many people when injured, become scared. Especially if they have been lucky and not had any injuries up to this point. One would think, that there may have been negotiations going on, and it all came to an impasse.

Jumphigh83

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:26 AM

Horses are animals..not like a car where you can doctor the brakes or put barz leak in a radiator..once that LIVING BEING leaves your care custody and control you can NOT be held liable for behavior beyond your control! I would like to know what portion of the liability will be assigned to the persons actally taking care of the horse. Horses behavior reflects the people handling it. Like the computer..garbage in...garbage out. Unless there was a REAL case of doping the suit seems frivolous. What happened to PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY??????

wtywmn4

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:40 AM

Ummm, it went out the door Jumphigh, when we allowed legal eagles to rule our lives...

LLDM

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:55 AM

From a completely new and different perspective from someone who works with young horses:

There could be something physically wrong with this horse. This behavior could be caused by a neurological problem, a bone fracture, a muscular disease, EPM, or any one of thousands of issues. He could have brain damage for all we know.

Then the questions become: Has it been diagnosed? Was it pre-existing? Was the onset traumatic or gradual? Did anyone know the the horse was NQR (not quite right) before or after the sale?

While this line of thinking does not shed any light on who might be responsible, it does open up a whole can of things which might be behind the lawsuit.

Honestly, the only one I feel sorry for in this situation is the horse. I really hope that someone is trying to get to the root of the problem. In most cases, horses are just not mean for no reason. They generally respond out of pain and/or fear.

There real questions in my mind are: What is wrong with the horse? And, is he getting the treatment he needs, be it medical or behavioral?

The people involved are all grown-ups. They all seem capable of taking care of themselves. I hope they are remembering the horse, who is at their mercy.

SCFarm

Heather

Jul. 12, 2004, 07:18 AM

I am no fan of lawsuits (family business pays over $5 million a year in insurance just to deal with firvolous lawsuits), and agree that more often than not a little common sense and personal responsibility would go a LONG way.

That being said, all of you who are ready to villify the plaintiff here, or seem to think that there is a frivlos case here, I wonder is there any circumstance under which a lawsuit would be acceptable?

I don't know anything about the people involvedin this case. That being said, I've certainly known situations where horse sales have been out and out fraud. And yet the horse world seems to be the only world in which it is considered the victim's fault if you get screwed over by unscrupulous sellers.

If I buy a house in the most ignorant and foolhardy way possible--throw cash money around, don't inspect the house, etc. etc., and it falls down around me 30 days later, the fact that I was a moron does not proetect the people that looked me in the eye and told me the house was in fine shape and worth the money I paid for it.

Why in the horse world do we expect new people to either (a) do research on par with preparing for the storming of Normandy, or (b) get screwed because that's just the way it works.

Obviously, the plaintiff isn't a newbie, and obviously I have no idea about the particulars here. But at a certain point I do think there can be legitimate reasons to sue unscrupulous sellers. If you drug a horse and sell it to me without disclosing it, you are wrong. Period. Whether or not I'm savvy enough to run a full tox screen on the creature's blood, doesn't make you right, and me wrong.

Again, I think way too many people sue for way too many stupid reasons. But I'm stunned by the idea that NO ONE is ever at fault--that people can do evil, unscrupulous, and illegal things, and it's your fault for being a victim.

Geesh, makes me never want to buy another horse again.

Glimmerglass

Jul. 12, 2004, 07:21 AM

Re: Cigar

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Just out of curiosity, what happened in this case? .... But I'm curious as to who has the financial responsiblity. So did Lloyd's have to cough up the $25m? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually Llyods of London had nothing to do with Cigar. The insurance policy was issued by Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A, an Italian-based company vis-a-vis their UK branch in London.

Assicurazioni Generali S.p.A owns Cigar after having paid out the insurance money to Coolmore and the Paulsons and is the party who has him on loan to the KHP.

Far more details on the specific policies taken out on Cigar see here: Horse Previews Apr '97: "Maybe He Should Have Been Wearing Boxers Instead of Jockey's?" (http://www.horse-previews.com/497articles/cigar.html)

note: the 1997 article above indicates that Paulson was to hold on to the shares of Cigar, however they did later request and receive payout

Flash44

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:07 AM

I side with those who say that horses are unpredictable in nature, and the Chapmans must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the horse exibited this dangerous behavior in the past, and the trainers knowingly did not divulge this information.

When I was working at a training center, we had a colt come in who had been hacking around the owner's farm BAREBACK BY THE OWNER. When he came to us, he was the most common @#$%# you could imagine, rearing, striking, refusing to gallop, then running off... He just didn't want to work hard.

I could go on and on, but it's not unusual for a change in environment to provoke a change in behavior for the horse. Maybe the horse went into Chapman's barn and they did too much with him and he got a little muscle sore, making him mean. Maybe they did too little, maybe he just doesn't like being there.

Madame Butterfly

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:22 AM

Difficult to discuss unless you know all the details, regardless of character references....I will tell you that it would be a long drawn out case in court...

Flashy Gray

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:33 AM

This will be an interesting court case, for sure, and I think it will all boil down to "caveat emptor" but you legal types can correct me on that if it's wrong.

My opinion (based on the two articles) is that the plaintiff is an experienced horse person and that the behavior of this 4-year old is way out of line/unusual.

The nature of the incidents as reported in the second article just strike me as being bizarre enough (the aggression, the striking out, causing the injuries that it did) that an investigation into a pre-existing medical condition would be warranted.

Sorry folks, but IMHO what this horse did wasn't caused by spooking at the weed whacker. And I don't believe an experience horse person such as Ms. Chapman would go to the trouble and expense of a lawsuit if this was simply a young spooky horse in a new environment.

I am drawing the conclusion that the horse is exhibiting serious signs of rogue behavior that could have a medical basis (EPM, etc.) and the pursuit of this lawsuit is warranted.

lisa

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:36 AM

I'm with Heather on this one.

But I think the problem in this case (as well as others I know of) is not what you *suspect*, it's what you can *prove*.

The fact that the Chapman's have a ton of money is what's making it financially possible for them to sue over a $30k horse. (*Not* that I think it is a cheap horse, by any means!!) Their legal fees will be more than that... And, they could very well lose.

Personally, I'd like to see a video of this horse. Is it fancy? Is it pretty? What was it that made Ayers/Stima sell now instead of keeping it a little longer and selling it for all the money in FL? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif They, as has already been pointed out, are BNTs and *know* what they have. Or don't have...

Jumphigh83

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:39 AM

I dont know ANY of the parties involved so that having been said....I have owned a car for ...hmmm....at least twenty years....have driven same, done routine maintanence on same etc...BUT I am NOT a mechanic even though I have owned a car for a looooong time. Just because someone has had horses for a looong time ..it does not qualify them as horsemen. I hope they figure it all out and come to some reasonable agreement so every one is happy. I just cant stand the old "horsetrader" cliche being hammered to death here.

Flashy Gray

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:46 AM

Betsy, I do agree with your points, they are good ones.

I stand by my opinion based on reading 2 newspaper articles that something was seriously out of whack with this horse.

I think from a case law standpoint it will be very interesting to see what happens. Frankly, I don't give the Chapman's very good odds that they will be able to make a case that overrules caveat emptor. It's a very high legal standard to meet.

RugBug

Jul. 12, 2004, 09:18 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Heather:
If I buy a house in the most ignorant and foolhardy way possible--throw cash money around, don't inspect the house, etc. etc., and it falls down around me 30 days later, the fact that I was a moron does not proetect the people that looked me in the eye and told me the house was in fine shape and worth the money I paid for it.

Why in the horse world do we expect new people to either (a) do research on par with preparing for the storming of Normandy, or (b) get screwed because that's just the way it works.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You just can't compare a buying a horse to buying a house. Maybe if the house could change character based on who was living in it or how they were taking care of it, or if it just plain didn't like you then the comparison would work. It's easier to lay blame in a house buying situation. With horses there are just to many variables (turn-out time, feed program, work schedule, barn atmosphere, handler attitude...just to name a few) that come into play to trace blame to the guilty party.

NinaL aka Chrissy

Jul. 12, 2004, 09:47 AM

I have seen the horse in question, I have stood in the stall with the horse and I know a person who has ridden the horse.

Believe me (and I have had many years of experience with young horses) I saw NOTHING that would indicate to me that the horse had any sort of physical, neurological issues that would predicate said horse to dangerous behavior. He was friendly but not pushy.

I did ask for some information on the horse because I know a person looking for relatively inexpensive prospects (in the h/j world $30,000 is cheap for a big, attractive warmblood). I was told that the horse had been under saddle for about three months, that the big name eventer rider who broke the horse did lunge the horse prior to riding him to get the hump out of its back and that prior to Donna buying the horse the plan was to send the horse back to eventer trainer because the horse jumped a little over its front end when deep to a jump and, therefore, was more of an amateur/childrens type then a recognized division competitor.

If I had $30,000 laying around (hah) I would have tried the horse for myself. He is very attractive and appeared to have a good disposition. Since he is a warmblood and still relatively immature I would have taken the chance that his form would improve over time. Besides, he would make a heck of a nice dressage horse http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif. He really is a most attractive animal (which is probably what Donna saw that made her want to buy the horse).

I knew Donna years ago and I must say I am surprised that she is taking this route. I know the injury must be upsetting but you take your chances with horses and it is always possible to get injured for the most ridiculous reasons. Heck, two weeks after I purchased my unbroken 5 year old I ended up with a rear hoof to the crotch and a view of my new horse disappearing in the distance after I tightened the training surcingle. I did not even think of contacting the former owner let alone sue her. I figured it was my fault for not taking it slower.

I must say that he sure looked purty as he bucked his way across the farm.... Thank gawd he missed the owner's BMW http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif.

For sure in this day and age I would never, ever sell a horse or pony without requiring that the purchaser sign a bill of sale stating that the horse/pony is sold "as is" and without any representation that the horse/pony is suitable for the job intended.

These days it seems to be SELLER BEWARE.

Nina

silver

Jul. 12, 2004, 10:12 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Flashy Gray:
I don't believe an experience horse person such as Ms. Chapman would go to the trouble and expense of a lawsuit if this was simply a young spooky horse in a new environment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tha's kind of my feeling too. She's obviously pissed off enough to take this to court. I assume she has a reason for that, and if she's been around the H/J world long enough I assume she has a fairly clear idea of what the trainer did/ did not do.

OTOH she may not care if she wins as long as she drags their name through the mud and causes them sufficent grief and money. It's probably small change to her.

Go-Go

Jul. 12, 2004, 10:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NinaL aka Chrissy:
Thank gawd he missed the owner's BWM http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"BWM?" Sounds like some sort of body function. I'm glad he steered clear of that as well. That would have been a ginormous mess. Probably more than $130,000 of mess.

NinaL aka Chrissy

Jul. 12, 2004, 10:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Go-Go:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NinaL aka Chrissy:
Thank gawd he missed the owner's BWM http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
"BWM?" Sounds like some sort of body function. I'm glad he steered clear of that as well. That would have been a ginormous mess. Probably more than $130,000 of mess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Heh, heh. Edited my post Go-Go (took two times - I must have a mental block *sigh* ).

BMW BMW BMW

But it might have looked like BWM if he had tried to jump it and misjudged.

Nina

Tiramit

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:04 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NinaL aka Chrissy:
I was told that the horse had been under saddle for about three months, that the big name eventer rider who broke the horse did lunge the horse prior to riding him to get the hump out of its back and that prior to Donna buying the horse the plan was to send the horse back to eventer trainer because the horse jumped a little over its front end when deep to a jump and, therefore, was more of an amateur/childrens type then a recognized division competitor.

Nina <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not challenging what you stated above http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but if the horse had been under saddle for only 3 months, how could they have HOURS of footage of the horse showing its personality? Isn't that a bit rushed in the training world - from backed to the show ring (per the lawyer's comment) to ammie sale in so short a time (if true, perhaps that's the reason the horse flipped out - pushed too fast)? According to the article, the defendants' lawyer stated, "This horse is a legitimate show horse". After only 3 months under saddle! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

We used to turn horses around in a matter of months, but those were OTTB's and already had riding experience!

Merry

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:10 AM

Having raised and ridden many a young Trakehner or part-Trakehner, I must say that the average Trakehner is indeed a tidge more "sensitive" than your average green hunter prospect. I can accept the scenario that a well-started but still green Trakehner got to a new barn, under a strange rider in unfamiliar circumstances and began to be a little spooky, evasive and even combative.

Lord knows I've had more than one of mine stand up and take a swap at me with a front leg. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

I think anytime anyone purchases a young horse they're taking a chance that the horse may express some bad behavior or test the waters in a new environment. So, to me, there must be far more to the story than we're getting.

If Donna was indeed sold a rogue or a horse that was discreetly longed/lounged/lunged to exhaustion before she tried it, or drugged, she deserves compensation. However, we don't know that. Which will make this an interesting court case.

All that being said, I think it's unfortunate that whatever process had started to resolve the issue ended up deteriorating to the point of a lawsuit.

clearound

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:11 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tiramit:

I'm not challenging what you stated above http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif, but if the horse had been under saddle for only 3 months, how could they have HOURS of footage of the horse showing? Isn't that a bit rushed in the training world - from backed to the show ring to ammie sale in so short a time (if true, perhaps that's the reason the horse flipped out - pushed too fast)? According to the article, the defendants' lawyer stated, "This horse is a legitimate show horse". After only 3 months under saddle! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

We used to turn horses around in a matter of months, but those were OTTB's and already had riding experience! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

May be I am confused but who has hours and hours of this horse on videotape showing jumped. From my reading of the article it appeared that the hores was green, young and inexperienced.

Holly Jeanne

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:14 AM

Tiramit: Just for clarification, the article says: <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> "We have hours and hours of videotape of this horse showing him to be as gentle as a lamb,'' said Vladimer. ''This lawsuit is frivolous."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

They said they have hours of videotape which show the horse as gentle, not hours of video tape of him showing. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Merry

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:14 AM

The quote that follows, about the possibility that the horse reared due to being bitten by a fly... not that it doesn't happen, but,well... http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Tiramit

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:19 AM

Yes, sorry, that's what I was referring to in my post (thanks Merry). The hours and hours of footage (showing him as a gentle horse - I'll fix my post).

It seems strange that they'd have hours and hours (indicated plenty of footage!) of such a green horse who was a "lamb" every time out...

Mav226

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:22 AM

The day after I signed the contract and paid for one of my horses, she took off when I was riding her. Trainer said to circle...after 10 minutes she said to stop at the fence. Horse slowed down as we approached fence and then leapt over the 5 foot (4 board) fence. She cleared the fence just fine, I fell off backward and broke every board on the way down. Too bad I didn't think to sue the former owner. Fortunatly, even though she was CHEAP, we had bloodwork at the vet's lab.
I should have though of sueing...punitive damages, personal injuries, negligent infliction of emotional distress...I could have made a fortune. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Bottom line--if the horse was drugged, ask for your money back. If you weren't smart enough to ask for a drug test or a trial period...live and learn.

Flashy Gray

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:26 AM

I took the "hours and hours of lamb-like videotape" to be the not-very-well-chosen words of a typical defense attorney talking to the press. A defense attorney whose quotes in the articles give me the impression that he doesn't know much about horses.

tardy

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wtywmn4:
Lucien, if one pulls blood, you do have to designate what you are looking for. Flags will come up on the tests, but without the proper identity thats all they are. So specifically, yes. You look for narcotics of any kind, and anything which might preclude the sale. This is costly. Could be why it might not have been done. Also, time consuming, you wait weeks for results. Not like CSI. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You can always ask your vet to draw blood and keep it on ice. If there are no issues, the blood is pitched six months later.

findeight

Jul. 12, 2004, 11:42 AM

How long had she had this one at her place...10 days or so?

If it wasn't working out and this is the correct time frame perhaps the sellers should have taken it back???

I'm not jumping to any other conclusions because every darn time I get a new horse of any age it either drops me in the dirt, gets sick or steps on something and gets the abcess from hell just about the time the check clears the bank..never fails. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
My current mare was purchased at age 10..and both dropped me, cracking a rib, and pulled a shoe/stepped on clip and was lame on and off for almost the first 6 months.
The one before her colicked then pulled a suspensory.
Lease horse in Boston had some kind of allergic reaction and blew up like a balloon-matching the size of the vet bill.
A friend just bought a cheap horse, her first in about 7 years, it promptly ripped half the skin off a leg overnight.

Just part of the deal with getting a new horse I guess...kind of a "honeymoon" for want of a better word.
I'd bet it is even more true of a youngster such as this very big and, it seems, bratty adolescent.

I'd like to know what they were proposing when the talks fell through. Sure sounds like they were talking right before the suit was filed.

ESG

Jul. 12, 2004, 12:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Tiramit:
Yes, sorry, that's what I was referring to in my post (thanks Merry). The hours and hours of footage (showing him as a gentle horse - I'll fix my post).

It seems strange that they'd have hours and hours (indicated plenty of footage!) of such a green horse who was a "lamb" every time out... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you. That's exactly what I thought when I read the comment. And as for this being the not-very-well-chosen words of a typical defense attorney talking to the press, then perhaps the attorney isn't very-well-chosen, either? I don't know about anyone else, but that sort of comment qualifies as "talking out of your a$$" IMHO, and I'm not at all sure I'd want someone like that representing me. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

findeight

Jul. 12, 2004, 12:40 PM

Maybe they just took this public and filed to force the seller back to the table?
Something their newly found fame allows them to do. Really, no one would ever have even noticed the filing if another had made it.

Doubt this ever gets to a courtroom.

NinaL aka Chrissy

Jul. 12, 2004, 12:57 PM

FWIW, the videotape was taken after the horse was returned to Equi-Ventures. Believe what you will (and it is always more fun to believe the worst of people) but I was in the stall with the horse and never got the feeling that the horse was a "rogue" or tough or anything like that. He was mildly interested in the people in his stall and definitely not afraid but neither was he a pocket pony. Actually, rather aloof. Even without knowing his background my guess would be that he was raised in a field with a group of other young horses and had minimal handling until he was broken.

If I had been offered a ride on the horse I would not have hesitated to hop on (well, I'd have made the pro ride it first but my pinfeathers usually show up whenever I am asked to ride an unknown horse).

I have heard the term "legitimate show horse" applied to a prospect who has never set foot in the show ring as well as a made packer. Maybe not the best choice of words but we all know that a quote taken out of context can alter the way outsiders read it. Let's face it most reporters on a local rag (heh, does not help that the local rag [Morning Call]is MY employer's arch-rival) know precious little about show horses let alone being capable of interpreting the jargon. I work with newspaper types everyday and I know that 99% of them don't understand what I do other than I ride - I think that they have some strange image of me galloping around a racetrack in a Western saddle.

The real victim in this whole mess is the horse. I hate thinking that Blue is getting labeled with a "dangerous" tag just because of an injury that may be due to an unfortunate circumstance (scared horse bolts and runs over human) or mismanagement.

Nina

bigbay

Jul. 12, 2004, 12:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Doubt this ever gets to a courtroom. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree. At that amount & with no punitive, and particularly if Equi-Venture has any applicable insurance in place, it'll settle or be resolved in mediation/arbitration.

Even if this really was just a case of a young horse being mishandled and not fraud (i.e. Ayers and Co. did nothing wrong) it would cost them way more than a reasonable settlement amount (I'm guessing $60,000ish, lowball) to take it all the way to court and then they run the risk of not getting a decision in their favor. If there's any sort of an insurance carrier involved, they'll just give Chapman a reasonable offer and then hike Equiventures rates (if they don't drop them).

If EquiVentures did do something wrong and Chapman has some convincing proof of that, she'll probably get what she's asking for and Equiventure will need to start shopping for new insurance, and good luck to them. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Same old story (think med mal), different arena.

I'm guessing Ayers's recent/current suspensions will factor into this case as well. Hope that's not all Chapman's basing her claims on though.

Tiramit

Jul. 12, 2004, 01:11 PM

Thank you Nina. It makes much more sense that they would film such a young horse for "hours and hours" as part of their defense, not prior to the sale.

It does sound like, based on the article, that he wasn't a "lamb" for the days she had him - at least in her opinion. If I read the articles correctly, Ms. Chapman is basing her suit on both ground manners and under-saddle behavioral issues, and not just a random fly bite reaction during the ride in which she was injured.

van

Jul. 12, 2004, 01:31 PM

First of all, thank you to Nina for providing us with some knowledge of this horse from a hands on perspective. I find the many immediate leaps to the drugged theory very disapointing. That is a big leap to make based on some very vague newspaper reports, and the knowledge of a suspension. I think Betsy makes some excellent points. This is, after all, a 4 year old. As we all know, any horse can act unpredictably, and inadvertantly dangerous at times... they are living beings, NOT machines. A 4 year old in a new environment certainly would not be immune to behavioural changes. It saddens me that a buyer would feel it necessary to sue the ex trainers of this horse, and could not come to a settlement outside of the legal system. Most trainers are more than happy to take back a horse that does not work out, and re-sell it, or possibly trade out for another one. It is very unfortunate that this lady was hurt while dealing with the horse, but such is the nature of being around horses. I would also have a hard time with any sort of behavioural guarantee of a horse, as we know that on any given day, under any given circumstances, anything can happen. When we sell young horses and people ask what they will be like off the farm, I am quick to respond with "I don't know. I would take appropriate precautions in any new situation for quite some time. Have experienced people handle the horse, turn it out, lunge before getting on, walk it around it's new surroundings with a chain shank on, and have your professional be the one to ride it until he/ she feels that it has settled in to their satisfaction. " Sometimes this is ridiculous overkill and the new owners will call to say the horse was perfect, never put a step wrong, etc. Of course we are thrilled when this is the report, but I always feel better reccommending extreme caution as opposed to assuming anything about behaviour. We do not sell our young horses outside of a full training program to try to safeguard against things like this. However, hearing about situations like this make me wonder if we are really ever able to take enough precautions in a sue happy world! Very sad indeed...

LaurieB

Jul. 12, 2004, 01:39 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by NinaL aka Chrissy:
I work with newspaper types everyday and I know that 99% of them don't understand what I do other than I ride - I think that they have some strange image of me galloping around a racetrack in a Western saddle.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

When I bought my then-three-year-old TB mare, she had exhibited nothing but lamb-like behavior every time I saw and tried her. Transported away from the farm where she'd been raised and asked to live and deal in a totally new environment, she became a hellion and stayed that way for probably 18 months.

There was no question of the mare being drugged or lunged when I tried her--I had bought her from a good friend and knew all there was to know about her. But the change in circumstances brought out insecurities that neither one of us knew existed. She was young and green and they needed to be worked through.

So I guess what I'm saying is that I can see both sides of the issue and would need more information before deciding who to believe.

CuriosoJorge

Jul. 12, 2004, 01:42 PM

I am "channeling" someone close to the source on this one. I hope I am speaking in the abstract sense enough for this to stay.

The horse was not being ridden when the incident occurred. It was being led in from the field.

Those of you who suggested that maybe something very distracting and potentially spooky was happening on the farm are right on target.

Keep in mind, also, that not everyone who grew up with horses is comfortable dealing with a baby or a green one. Not everyone who hangs out his or her shingle as a professional is competant or comfortable handling young or green horses. Some people do not realize their limitations before they make expensive purchases.

My source says the horse was drug tested, and was negative.

Silver Bells

Jul. 12, 2004, 01:42 PM

This unfortunate turn of events has really escalated. It seems to me that this whole thing could be resolved without all this drama.
All the parties involved have known each other for many years, and have done business many times. I am sure Jeff Ayers did everything in his power to make the outcome satisfactory to all. If I know Jeff, he would have dedicated his time and resources to work with Donna and assist her in any way to get optimum performance. If I know Donna, she became scared of the horse, and made up her mind up there was no way to work this out. I have to wonder why she was working around this young prospect, not really knowing it that well, all ALONE. That tells me she was comfortable with the horse. So if Blue had a history of "outbursts", she was not that concerned now was she???
I hope all involved can work this out. Jeff, Scott, and Donna don't need this.
Besides I put the D in drama, and I don't want anyone else stealing my thunder.

blondy

Jul. 12, 2004, 03:00 PM

one thing is for certain, any one of us could be sued at any time b/c EVERY horse acts like a horse sometimes, even the most quiet!

17hTBmare

Jul. 12, 2004, 03:16 PM

Interestingly, the attorney for the prosecution is a well-known local horseman. FWIW.

Frostbyte

Jul. 12, 2004, 03:22 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>originally posted by clearound:
May be I am confused but who has hours and hours of this horse on videotape showing jumped. From my reading of the article it appeared that the hores was green, young and inexperienced. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Flashy Gray:
I took the "hours and hours of lamb-like videotape" to be the not-very-well-chosen words of a typical defense attorney talking to the press. A defense attorney whose quotes in the articles give me the impression that he doesn't know much about horses. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

ROFLMAO!!! I hope I am not the only one who truly appreciates this. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

findeight

Jul. 12, 2004, 04:04 PM

Well, I get that she was leading it and it ran up her back...been there, done that and with far older horses then this clumsy giant.

It is a tiff between buyer and seller that was being resolved...but the suit was filed and the noteriety(sp?) of the claiment got it into the national press.

Far worse are sold to far more ignorant with worse results every day...which is too bad.

Still think these are knowledgeable horse people facing off on a dispute.

On a personal note, there is a huge difference between popping a kids pony with 1/2cc of Ace when a cold front blows in and some of these new anti phsychotics that change behavior over the long term...but do NOT allow the behavior to really be modified thru correct training.

Both are illegal as hell...but I might still deal with one convicted of the former in a sales deal-with blood panel of course.
Would not feel the same about the latter who gave the stuff because they "knew" it wouldn't test.

Whatever...I think the buyer and seller knew and trusted each other and a deal to take this one back was on the table when the suit was filed.
Who knows what, if any, further info might shed more light on the specifics of the deal and resulting incident.

FuzzyLogic

Jul. 12, 2004, 04:21 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by 17hTBmare:
Interestingly, the attorney for the prosecution is a well-known local horseman. FWIW. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You mean the plaintiff's attorney? there's a big difference. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

mbp

Jul. 12, 2004, 04:57 PM

I think you have two sets of folks who are both involved in business and the horse business and if they haven't resolved things, it's because there are different facts that might sway different people to different conclusions.

I am posting bc Flashy mentioned proving beyond a reasonable doubt and I wanted to mention that standard usually just applies to criminal cases, not civil cases. Generally a plaintiff needs to prove by a "preponderance" of the evidence, but depending on the facts and theories and State law, even that might not be the correct applictaion.

Also, for Heather's point:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> If I buy a house in the most ignorant and foolhardy way possible--throw cash money around, don't inspect the house, etc. etc., and it falls down around me 30 days later, the fact that I was a moron does not proetect the people that looked me in the eye and told me the house was in fine shape and worth the money I paid for it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The truth is, the fact that the purchaser was a moron MIGHT very well protect the people who sold the house. It all depends. Most State's standard realtor's contracts are written with language in them to protect the sellers and realtors if the buyer waives their right to an inspection. Sometimes, for new construction, warranties will apply even without inspections. Sometimes, for known defects, there are certain disclosure requirements. Some defects might cause the house to fall down 30 days later, and might have been findable by an inspector or termite inspection, but they are not things a seller would be deemed to have known about and the seller is not necessarily going to be responsible if the house falls down around the buyer's ears later.

A buyer who didn't get a house inspected, and didn't have it properly insured after purchase, might indeed have to eat the costs if the house falls down around them. Just wanted to point out that most of these things like this are not black and white. Different facts are important to different people.

Hopeful Hunter

Jul. 12, 2004, 05:54 PM

I've got no comment on this situation, save to say I'm sad to see all of the parties being dragged through such speculation -- it cannot help any of their reputations, business or standing and it's a pity to see this happen. I don't know why the suit was filed or the merits of any case, but it does bring up an issue that I'm curious about:

What kind of a sales contract was involved?

It seems to me that there really is NO way to "guarantee" a horse will behave or win or (insert word of choice) the EXACT SAME WAY as when it's being tried on home turf. Horses are not motorbikes, they are living creatures who respond to changes and stimuli in unpredictable ways. Now, I'm not saying that clear, gross misrepresentation is OK (the "show horse" that never saw a ring with more than two other horses, for example, or something) but to some extent it seems to me you pays your money and takes your chances with a horse, so to speak.

I wonder how the sales contract was written that the plaintiff feels there is cause for a suit? And I wonder if something could be learned to produce a "better" contract wherein both buyer and seller understand the limits of any representations. Just pondering...

Lord Helpus

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:19 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
And as Lord Helpus said, the fact that Mr. Ayres is sitting under a suspension doesn't help his case any, IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the record, I never said this. ESG is mistaken and I would like to make that clear.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> it cannot help any of their reputations, business or standing and it's a pity to see this happen. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, maybe not "THEIR" reputations, but perhaps more of this sort of thing will finally wake this industry up a bit and create a more professional atmosphere at ALL levels.

To many shamateurs out there parading as pros, I say. Let 'em get sued. I got sued for no reason (and won), taught me a heck of a lot, though. Now, I CYA thoroughly and am brutally honest as much as possible. If you survive it, it's a good learning exprience (I don't mean to minimalize this occurance, though--I have sympathy for all of the parties involved, but collectively, it may be a good thing.).

elizabeth

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:31 PM

(1) I wonder why Equiventures didn't just take the horse back and refund the money at the first smell of trouble (before someone got hurt). They certainly would not *have* to, but why ask for the headache and litigation?

(2) What kind of insurance could Equiventures have that would cover this? No, seriously - does anyone on this board who is a trainer who sells horses have insurance to cover this kind of situation? (Asking purely of ignorance.)

(3) Today's tacky question: Does Equiventures likely do better, financially, than the average horse business? (Read: Does Equiventures likely have a fair amount of cash on hand?) See point 1 above - I would have thought most horse-sales-people would just take the horse back and refund the purchase price at the first sniff of trouble, to avoid the headache. Unless Equiventures didn't have the cash on hand to be able to do that. . . . (And I say that with the full knowledge that the horse business is a tough business to make a buck in. Which is why I asked the tacky question about Equiventure's financial picture. Please forgive the tastelessness of the query, but I figured worse has been bandied about on this board. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

findeight

Jul. 12, 2004, 06:39 PM

There are alot of trainers who deal in sale horses but fall short of the sale barn definition who would have made good on somebody unhappy 10 days into ownership...but may have offered another horse or the purchase price...not anything extra..these are details we do NOT know.

I doubt anybody or any court would go punitive damages after 10 days when the buyer purchased a greenie and represented themselves as an experienced horseman or a pro.

Jumphigh83

Jul. 12, 2004, 08:15 PM

I really really think this is a slippery slope. As professional horsemen now do I really want to sell ANYONE a greenie? even after they have tons of milage they could still "act like a horse" and sppok, bolt, rear, strike etc etc etc. Those who think this a "just" suit (assuming the vitriol here is even close to the truth) may never get to buy a horse with out consulting TWO sets of attorneys!!! The buyers AND the sellers! All due respect to those in the profession whom I admire (Eliz being one) this seems to be completely burdensome and will make horse buying and selling a VERY (much more than now) expensive proposition. This kind of thing makes me VERY nervous as a professional horseman..... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/no.gif

Anticipation

Jul. 13, 2004, 04:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by runspotrun:
That is a shame. Too bad this story is all too commen in h/j world. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

very true. This happened to me when buying my first horse. I had been riding for 2 months and my trainer told me that this 4 year old chesnut mare would be perfect for me. He aced her everytime I rode her until I purchased her. I ended up having to sell my very first horse at an auction because no one could ride her. I was a heart-broken 10 year old :-(

Box-of-Rox

Jul. 13, 2004, 04:57 AM

pwyn--

I don't konw if this is relevant, or if i misunderstood your post, but the sellers in this case are about as far from shamateurs as you get. They are REALLY good professionals who have won a lot and sold a lof of horses who had won a lot (and for those suspension list fans) continued to win a lot at a variety of barns that they were sold to.

the professional-ness (and ism) of the buyer, on the other hand, I am not so sure about. Partly because I don't know her/have never heard of her, and mostly because of the fact that she's suing.

Tiramit

Jul. 13, 2004, 05:06 AM

I have a 2-part question for those who have a more intimate understanding of this situation... Has the horse been returned to Equiventures (it would appear so if they have had a chance to film the horse after the accident)? And if so, has a refund been refused (as would seem the case because of the first part of the suit - the $30k)?

CuriosoJorge

Jul. 13, 2004, 05:51 AM

"To many shamateurs out there parading as pros, I say. Let 'em get sued." [sic]

I have to echo BoR on this one... the shamateur parading as a pro is not the one GETTING sued in this instance.

17hTBmare

Jul. 13, 2004, 06:08 AM

Thanks Fuzzy--I mean the Chapman's lawyer. Obviously, my only legal training comes from the sporadic watching of Law & Order re-runs!

Lord Helpus

Jul. 13, 2004, 06:19 AM

Since we all are ASS-U-Ming up a storm, I will join in

The story says that the Plaintiff (NOT the prosecution, as an earlier poster pointed out -- this is NOT a criminal case, but a civil action) is suing for, inter alia, $30,000 which represents the value of the horse.

If sellers/defendants had voluntarily taken the horse back and returned the buyer's money, this would not be an item of damages.

~~~~~~~

Also, from the original article:

"We have hours and hours of videotape of this horse showing him to be as gentle as a lamb," Randi Vladimer, who represents Ayers and Stima, told the Associated Press."

Evidently, we have a poster in the BB who actually took these "hours and hours of video tape" after the horse was returned to Seller's Farm (I I am misquoting anyone, please correct me). So, the horse is now back at seller's farm, but, evidently, no money has been returned to buyer.

As a ligator, I would be able to have those tapes thrown out in court in a New York minute. They were taken while the horse was back under the control of the Seller, and after the injury had occurred when litigation had been threatened, if not actually filed. As Buyer's attorney I would argue that the tapes were tainted because Plaintiff's premise was the Sellers had drugged the horse to make it appear "calm and quite" for the purpose of selling it to Plaintiff. So, I would argue, how could the court trust that the horse was not drugged in the tapes which purported to show that the horse was calm and quiet once back at Seller's farm again?

If these are indeed the facts, it seems like such a no brainer of an argument, that paying $1.29 for each video tape was a waste of money.

I would be interested to know from the poster who took the tapes what different fact situation will make the tapes admissible. At this point, the only value I can see for the tapes is to mention them in newpaper articles in an attpempt to shore up defendant's case in the court of public opinion.

~~~~~~

And from the second article:

''We have hours and hours of videotape of this horse showing him to be as gentle as a lamb,'' said Vladimer. ''This lawsuit is frivolous.''

''This horse is a legitimate show horse,'' she said. ''It never did what she alleges it did. It has never done it before or since.''

Again, from my time as a litigator, I distrust any attorney who uses words like "never" in sentences when she could not possibly know for a fact what she is talking about. She was not there, she did not see the horse during the timeperiod in question. Yet, I am sure she did see the resutls of the injuries, or at least the hostipal emergency room records. So she is, at best, being ingenuous when making such a statement. It is also a total non-sequitur to say: "This horse is a legitimate show horse. It never did what she alleges it did." OBJECTION, Your Honor! Assumes facts not in evidence (and which, since they are not true, cannot ever be put into evidence by anyone with half of a truthful brain.)

Anyone who can look a reporter in the face (or issue a written press release) and say these things makes me tend to not believe anything else that person says. She is talking to impress people who will read the newspaper and not to communcate provable facts. If she is speaking as an unknowledgable horse person without a clear grasp of the facts, then (IMO) defendants will be better served by getting themselves an attorney who knows what the heck he is talking about.

This is the type of attorney who gives the rest of us a bad name. I hate hyperbole over truth.

"If it doesn't fit, you must acquit!!" Sound familiar?

Reggie

Jul. 13, 2004, 07:05 AM

They did take it back to see if it was different than when they sold it to her and found that it was the same horse. They offered to sell it for her but asked her to pay board since one cannot predict how long it takes to sell any horse. She agreed to pay board and then filed suit.

Tiramit

Jul. 13, 2004, 07:12 AM

Thank you for writing all that LHU, that's exactly where I've been headed in my mind.

NinaL aka Chrissy

Jul. 13, 2004, 08:19 AM

If you are referring to my posts, Lord Helpus, then, yup, you misquoted me http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif .

Unless a post has been deleted I was the only poster who mentioned the time frame of the video tapes but I did not take the tapes and nowhere in my posts did I claim to take the videotapes. I was merely aware of the time frame because I spoke to Scott.

The only reason I brought up the time frame of the video tapes was because someone wondered why the sellers had bothered to get hours and hours of video tape before selling the horse.

I am a computer nerd not a lawyer so I don't know (or really care) about the legalities of the whole situation. Frankly, legal stuff makes my eyes glaze over (tit for tat - that is the way most people look when I talk computer stuff *heh heh*).

Anyway, I quite agree with you about the value of those video tapes (even though my eyes are glazing as I type this http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ) and I wonder why the attorney even brought them up - it proves nothing except the disposition of the horse at the time the tapes were taken and only what the defendents choose to portray. However, the fact is that the horse's so-called poor behavior is only anecdotal - there were no witnesses to the circumstances surrounding the incident.

Just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding. However, I have known Jeff, Scott and Donna for years and I am sorry that this whole incident has transpired over a requirement to pay the board on the horse until he is sold.

Nina

NinaL aka Chrissy

Jul. 13, 2004, 08:42 AM

In addition

Since we are assuming here, for all we know, Ms. Chapman lost her temper and was jerking on the horse's face with a chain shank. Or, she was just stupid and was letting the horse walk behind her (recipe for disaster but something I see people do all the time). Heck, I do it myself. But not with the young 'uns. They are required to march at my shoulder. I'm not suicidal most of the time http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif.

You know, this whole thing really irks me. If Donna had purchased an OTTB through Canter, got hurt and filed a similar lawsuit against Canter how many of you would be rolling your eyes at her behavior. I mean, it is an OTTB, it is bred to run, it is young, she should be smart enough to realize that the horse may not behave the same day to day. Etc., etc., etc.

However, she purchased a 4 year old, just broken warmblood for a large sum. Who was represented to be quiet. Well, I don't know your definition of quiet but my warmblood is a plug and he can still have his moments. And since those moments involve Giant Svedish/Holsteiner Hooves (tm) I can only imagine the damage they could do if I was in the proverbial wrong place at the proverbial wrong time. But since it was a lot of money he should act perfect all of the time.

Most of you don't know Donna and don't know her riding skills (I do and I think she would be a little bit out of her element on a big moving sporthorse type) but you want to pass judgement on the seller?

Huh?

Maybe Jeff and Scott should have prevented her from buying the horse but the way I heard the story was that she insisted on purchasing the horse despite reservations by the sellers. Although, the reservations about the horse mostly concerned the way he used his front end from a tight spot not his disposition.

Not sure about the contract, Hopeful Hunter, but, based on my conversation with Scott, no one in the future is gonna buy a horse from Equi-Ventures without a very detailed bill of sale.

Nina

Flashy Gray

Jul. 13, 2004, 09:09 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> Not sure about the contract, Hopeful Hunter, but, based on my conversation with Scott, no one in the future is gonna buy a horse from Equi-Ventures without a very detailed bill of sale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nina, thanks for your perspective on all of this. The above statement makes me sad, another instance of the need for extreme CYA in today's litigation-happy society.

LH's post was spot on, too, with regards to the quotes in the press by one of the lawyers in this case. And Betsy was correct in her 'slippery slope' assesment.

Having read the rest of the posts on this thread (and elsewhere) that came up after I had logged off for the day, I want to apologize to those close to the situation if any of my general speculations came across as accusatory or damning to either of the parties in this situation.

I don't know either of the parties, I don't know the horse, I don't know what happened, I'm not anyone other than a random BB poster.

I guess I read those 2 articles and was posting thoughts as kind of an academic excercise, although I did take care to state that I was basing my opinion solely on the 2 articles. I do think that it's an interesting legal case, that's all. But real people's livelihoods and interests are at stake and I forgot about that in my musings.

Guess I just needed a healthy reminder that this BB is made up of real people who have intimate knowledge of this rotten situation. So to Nina and Bells and anyone else who is an "insider" on this situation, please accept my apologies and know that I wasn't speculating to be hurtful to anyone. Sorry again and thanks for understanding.

Tiramit

Jul. 13, 2004, 09:11 AM

Nina, for my part, I've been commenting on the case and how it has been presented to the public, not the specific people involved. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

wanderlust

Jul. 13, 2004, 09:20 AM

Funny how a few posts by someone who actually knows what the situation is can change the entire slant, huh?

It now appears that Jeff was trying to do the right thing- take the horse back, evaluate whether something had happened or if its behavior had changed, and then get it sold for Ms. Chapman. And she has the audacity to sue him because he wants her to pay board while he markets a horse that he was kind enough to take back instead of saying (like almost any other trainer would have said) "Tough shit, you bought him, you vetted him, you own him."??? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Yet another example that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, especially in the horse world.

SGray

Jul. 13, 2004, 09:44 AM

more than one poster on this thread has stated or implied that a purchaser would be a fool to buy a horse without having blood drawn for a full drug panel -- is there a presumption that sellers routinely use tranqs./sedatives/depressants/etc. these days as a tool in mispresenting the temperment of the horse that they are marketing?

Heather

Jul. 13, 2004, 09:45 AM

See for me, it hasn't really changed my view. (My view being, that I have no idea who is right or wrong here).

I wouldn't expect the defendants to be doing anything other than defending themselves. Even if they are 100% guilty, are they going to say to aquaintances (or even close friends) , "Yep, we really screwed her and sold her a total lemon." Of course not, of course they are going to say, that they did nothing wrong, and that they are being unfairly persecuted. Even if by some wild streak of imagination, they did say such a thing to a close friend, would that friend then come and post that here? Of course not, a friend will defend their friends, and paint them in the best possible light.

Similarly, I wouldn't expect the plaintiff to say, well, yes, I'm way too inexpereinced to buy a green horse, and I was handling him poorly, that's why I got stomped. Nor would I expect her "friends" to come on a BB, and say, "Yeah, boy, she's a total moron with horses and a bad rider to boot, and was an accident waiting to happen."

Nobody who is writing here is in ANY shape to give a clear, dispasionate account of the facts. Anyone close enough to the parties in this case to have "information" has a personal ax to grind (a friendship or aquaintance they care about, a business relationship to protect, etc.), and therefore are incapable of not having a bias.

So no, reading these posts hasn't changed my mind. I still think there are a lot of questions on both sides of the fence, and that it's possible that no one is at fault for bad luck with a young horse, that the defendants sold a misrepresented animal, or that the plaintiff did something to cause the incident.

However, speaking as a dispasionate third party observer, the fact that the defendants have multiple dug-related suspensions on their records makes me significantly less likely to view them as scrupulous, moral, and ethical people. But were I juror, though that may "taint" my opinion, I would still want to hear and see all the facts and particulars of the incident and animal in question to make a decision. (Just because someone is immoral doesn't necesarily make them capable of criminal or at lest legally sketchy behaviors).

Reggie

Jul. 13, 2004, 09:52 AM

Jeff and Scott have tried to do the right thing by taking the horse back; which presents another issue. Now, they have a horse that, due to Ms. Chapman ,they can not sell because she has labeled said horse as unruly or dangerous. They would not represent such an animal so they have a lovely 4 yr old WB that they can do nothing with but feed and look at. Not a good situation for any of the parties involved.

Silver Bells

Jul. 13, 2004, 10:56 AM

This whole saga could be titled "Lost In Translation". So many interpretations, innuendos, and speculation. Sheer conjecture!
One thing is for sure, this whole situation is frivolous.

JulieMontgomery

Jul. 13, 2004, 11:20 AM

Compared to what?

Gold Dust

Jul. 13, 2004, 11:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Flashy Gray:

Guess I just needed a healthy reminder that this BB is made up of real people who have intimate knowledge of this rotten situation. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Message that in many situations on many bbs some can have tendancies to forget. You never know who is on-line who everyone is for real and who reads this board.

elizabeth

Jul. 13, 2004, 02:29 PM

Re slippery slope and all thet:

Betsy is certainly justified in being worried about sue-happy buyers. Frivolous litigation does nobody a favor except under-employed lawyers. But this case does not really smell like that sort of case to me (of course, what do I know. . . .).

And here's the thing that makes me scratch my head: If folks are right that Jeff took the horse back, and it is a safe horse as opposed to an "unruly" horse, why couldn't he just re-sell it quickly?

He's a big name; he's got contacts. Even if he had to re-sell the horse at a $5,000 loss or something, why wouldn't he, just to wash his hands of the deal?

I'm not passing judgment on anyone, and I'm not trying to . . . imply anything about either party or their honesty. This just strikes me as a weird situation. It just does not sit right with me:

(1) The woman does not sue for punitives.
(2) The woman likely does not need cash (or else she would have sued for punitives).
(3) Equiventures takes the horse back (but has not yet unloaded it? or have they? or do we not know?)
(4) The buyer appears to have been around horses before and likely knows (like the rest of us) that horses are animals and are unpredictable.

That's why I asked about insurance and cash flow a page ago. Does Jeff likely have insurance that *would* cover this? That would be a shock to me. Does Jeff likely not have the cash on hand to pay the Chapman's back for the horse?

Weird, all this.

wtywmn4

Jul. 13, 2004, 03:33 PM

Thank you LHU for your very insite take on all of this. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Here's a question, why wouldn't sellers just have taken said horse back, refunded monies and be done with it? The horse would still be saleable, wouldn't be labled unruly & dangerous, and (drum roll please) no lawsuit. Doesn't sound all that hard to me.

blondy

Jul. 13, 2004, 05:03 PM

why not just give everyone a year lease with the option of returning the horse. I mean please, a sale is a sale. If this buyer won this suit, which she would not, it would undermind the entire contracting for the sale of a horse. I hope Jeff fights this so every crazy who has even the slightest problem with a horse they bought will think twice before threatening a suit. Unfortunately, the Chapmans have VERY deep pockets to pay their attorneys fees.

The Muffin Man

Jul. 13, 2004, 05:29 PM

Not seeing the "episode", one can only speculate what really happened.
I've seen "bomb proof" horses explode under the right circumstances.
For all we know, the horse could have been stung by a bee! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anticipation

Jul. 13, 2004, 06:03 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Flash44:

I could go on and on, but it's not unusual for a change in environment to provoke a change in behavior for the horse. Maybe the horse went into Chapman's barn and they did too much with him and he got a little muscle sore, making him mean. Maybe they did too little, maybe he just doesn't like being there. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

100% agreed, Flash. I brought my horse to a new farm about 4 months ago and he is a totally different horse. He has discovered that Donkeys are his greatest fear and he has not even begun to gt used to them yet. He is a nightmare around them.

xegeba

Jul. 13, 2004, 07:37 PM

Reggie! What is "unruly or dangerous" to one woman is "sensitive or emotional" to another. How good looking is this horse? I'm a sucker for the good looking, emotional and sensitive types.

Bea

Jul. 13, 2004, 08:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xegeba:
Reggie! What is "unruly or dangerous" to one woman is "sensitive or emotional" to another. How good looking is this horse? I'm a sucker for the good looking, emotional and sensitive types. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 05:25 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Lord Helpus:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
And as Lord Helpus said, the fact that Mr. Ayres is sitting under a suspension doesn't help his case any, IMHO. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

For the record, I never said this. ESG is mistaken and I would like to make that clear. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, LH - your post was right under jr's, who did make this statement. My apologies for assigning the wrong quote to the wrong poster. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_redface.gif

Magnolia

Jul. 14, 2004, 05:30 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>more than one poster on this thread has stated or implied that a purchaser would be a fool to buy a horse without having blood drawn for a full drug panel -- is there a presumption that sellers routinely use tranqs./sedatives/depressants/etc. these days as a tool in mispresenting the temperment of the horse that they are marketing? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would, just because $30 K is a lot of money, and you never know.... And it wouldn't be a presumption (just like I wouldn't buy a house without a termite inspection, though I'd assume the house to be termite free!), it would be a precaution - due diligence.

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 05:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by elizabeth:
Re slippery slope and all thet:

Betsy is certainly justified in being worried about sue-happy buyers. Frivolous litigation does nobody a favor except under-employed lawyers. But this case does not really smell like that sort of case to me (of course, what do I know. . . .).

And here's the thing that makes me scratch my head: If folks are right that Jeff took the horse back, and it is a safe horse as opposed to an "unruly" horse, why couldn't he just re-sell it quickly?

He's a big name; he's got contacts. Even if he had to re-sell the horse at a $5,000 loss or something, why wouldn't he, just to wash his hands of the deal?

I'm not passing judgment on anyone, and I'm not trying to . . . imply anything about either party or their honesty. This just strikes me as a weird situation. It just does not sit right with me:

(1) The woman does not sue for punitives.
(2) The woman likely does not need cash (or else she would have sued for punitives).
(3) Equiventures takes the horse back (but has not yet unloaded it? or have they? or do we not know?)
(4) The buyer appears to have been around horses before and likely knows (like the rest of us) that horses are animals and are unpredictable.

That's why I asked about insurance and cash flow a page ago. Does Jeff likely have insurance that *would* cover this? That would be a shock to me. Does Jeff likely not have the cash on hand to pay the Chapman's back for the horse?

Weird, all this. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with elizabeth on this. This may sound silly, but the first rule of any customer service industry is that the customer is always right. I know many people both on and off this board that buy and sell, and if a horse isn't satisfactory, they will take it back and refund the money, end of story. It's not good for a seller's reputation to even be percieved as dishonest or negligent, especially a BNT such as Jeff and Scott apparently are. And for them to choose to get into a pi$$ing contest over a $30K horse with someone so prominent (not to mention influential and resourceful) as Donna and her family are is sheer foolhardiness on their part, IMHO. Sometimes, as a seller, you have to suck it up. Sometimes you don't. Apparently, in this case, they should have. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

As for the "slippery slope", a question for all you attorneys out there; would not a simple "Buyer understands and is aware that this horse is not guaranteed or warranteed for any purpose or use whatosever" in a sales contract that the buyer signs pretty much put the kibosh on a suit like this?

lisa

Jul. 14, 2004, 06:01 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Reggie:
Jeff and Scott have tried to do the right thing by taking the horse back; which presents another issue. Now, they have a horse that, due to Ms. Chapman ,they can not sell because she has labeled said horse as unruly or dangerous. They would not represent such an animal so they have a lovely 4 yr old WB that they can do nothing with but feed and look at. Not a good situation for any of the parties involved. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ummm... but according to them, the horse is *not* unruly or dangerous. So why wouldn't they represent him again? If, in fact, he is the "lovely 4 yr old WB" they say he is, since he's back in their program, they should be able to find another buyer who agrees with them. If he's not fancy enough to win in the pro divisions, I would think they could get a kid or an adult to ride him in the 3', or even in the pre-childrens(adult), probably sooner rather than later, since he's so quiet and calm.

Palisades

Jul. 14, 2004, 06:45 AM

I'm guessing the problem with reselling him is that he has now acquired a reputation (deservedly or not) that would make him a lot less attractive to potential buyers. Even if he is quiet as a mouse, the amount of publicity he's now gotten for being a "dangerous" horse is likely to scare people away. After all, there's no way to prove that he's quiet and sweet all the time, and accusations of drugging made here and elsewhere could cause people to suspect him even if he's well behaved at Jeff's farm.

A similiar situation happened a few years ago up here. A woman was riding her very quiet horse one day and apparently had a touch of heatstroke- horse tripped, she was unable to keep her balance, fell and broke her neck. Not the horse's fault in any way, but it sure hurt his reputation and made him very difficult to sell.

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 06:45 AM

Excellent point, lisa. I too would like to know the answer to this question. Also, as for the horse being labeled as dangerous and unsellable, I would ask, "By whom?". It's not like everyone knows these trainers or this horse, after all. I never heard of them until now, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Not to say I know everyone, as I certainly don't. But if the horse is truly calm, quiet and an easy ride, why can't they ship him off to another trainer's to be sold, and just change his name for heaven's sake? If he is as the sellers have represented him, no one would ever know that this is the "notorious, dangerous" horse.

Methinks Ms. Donna's case is gaining in credibility, the more I think about it............. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif

Clydejumper

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:01 AM

Whatever happened to buyer beware.

Kinsella

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:14 AM

A quick thought on why they haven't sold him... Could it be that at this point he is still more or less evidence? And if they have not refunded her purchase price - even if they have the horse back on their property - he is not theirs to sell anyway. He may be the cat's meow, but right now he is unsellable due to the circumstances.

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:21 AM

Another excellent point.

wanderlust

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:38 AM

ESG, I'm not sure what world you live in, but it is NOT standard operating procedure for trainers to take horses back weeks or months after the fact and refund the entire purchase price, and certainly not if the price tag is approaching mid-5 figures or more. Additionally, how many of these horses with large price tags do you think are actually owned by the trainer? If it belonged to a client or investor and the trainer was acting as agent for the sale, is he supposed to call his client weeks later and say "Oh, that $30k I gave you for that horse you asked me to sell... I need the money back, because the buyer wants to return him, so he didn't really sell, you still own him and need to start paying board/training/etc until we get him sold again."? Come on now, are they? Or are the trainers supposed to come up with the cash out of their pockets to buy the horse back?

Really now, does Jeff not refunding her money and instead offering to re-sell him for her seem so unreasonable?

Oh, and ESG, if you have no idea who Jeff Ayers and Scott Stima are, you really aren't so well-connected and versed in the A hunter/jumper world as you pretend to be, now are you?

wanderlust

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:42 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
As for the "slippery slope", a question for all you attorneys out there; would not a simple "Buyer understands and is aware that this horse is not guaranteed or warranteed for any purpose or use whatosever" in a sales contract that the buyer signs pretty much put the kibosh on a suit like this? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. The accusation of fraud will allow the case to continue. If fraud is proven, it can unwind/reciss the contract.

Palisades

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:49 AM

I second Wanderlust- you may not know Jeff Ayers, but I would venture that the vast majority of the hunter world does. The horse may not have been well known before this, but I bet he is now that 90% of trainers and sales agents are watching this case VERY closely. I don't know many trainers who would show a horse that has been labelled as dangerous or a rogue to clients that they wish to keep in their barn. Not fair to the horse, perhaps, but those trainers don't need the risk.

Do you really propose that the best solution would be for Jeff to change the horses name and ship him off to someone else to secretly sell him before anyone figured out which horse it is? Give me a break. That would be opening himself up to charges of fraud and negligence should the horse, heaven forbid, ever sneeze on his new owner after they'd figured out who he really is.

elizabeth

Jul. 14, 2004, 07:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Palisades:
Do you really propose that the best solution would be for Jeff to change the horses name and ship him off to someone else to secretly sell him before anyone figured out which horse it is? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would have figured that a smart trainer, who KNEW the horse was not dangerous but just a normal, unpredictable animal (if that is indeed true) would go to Jeff and say "Buddy, I'll give you $27,500 for the horse right this moment."

A good horse is a good horse is a good horse.

But, as was mentioned, I don't know if Jeff would need to hang on to the horse right now for evidence purposes. And, actually, now that I am thinking of it, if I were Jeff, I'd be riding that horse every day, making it the best-trained, and most well-mannered horse in my string. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 09:07 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wanderlust:
ESG, I'm not sure what world you live in, but it is NOT standard operating procedure for trainers to take horses back weeks or months after the fact and refund the entire purchase price, and certainly not if the price tag is approaching mid-5 figures or more.

I never said it was. I said I know of several folks on and off this board that sell, and that they do guarantee customer satisfaction. 

Additionally, how many of these horses with large price tags do you think are actually owned by the trainer? If it belonged to a client or investor and the trainer was acting as agent for the sale, is he supposed to call his client weeks later and say "Oh, that $30k I gave you for that horse you asked me to sell... I need the money back, because the buyer wants to return him, so he didn't really sell, you still own him and need to start paying board/training/etc until we get him sold again."? Come on now, are they? Or are the trainers supposed to come up with the cash out of their pockets to buy the horse back?
I wouldn't presume to know what others do; I was only stating my experiences. Lighten up, will you?

Really now, does Jeff not refunding her money and instead offering to re-sell him for her seem so unreasonable?

Oh, and ESG, if you have no idea who Jeff Ayers and Scott Stima are, you really aren't so well-connected and versed in the A hunter/jumper world as you pretend to be, now are you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Excuse me, but I never said anything about being connected, well or otherwise. If you would actually read my posts instead of skimming them, you'd see that I definitively stated that I DON'T know everyone, thus qualifying my experience. Go out and ride, or do something constructive, will you? Jeez! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

witherbee

Jul. 14, 2004, 09:22 AM

I agree that it is not always possible to take back a horse - sometimes the owner would not be willing or able to, and, depending on the timeframe, sometimes the horse is not in good condition. Some of those very things that make a horse change from what was expected at tiem of sale can also cause damage to the horse. They may now have back and or leg/foot conditions that would make them tough to sell, not to mention the mental issues that may have developed. You'd have to re-vet the horse that you sold in order to take it back and reasonably expect that you could re-sell the horse. You'd also have to disclose the prior problem in case the new owner has issues, which would significantly reduce the horse's value IMO. I think a good contract up front helps.

RioTex

Jul. 14, 2004, 09:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
This may sound silly, but the first rule of any customer service industry is that the customer is always right. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope the customer is not always right, but the customer is always the customer. If the business is worth it, you decide how to handle the situation. I don't have enough facts to venture a guess about any of this, but this won't be the first horse to end up in this situation, just the one we are talking about today.

SGray

Jul. 14, 2004, 09:32 AM

that's quite reasonable Magnolia - thanks

(though I still wonder about those that seemed to condem a buyer if they had not drug tested)

wanderlust

Jul. 14, 2004, 09:33 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Excuse me, but I never said anything about being connected, well or otherwise. If you would actually read my posts instead of skimming them, you'd see that I definitively stated that I DON'T know everyone, thus qualifying my experience. Go out and ride, or do something constructive, will you? Jeez! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, the irony of this statement coming from ESG... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

CuriosoJorge

Jul. 14, 2004, 09:49 AM

Wanderlust, I am proud of ESG.

She managed to reply without using italics.

http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 10:46 AM

True, but my use of color more than compensates for the italics, don't you think? http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 10:47 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wanderlust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Excuse me, but I never said anything about being connected, well or otherwise. If you would actually read my posts instead of skimming them, you'd see that I definitively stated that I DON'T know everyone, thus qualifying my experience. Go out and ride, or do something constructive, will you? Jeez! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, the irony of this statement coming from ESG... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooh, pot meeting kettle again, I see.............http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif

wanderlust

Jul. 14, 2004, 11:26 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Oooh, pot meeting kettle again, I see.............http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, more like calling a spade a spade. And trust me, if I could be out riding instead of chained to this damn desk trading insults with you, I certainly would. What is your excuse? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Dezi

Jul. 14, 2004, 01:15 PM

If they want to send this poor horse to AR, I would be happy to oblige. He would fall off the face of the earth, as no one here would care in the slightest as to his checkered past.

Now take into consideration that he would have to become an eventer, so the decimal place for the price would have to move one "0" to the left!!!!

Box-of-Rox

Jul. 14, 2004, 01:18 PM

elizabeth--know trainer KNOWS that the horse is a good horse. You can get people who know Jeff, and say "well, he has nice horses, and they do well, and i'm sure if he bothers to have it in his barn it's a nice horse," but what if it really isn't a nice horse? People would need to know this person, who, although her parents might be big in the Tb world RIGHT NOW, I think most people have never ever heard of. She MIGHT be the absolute shit and the horse is really a psycho.

Someone would have to know both parties, and be able to say "Jeff's cool, she's not, she probably screwed with the horse." I don't know anyone who's able to say that about either party conclusively in this case. and furthermore, if the horse's behavior was habitually poor as the seller claims, then something must have happened to it. Either she was not nice to it, it was on something and came off it, it was in a program and she didn't keep it up, it doesn't adjust well to new places, whatever: At the end of the day, there are enough nice 4 year olds in that price rance around for someone to not go running for an apparently poor jumping horse that's already had a bad experience.

ESG

Jul. 14, 2004, 05:23 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by wanderlust:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by ESG:
Oooh, pot meeting kettle again, I see.............http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, more like calling a spade a spade. And trust me, if I could be out riding instead of chained to this damn desk trading insults with you, I certainly would. What is your excuse? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Arena's being worked, and it's 105 degrees out. That's why I have lights. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

jumping for joy

Jul. 20, 2004, 06:21 PM

I happen to know how Donna Chapman treats her horses and it is with the utmost care. Her horses are well taken care of and if anything, spoiled. This horse in question did not "throw " her, as it is suggested. He trampled her, knocked her unconscious, broke her hand and caused other injuries, including a concussion. He was given the benefit of the doubt after this happened. Maybe a bee sting, maybe a candy wrapper as someone suggested. It only became evident that this horse has a screw loose when he repeatedly tried to injure people on the ground when he was being handled. He wasn't sent back until he displayed this behavior several times, in front of several people.I've handled 4 year olds and younger and you can tell when a horse is frightened by something or he doesn't understand what you want and when he explodes for no reason, with no warning. If the horse was "on something" when it was vetted, the vet failed to test for the drug that Jeff has been known to use on his horses and has been repeatedly suspended for using at shows. This wasn't apparent until after the test had been done and there was no blood left to do additional testing. As far as I know, there was no "agreement being worked out" when the suit was filed, as was printed in the paper.
I have seen how Donna handles her horses and I respect her knowledge of horses and that is more than I can say for the "trainers" at Equiventures.

Kellsboro Jack

Jul. 20, 2004, 07:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumping for joy:
He wasn't sent back until he displayed this behavior several times, in front of several people. .... If the horse was "on something" when it was vetted, the vet failed to test for the drug that Jeff has been known to use on his horses and has been repeatedly suspended for using at shows. This wasn't apparent until after the test had been done and there was no blood left to do additional testing. As far as I know, there was no "agreement being worked out" when the suit was filed, as was printed in the paper. I have seen how Donna handles her horses and I respect her knowledge of horses and that is more than I can say for the "trainers" at Equiventures. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm .. so, you register today on this BB under the veil of a generic user name and say you know of some details of the case. For the most part you added little except to claim that one of the Equiventures partners has used drugs on horses in some nefarious actions. Sounds like slander to me, but of course done so in an anonymous sense with no risk to you.

I don't know any of these people and frankly never likely will. However, I personally cannot stand people who take career-impacting shots at anyone behind the veil of being nothing more then Jane Doe.

xegeba

Jul. 20, 2004, 09:06 PM

Just because I have way too much time on my hands, I felt compelled to type this. IF these trainers and client had a long standing relationship and the client , for whatever reason , wanted to return the horse, and was WILLING to wait for the horse to be sold ... but resented that the trainers wanted to charge her board... DUH! Dumb business decision on trainers part not to take the horse back and not charge a penny for anything. Too bad if their first commission was eaten up in the process... at least they haven't burned a bridge that has future potential to make them money(forget about their reputation). This statement is based on previous posts. It is a generic statement and in no way implies any knowledge(on my part) of any real dealings between any real persons, past, present or future.

heelsdown

Jul. 20, 2004, 10:00 PM

I feel compelled to reply to this on behalf of the horse involved, whose name is "Blue", as far as I can surmise. A four year year old Trakehner, likely a large horse, is sold to an ammy rider and there is a terrible incident that implies a malicious nature of the horse, within a short period of it's purchase and relocation. Hmmm. Having a bit of experience with this breed and young horses in general my ears prick up. Someone else mentioned in a previous post, crucial perhaps, that one should not lead a horse so that you are walking in front of them. A mistake all too often made. A horse should be lead with you at his left shoulder and, most important, a chain properly thread through the halter (properly means in the hole on right, looped over the noseband and then through the right hole, not over or under the noseband). Young horses are famous for trying to "run on top of you" and so can they all. Control begins at stage one. I don't want to conjecture what might have happened with Donna, (and I am so sorry for her injuries), but this was a young horse, and a horse, an animal that is inherently unpredictable. Now if she or anyone else can tell me that this horse seriously cornered her and trampled her with vicious intent, that's another thing entirely, and if it was that bad then the animal should have been immediately destroyed.

All I know is I rode a five year old Trakehner that was accused of being a killer, supposedly on purpose, he inflicted major physical damage to a woman who claimed to a be a trainer, who later also sued the owners, tried to claim that they had drugged the horse... aye aye aye.... I rode horse for months, brilliant lovely horse. Yes he could be pushy when I collected him from his paddock, and I always had a chain over his nose, and yes he would try to cowkick when I tightened his girth. Was he a killer? No Way. Could he have been dangerous to someone else? Maybe, who knows. A young horse being led with a cotton lead rope, feeling good, being led by an owner that just doesn't expect it... I can see how it could happen. When you've been around well seasoned show horses you just don't expect these things to happen. You might forget the fact that this is a young and green horse, and not take the proper precautions.

I'm happy to report that my Trakehner renegade eventually shed his moniker of "killer" and never did another thing to merit such a black mark. I will always love him and if the lottery comes my way he'll be the first horse in my stable.

In this cae I'd give the horse a few extra chances, if only because he was such a baby, after all they are often not started till they are five, maybe it was just all too much and he had a horsey nervous breakdown. If so he can recover, I have hope for him, Blue is just a baby. But then again I wasn't there and if he was aced when he was tried (or some other drug) and he had been known to have these issues in Jeff's barn before he was sold then all bets are off and I would have no compunctions about following suit.

Heather

Jul. 20, 2004, 10:05 PM

How is it slander to point out that the trainer in question has been suspended multiple times for drug violations?

Back in journalism school we learned part of making a slander case was that the statement had to be false. The trainer in question is suspended now, I believe, for such a violation (or if not now, then has just recently finsihed a suspension), and has been suspended previously.

If that is a career harming statement, then they have no one to blame but themselves. I'm not in the h/j world at all, but I knew Jeff Ayers' name solely from the number of times I've read it in the back of Equestrian.

jumping for joy

Jul. 21, 2004, 04:00 AM

I registered because I just became aware of this particular forum and was tired of reading posts from people who have no idea what happened. Also, due to the law suit, I wasn't sure what I could say and could not say. The speculation that certain incidents took place that never did prompted me to post.The horse was properly being brought in from the pasture, not "lead" as was printed. The writer of the story is probably not a horse person and used the word "lead" to describe what is done when a horse is brought in. I don't think, and this is my opinion, that the writer meant to imply that Donna was walking in front of the horse, as I have seen her bring horses in from the pasture many times. There are often young horses, off the track, at her facility. She is well versed on how to handle young, high strung horses. Some of the previous posts have that she is inexpeienced in handling horse. This isn't true.
In addition, the sale was never completed because there was no bill of sale, no papers and no coggins was ever given to Donna. Without a bill of sale or a receipt other than a canceled check, it seems to me that Jeff still owns this horse that injured Donna. He agreed to take the horse back without having Donna sign a boarding/training contract. He contacted her after the fact and told her that she owed him money for training board! If Jeff simply returned the horse and resold it, he could have refunded Donna's money and none of this would have happened. If he stood behind his "product" like most reputable people would, we would all be talking about something else! The bottom line is that they were friends and he took advantage of their freindship.

ESG

Jul. 21, 2004, 06:03 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by xegeba:
Just because I have way too much time on my hands, I felt compelled to type this. IF these trainers and client had a long standing relationship and the client , for whatever reason , wanted to return the horse, and was WILLING to wait for the horse to be sold ... but resented that the trainers wanted to charge her board... DUH! Dumb business decision on trainers part not to take the horse back and not charge a penny for anything. Too bad if their first commission was eaten up in the process... at least they haven't burned a bridge that has future potential to make them money(forget about their reputation). This statement is based on previous posts. It is a generic statement and in no way implies any knowledge(on my part) of any real dealings between any real persons, past, present or future. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Exactly what I was thinking, x. Couldn't agree more. Thank you for posting this. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/yes.gif

Reggie

Jul. 21, 2004, 06:44 AM

hey Jumping for Joy..you better be sure of your facts before you post stuff on the BB. Apparently you must be friends with Donna since you are defending her. Explain then how she got kicked in the head 2 years ago leading a horse into its stall, or how she pulled another one over on top of her, or how she bought one last fall and after 2 months didn't like it so told the person she got it from she wanted to return it (but wnated more than she paid for it since she had it for 2 months). When that seller said they would not pay what she wanted she threatened to sue them too. Do you see a pattern emerging here???

Flash44

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:03 AM

It doesn't matter what kind of lead rope/chain you are using on a horse, and how you have it attached to the horse, it only works then the horse is moving away from you.

A horse that has learned to move INTO the handler has learned a very dangerous behavior, since the handler can't really keep the horse off of him without a whip, stick or other weapon.

I've known several horses where the barn rule was "2 handlers at all times."

I'm a small woman, and although I have a lot of experience with crazy horses (race track), it's apparent to me that big strong men have an easier time controlling horses on the ground than I do. Who knows what really happened to the horse in question at the new owner's facility, but it's more than possible that the bad behavior was present prior to purchase, and the horse just did not have an opportunity to exibit the behavior while at the sale barn.

Midge

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:05 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumping for joy:The horse was properly being brought in from the pasture, not "lead" as was printed. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't it called 'lead' or, past tense, 'led'? http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
In addition, the sale was never completed because there was no bill of sale, no papers and no coggins was ever given to Donna. Without a bill of sale or a receipt other than a canceled check, it seems to me that Jeff still owns this horse that injured Donna. . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So, she just gave Jeff the money represented by the cancelled check? And wanted nothing in return? So is it a lie when a merchant post a sign that says, 'Your cancelled check is your receipt'???

RioTex

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:23 AM

I am still amazed at the number of people that think this is the seller's problem. Why is the buyer (ANY buyer) not responsible for 1) due diligence in deciding if this is an appropriate horse for their needs 2) obtaining a thorough vet check, including any drug testing they might feel necessary 3) living with the chioces they make?

Not every purchase is going to work out the way we hope it should, but the reason people don't send horses out on trial is because once they leave your control, there is no telling how they will be handled or react to another person.

I am sorry that someone was injured, but for pete's sake, when are we going to become accountable for our actions. If the buyer had given up riding for ice hockey, no one would expect the seller to take the horse back without board while he was for sale.

Heather

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:38 AM

Let me turn that around on you RioTex, (and this is not a discussion of the sellers in question, just a more general question)

At what point are we going to demand that our horse folk behave like moral, and ethical professionals? When will we have a system in place so that getting screwed by an an unscrupulous seller isn't considered "one of those things that happens to newbies" and drives potential participants away from our sports in droves? When will the BUSINESS of horses actually be run like a business, not an exclusive club?

The truth of this, and many, bad situations probably lies somewhere in the middle. Buyer who wants more horse than they should probably have, seller more eager to make a sale than make a good match. But both scenarios are equally true and neither should hold the moral high ground--some buyers do a poor job buying a horse and then handle it poorly, and some sellers lie, cheat, drug, and otherwise do anything to make a sale.

SGray

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by RioTex:
I am still amazed at the number of people that think this is the seller's problem. Why is the buyer (ANY buyer) not responsible for 1) due diligence in deciding if this is an appropriate horse for their needs 2) obtaining a thorough vet check, including any drug testing they might feel necessary 3) living with the chioces they make?

Not every purchase is going to work out the way we hope it should, but the reason people don't send horses out on trial is because once they leave your control, there is no telling how they will be handled or react to another person.

I am sorry that someone was injured, but for pete's sake, when are we going to become accountable for our actions. If the buyer had given up riding for ice hockey, no one would expect the seller to take the horse back without board while he was for sale. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

RioTex - I agree with your #1 and with your #3 but take exception to #2. I don't understand why the buyer should be responsible for paying for checking for drugs at all much less for all the various ones that could be used. The $s you pay for drug fees at shows are a minute amount of what the actual testing costs - which is hundreds. Which, sure, it make a certain amount of sense to spend hundreds when you are purchasing a horse for tens of thousands - but shouldn't that vet-check $ be going for x-rays, etc rather than drug testing.

If the seller is unethical - drugs the horse to mask whatever problem from the buyer - the seller is perpetrating FRAUD plain and simple.

RioTex

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:49 AM

Heather, no doubt. Just because I conduct ethical business does not meant that everyone does. It also means there are people that I am and am NOT willing to buy from or sell to.

But we are not talking about a newbie here, are we? I guess if I did not know going in who I was dealing with, I simply would not trust them and would do everything in my power to protect myself (which probably would include testing for meds that the seller has been publicly known to use on other horses).

RioTex

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:54 AM

SGray, I personally have never had a drug screen pulled on a horse, but if a buyer is concerned about that, then they should have it done. I am pretty sure that it is common practice to pull blood and only test if need be, the expense of which should be minimal.

I think something else to consider is that if you don't trust someone, you probably should not do business with them, any business, not just horse business.

Is it any more or less ethical to skip disclosure of a flaw in the X-rays or heart defect or what have you? We check for those things in a pre-purchase or take a bigger risk when we do not. I am not trying to legitimize any actions by either party, because I don't know anything about this deal, but I do think it up to the buyer to protect themselves.

pwynnnorman

Jul. 21, 2004, 07:59 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> 2) obtaining a thorough vet check, including any drug testing they might feel necessary <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This is the part I have a problem with. It's not like you can order (and/or afford) a "blanket" drug test, you know. And there's new stuff out there all the time.

No, I don't think anyone should be expected to cover drug testing. The very need to do so points to fradulent/negligent behavior on the part of the seller--entirely different from other sales issues.

Janet

Jul. 21, 2004, 08:34 AM

I have no idea if this is what happened here.

But many young horses go through a "bratty teenager phase". After months of being model citizens, they suddenly "think": "Hey, I am bigger than you. How 'bout if I be in charge now?"

If the handler responds appropriately: "No way, you may be bigger, but I am smarter, and more dominant." the reaction is likely to be "Oh well, I guess it was worth a try. But it didn't work".

If, on the other hand, the handler backs down, the formerly well behved horse decides he IS in charge, and starts doing all sorts of bad things.

Flash44

Jul. 21, 2004, 09:24 AM

Horses often behave very differently for different people. I've owned my horse for 9 years, and consider his manners both on the ground and under saddle impeccable. And he's easy, rarely puts a foot wrong.

However, there have been occasions with other people handling him where he has refused to load onto the trailer, refused to jump, dumped riders, etc.

wanderlust

Jul. 21, 2004, 09:24 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Midge:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by jumping for joy
In addition, the sale was never completed because there was no bill of sale, no papers and no coggins was ever given to Donna. Without a bill of sale or a receipt other than a canceled check, it seems to me that Jeff still owns this horse that injured Donna. . <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, she just gave Jeff the money represented by the cancelled check? And wanted nothing in return? So is it a lie when a merchant post a sign that says, 'Your cancelled check is your receipt'??? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Midge, you are 100% correct (according to Mr. WL, a corporate attorney). The cancelled check represents the contract (aka the bill of sale/receipt). With the exception of cases of outright fraud that can be proven (for which Ms. Chapman would probably need positive blood tests showing the horse had been drugged at the time of purchase), disputes in sales without explicit written contracts are usually determined by what is considered reasonable and customary in the industry. In this particular case, "caveat emptor."

jumping for joy, you may want to do a little more legal research (and try some common sense) before you claim that since all Jeff has is a cancelled check (which Ms. Chapman clearly wrote for the purchase of the horse, right?), she doesn't actually own the horse. Nice try. http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/lol.gif Believe it or not, even in the 21st century, verbal contracts and "intent" are legally enforceable. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/uhoh.gif The facts that she wrote a check for the purchase price of the horse, the check was cashed by the sellers, and Ms. Chapman took the horse home is pretty clear evidence that she owns the horse, I would think. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Silver Bells

Jul. 21, 2004, 02:34 PM

Thank you Wanderlust for putting this into perspective. I totally agree.
I know there are alot of people paying very close attention to this case, and it's outcome. Either way, this situation may assist in bringing accountability, regulation, and consistency to the horse industry.
I truly believe that Jeff Ayers, knowing Donna as well as he does, would have never have sold her an unrelaible horse. I also know how persistent Donna is and can be. She "wants what she wants, when she wants it."
Why can't people be more like, when I get mad, I just take my toys and go home...

sit up

Jul. 21, 2004, 02:56 PM

Regardless of what really happened, I would think that Jeff Ayres wouldn't want this type of publicity. I would think that it would be worth his while to just take back the horse, put in whatever training it needed to get back on track and then sell it again. Of course hindsight is 50/50.

Yes, he might lose some money this way but I think he's gotten way more than $30,000 worth of bad publicity on this sale plus the out of pocket legal fees that I am sure are racking up.

I don't know JA but after all of this, I would think long and hard about purchasing a horse from him unless my trainer had a long standing relationship with him. Even then, I would be wary.

Now, put this all together with his current drug suspension...well it would have to be one heck of a horse to make me shop with JA. There are just too many nice horses out there with honest trainers representing them.

Oh, and about the dealers willing to take horses back. I think that there are many who will within a certain time frame. That's one of the reasons that I feel comfortable paying a reasonable commission. Realistically, I am "buying" the peace of mind from someone's reputation. It is everything. People buy horses off of videos and maybe one trial ride. It is completely necessary to have the horse be represented by an honest professional. If that means that the horse gets returned well, a $10,000-$20,000 commission pays for a lot of hay.

Dustin Hoofman

Jul. 21, 2004, 02:57 PM

Thank goodness we have all these knowledgeable folks to help us sort out the legal issues. http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

As to what happened with the horse's behavior, has anyone heard of "dominance aggression"? This is a term that I have heeard applied to dogs that I thought explained the behavior of a couple of horses that I knew.

One horse in particular I frequently rode and handled with no problem at all. He was so easy that I was very skeptical when I started to hear stories about how mean he was to his owner. I wondered what she could have possibly been doing to him.

And then one day I saw it and couldn't believe my eyes!! This nice sweet horse really was trying to attack his owner while he was on the cross-ties http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif, and I am talking about biting and striking...aggressive behavior, and not based on any kind of fear at all.

He never behaved like that with me. I guess he decided that his owner was on a lower rung on the pecking order and he was trying to see just how far he could knock her down. Yikes, I've never seen anything like it, but I swear that that horse was sweet as pie with me! It just wasn't a good match, but not one that we found out about until the two of them interacted for a while.

WWCountry

Jul. 21, 2004, 04:22 PM

Silver Bells--you obviously don't know JA very well!

Silver Bells

Jul. 21, 2004, 05:02 PM

A CONTRAIRE WWCOUNTRY.... never ever presume!

findeight

Jul. 21, 2004, 06:14 PM

Do we have any new FACTS here?

wtywmn4

Jul. 21, 2004, 06:27 PM

Seems like the same old ones, just different takes on them. Pesonally, I don't think anyone will ever know exactly what happened with the horse and Donna. Unless they were an eye witness. Which from what we are reading, no one was.. If indeed she was knocked unconcious, then memory might not be seeing it fully.

4whitesocks

Jul. 23, 2004, 05:11 PM

What Woderlust and Silver Bells have to say you would think that you did not know JA or Donna at all.
The first thing that made me have to comment is you Silver Bells "Jeff Ayers has never been known to be dishonest." Now let us keep things on the up and up. Jeff is a great teacher and trainer especially at big shows when you really need him, but to say he is not dishonest is an out and out LIE. I can think of many times that he was SO DISHONEST with a sale of a horse and the people were screwed. At least DONNA CHAPMAN has the guts to stand up to him and the loosers that stand behind him and get paid by him.
Anyone that thinks Donna is some typical ammy with horses in the back yard is SOOOOO WRONG.

4whitesocks

Jul. 23, 2004, 05:18 PM

another thing that Donna has to her advantage is that Lawyers cost alot of money. They are hourly employees. I believe that Donna has more in her corner than JA does. More power to her!

situpandride

Jul. 23, 2004, 06:11 PM

I don't know these people and I don't know any of you people on the bb but I have worked for a few horse dealers and nothing surprises me.
I've also seen people buy totally unsuitable horses, or get them home and wreck perfectly nice horses.
sounds like one of these people involved should have known better, hard to know which one tho.

wanderlust

Jul. 23, 2004, 07:35 PM

Hey 4whitesocks... its "wanderlust" not "Woderlust." http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

And just so we're clear, I don't personally know *either* party. I just get annoyed when people draw ridiculous conclusions (like "even though she wrote the check and took the horse home, legally Donna doesn't own the horse." http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif), brag about their friends' ability to pay lawyers, or use incredibly bad grammar or sentence structure (on the last two counts, that would be you, 4whitesocks).

Makes me much less sympathetic to your friend's cause.

Silver Bells

Jul. 24, 2004, 06:26 AM

First of all 4WHITESOCKS.... I know both parties involved very well... as you probably know. Secondly, I NEVER used the word dishonest. You need to get hooked on phonics, since your comprehension and grammar skills are inept.
We all can agree that Donna's pockets are deeper than Jeff's. I am willing to wager that Donna's attorney is doing this on a contingency fee basis. Unfortunately Jeff's expenses are probably out of pocket.
So 4WHITESOCKS, please refrain from your tirades, it really brings out your common streak!

MsHunter

Jul. 24, 2004, 06:36 AM

I have refrained from commenting until now.
I have done business with JA.

I have never known him to be dishonest on the buy or sell end with me.

Quite a ways back we bought a horse a client had trouble riding. His description was " alot of step, great jump, hard to ride, was crashed into an oxer more than one time, and gets tough the last line to the jumps". That is only part of it.

We were allowed a trial, took the horse home,
he cared whether it was suitable ( customer on a big budget)

Needless to say, we bought the horse for less than 10,000 and my client went on to WIN in the pre adults for a LONG time in fact, always Champion or Reserve.

On the buying end, he always talked to us about how much the customer COULD spend on a young horse, keeping THEIR budget in mind.

Whether someone likes him, or his training or riding methods is a separate issue from sales.

I only know my business conducted with him was always on the up and up.

I refuse to get involved in this particular matter, as I have NO IDEA or information about it.

4whitesocks

Jul. 24, 2004, 03:45 PM

So because you think my grammer and comprehension are in need of help has nothing to do with what the facts are.

The Muffin Man

Jul. 24, 2004, 04:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Silver Bells:
First of all 4WHITESOCKS.... I know both parties involved very well... as you probably know. Secondly, I NEVER used the word dishonest. You need to get hooked on phonics, since your comprehension and grammar skills are inept.
We all can agree that Donna's pockets are deeper than Jeff's. I am willing to wager that Donna's attorney is doing this on a contingency fee basis. Unfortunately Jeff's expenses are probably out of pocket.
So 4WHITESOCKS, please refrain from your tirades, it really brings out your common streak! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's just nasty! http://chronicleforums.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

ShowJumps

Jul. 24, 2004, 04:48 PM

You can go on forever about the she said/he did stuff but doesn't it all come down to young horses weigh a lot and can be unpredictable? I have a two year old who has been on and off my van about once a week for a year. Most of those have been short 2mi trips to my trainer's. Recently they have been 1-3hr trips to major shows to do in-hand classes. He has always loaded and traveled like an old campaigner. The last show he jumped down the ramp while dragging me under him and ran with us finally stopping about 30 feet away (me still under him). My husband saw it happen and claims I never actually hit the ground until the end. Bob's scrambling legs kept me rotating underneath him until he stopped. Luckily I escaped with lots of bruises, skined knees and a severly wrenched wrist. I know many ehibitors were freaked out by his behavior but it was my fault. My guard was down. I had been teaching 'dressage 101' to camp kids at my trainer's place all day along w/judging a mini show only to rush back to my barn and load up. It was 10:30pm by the time I got to unload Bob after a 2 1/2hr trip. I was exahusted and he is a baby. Stuff happens. I am sorry that Donna was injured but isn't this a risk we all take? There are so many reasons a horse can 'turn' when it's life style changes dramatically... Or maybe my opinion is just jaded because I am tired of people not taking responsibility... http://chronicleforums.com/images/custom_smilies/sigh.gif