PDA

View Full Version : USET files lawsuit in NJ Court against Alan Balch July 9



Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 09:01 AM
I do not have th details of the lawsuit, yet, but, I do know this was filed as the USAEq was having their Board meeting - and graciously SEATED the USET Board members who were not eligible to be seated due to non-payment of dues. (see the post on the Meeting thread.)

I am starting a new thread about this because it is important. Here is what Julie Montgomery posted on the subject:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well, now that the subject of the original lawsuit has been broached.....

The rumor that Caruso heard is not a rumor.

It is fact.

On July 9, as the USET group (Leone, et al) was attending the USAE board meeting in Lexington, a countersuit was filed by the USET in response to the original suit filed by Alan Balch (as a USET trustee) so that the financial info would be made available.

I do not know the exact contents of the countersuit, but a part of it concerns removing Alan Balch as a USET Trustee.

For what? Demanding to see USET financial info that he is entitled to see anyway? Info that all of us are entitled to see?

I believe that John Strassburger has a copy of this suit (a/k/a "the latest USET antic").

Perhaps he can have Erin confirm this, and I certainly hope he will write another commentary about this latest silliness.

So let this be clear...... as the USET folks sat at the July 9 meeting, their minions "back at home" were filing yet another suit - a countersuit.

How they must have giggled at filing it on the very day of the July 9 USAE meeting. Giggling like, ah, children.

I feel sorry for the USET at what it has become, and sorry for the board members behind this bunch - who obviously care not a whit or are too stupid to know that they are being led like lemmings to the sea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 09:01 AM
I do not have th details of the lawsuit, yet, but, I do know this was filed as the USAEq was having their Board meeting - and graciously SEATED the USET Board members who were not eligible to be seated due to non-payment of dues. (see the post on the Meeting thread.)

I am starting a new thread about this because it is important. Here is what Julie Montgomery posted on the subject:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Well, now that the subject of the original lawsuit has been broached.....

The rumor that Caruso heard is not a rumor.

It is fact.

On July 9, as the USET group (Leone, et al) was attending the USAE board meeting in Lexington, a countersuit was filed by the USET in response to the original suit filed by Alan Balch (as a USET trustee) so that the financial info would be made available.

I do not know the exact contents of the countersuit, but a part of it concerns removing Alan Balch as a USET Trustee.

For what? Demanding to see USET financial info that he is entitled to see anyway? Info that all of us are entitled to see?

I believe that John Strassburger has a copy of this suit (a/k/a "the latest USET antic").

Perhaps he can have Erin confirm this, and I certainly hope he will write another commentary about this latest silliness.

So let this be clear...... as the USET folks sat at the July 9 meeting, their minions "back at home" were filing yet another suit - a countersuit.

How they must have giggled at filing it on the very day of the July 9 USAE meeting. Giggling like, ah, children.

I feel sorry for the USET at what it has become, and sorry for the board members behind this bunch - who obviously care not a whit or are too stupid to know that they are being led like lemmings to the sea. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

ohnowwhat
Jul. 11, 2002, 09:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
but, I do know this was filed as the USAEq was having their Board meeting - and graciously SEATED the USET Board members who were not eligible to be seated due to non-payment of dues. (see the post on the Meeting thread.)

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


So it's true! No good deed goes unpunished.

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:06 AM
Whaddyabet AL left the meeting so he could catch a plane that would get him home before the news of the lawsuit broke?

I'd love to see the pleadings. Julie Montgomery, do you know of a place where the complaint might make it online?

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:09 AM
Fine.

Bring it on. I can't wait to read the reasons AB can't see the financials. Is this also why Mrs. Johnson wasn't sent them? Will she now be added to the suit? Why weren't they sent to her? Will everybody who asks for them be counter-sued? Cool.

How embarrassing, indeed, Julie, for these board members to find themselves behind these leaders. To be an EQUESTRIAN among EQUESTRIANS, a proud and noble group, to be such at that Board mtg. on 7/9 and listen to AL respond to Mrs. J and never even mention this countersuit. Did the USET folks all know and nobody said anything? Well, aren't they just peachy.

To not have the common decency to say, in response to Mrs. Johnson's query, that as a matter of fact, a counter suit was in the works and currently being filed. How nice.

I hold to the hope that our Olympians will act like OLYMPIANS and say enough is enough.

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Jul. 11, 2002 at 02:07 PM.]

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:17 AM
Delivered to USAEq offices on July 10.

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:18 AM
I think JulieMontgomery might work for the NJ Courts, not the USET.

I don't believe the current management of that group ARE her leaders.

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:24 AM
vineyridge, I wasn't for a moment making a comment to Julie Montgomery about herself. Please don't think that. I was agreeing with what Julie wrote: <<I feel sorry for the USET at what it has become, and sorry for the board members behind this bunch - ...>>

and saying that yes, I feel sorry for these Board members, too, who are really, I believe, talented, productive, knowledgeable people who have the ability to proudly lead our WONDERFUL sport, and please, please, Board members, DO IT!

[I edited my earlier post so as to be clearer (I hope)]

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Jul. 11, 2002 at 02:08 PM.]

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:31 AM
nor do I work for the USET. Nor do I live in NJ.

Take the time to read this (hope I link it correctly):

www.horses.about.com/cs/english/a/eqalanmeet2433.htm (http://www.horses.about.com/cs/english/a/eqalanmeet2433.htm).

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:36 AM
and no, Alan is not my cousin. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

All kidding aside..... read Nancy Jaffer's article carefully. Pay particular attention to the quotes from those of the USET contingent.

Even as they spoke concerning the meeting, they knew that a countersuit was being filed. They planned it to coincide with the day of the USAEq meeting.

Anyone who thinks that the filing date was a coincidence, raise you hand!

And these are adults?

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vineyridge:

I'd love to see the pleadings. Julie Montgomery, do you know of a place where the complaint might make it online?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I would imagine that the USAEq will make it a part of their website, since they like things to be open and aboveboard.

Or, perhaps someone could call the USET and ask them to send an attachment containing the countersuit info ..... naturally, then you should wait right by the computer holding your breath! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Rye
Jul. 11, 2002, 10:45 AM
I can't comprehend why this has gone on as long as it has. Personally I am tired of hearing about it and perhaps if we have to sit out an Olympics, the outcry of the equestrian community will motivate these childish brats to work on a solution.

Coreene
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:02 AM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

Portia
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:20 AM
Anybody can file a lawsuit in this country. All it takes is a piece of paper and a $100 filing fee. That doesn't mean it has any merit.

I hope what they filed is a counterclaim in the existing New Jersey action. If so, it will be heard by the same judge who last year ruled that, while AB's motivations in filing the action may not have been solely to vindicate his duties and rights as a USET Trustee and may have been to benefit USA Eq in the challenge, every one of his complaints about the USET's failure to comply with New Jersey corporate law and failing to allow its trustees access to information to which they have an absolute right was completely justified and valid under the law. The judge ruled against the USET on every one of the claims on the merits.

I haven't seen the suit and don't know what allegations or alleged claims the USET is asserting. I'm guessing (and this is pure speculation, so take it for what it's worth), that they are arguing something along the lines that with the operating agreement being gone and them having changed the USET constitution, they no longer have to keep the USA Eq president on their board.

Maybe they don't have to keep him on their board, but I doubt it matters much at this point whether AB is on the USET board or not. USA Eq is going to go forward with being the NGB in every respect, and the USET can either participate or not. If they don't want to try to work something out, then USA Eq is going to file the arbitration, and whether or not the USOC's order is legally valid will be a question for 3 neutral arbitrators to decide (in a proceeding that is required by law to be public).

Or they may be contending that AB has breached his fiduciary duty of "undivided loyalty" to the USET and therefore should be removed as a USET trustee. Except, Armand Leone, Eric Straus, and some of other USET board members who are also on the USA Eq board solely by virtue of their direct appointment by the USET will have exactly the same problem. As USA Eq board members, Leone and Straus owe a duty of undivided loyalty to USA Eq.

If AB has breached a fiduciary duty by defending USA Eq's position as NGB, then AL and Straus and some others have breached their fiduciary duty of loyalty to USA Eq in exactly the same way, or worse in fact, since they are the have been the aggressors and were the ones who filed the Challenge in the first place. And they have continued to vote at USA Eq board meetings on NGB issues, while AB has abstained from all of the USET board votes on NGB issues, except perhaps one. (I believe he voted against the USET filing the Challenge on the basis of its expense to the USET, but given that they had already filed the Challenge and the USET board was consulted only after the fact, I think his vote was appropriate.)

Portia
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Coreene:
Mr. Bonaparte, I presume?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yep, Coreene. He could do with a good dose of old fashioned Willem Wisdom. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

dublin
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:24 AM
Portia, will the upcoming Arbitration decision be binding on the parties?

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:30 AM
I think they thought they had it in the bag, it was a done deal and Alan Balch was going to be exiled from the industry.

Tom Struzzerri assured them he had the votes. The program was orchestrated and the scripts were written. The people to take his place were all in the wings waiting to go on stage. Jane Clark flew in her minions of the old guard on her private jet for the celebration which had been planned and afterall there was no point not to file to have Alan Balch removed from their Board once he was exiled.

Then a little thing happened on the way to court, Alan had the loyalty of his Board Members who refused to give in to the arm twisting. The USAE did not capitulate! The script had changed and what to do? The law suit was filed and their case collapsed because Alan was not yet exiled so what grounds were available.

No doubt Sheila Johnson was next to get dumped. No doubt that those athletes who had not been loyal subjects were to be chastised. The plans were all in place for a complete victory.

But, then by 3 PM it became clear that Struzzerri had overestimated his capacity to stage manage the meeting. The votes were just not there.

Too late, the suit had been filed it couldn't be re-called and the cat was out of the bag.

Now the world will know that the USET is not an honorable association of gentlemen and ladies.

HemisphereDancer
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:54 AM
I think she has so much to offer the future of equestrian governance -- she's smart, savvy, and knows something about marketing and building a business.... and fiscal responsibility! Shame, shame on USET if they bounce her off the board because she stood up to AL (and pissed him off) while exercising her fiduciary responsibility!

I think AL picked the wrong woman to argue with. BET has been a very generous sponsor, and USET can ill afford those sponsorship $$$$ from walking out the door.

Something is sooooo wrong when those who have fiduciary responsibility have to sue to exercise it!

Just my $0.02

Portia
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:58 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by dublin:
Portia, will the upcoming Arbitration decision be binding on the parties?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just about absolutely, positively. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif There are some defined bases for challenging an arbitration award in court, but they are very limited and rarely successful.

We have to be prepared, however, that the arbitration award may not finally resolve everything. If the panel were to affirm the USOC ruling, then the two orgs would still have to work out how to consolidate to implement that ruling.

If the panel were to rule (as is my very strong belief) that the USOC exceeded its statutory authority in making that ruling (by trying to order things other than the 4 specific things it is allowed by statute to order, or by trying to convert a challenge into a grievance) and/or otherwise failed to follow the law in either its final order or any of its preliminary rulings, then USA Eq would remain the NGB, for now.

However, if it wanted to, the USET could file a grievance (as opposed to a challenge) with the USOC, or the USOC on its own could pursue one, and start over. After a properly conducted grievance proceeding, the USOC could declare a vacancy if it found that USA Eq did not meet the requirements to remain the NGB. My personal opinion is that is very unlikely to happen, as the last thing the USOC wants is an actual vacancy under which it would have to try to govern the sport. (Can you imagine the chaos that would cause?)

Alternatively, the USET could try to pursue another challenge proceeding to become the NGB. However, I believe that is highly unlikely. Among the grounds that USA Eq would likely raise in arbitration for reversing the USOC action is that the USOC should have dismissed the USET challenge early on as a matter of law on various grounds, including that the USET did not and cannot meet the express requirements for sustaining such a challenge. If the arbitral panel ruled to that effect in its award, the USET would have no basis to pursue another challenge.

My personal belief, however, is that the above is very much a worse case scenario. I think the arbitration award, one way or the other, will be the end of it.

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 11:59 AM
Snowbird, think about what you said. You said that "Jane Clark flew in her minions for the celebration that had been planned." Do you really mean that? I dunno, there's something about that sentence that sticks in my throat. Do you really think she flew in a private jet so she could gloat, and now you are the one gloating.

Sorry, I don't mean to give offense & I, too, are very irritated at all this stuff, but somehow that crosses a line for me.

Also, think about this sentence:

<<Now the world will know that the United States Equestrian Team is not an honorable association of gentlemen and ladies.>>

I'm not saying you don't mean this, or that it's not how you truly feel, but think about it. The UNITED STATES EQUESTRIAN TEAM is not honorable.

How awful.

I guess I keep thinking that some people in a worthwhile organization are not being honest, but that the organization itself is valuable and most of the people aren't self-serving & nasty, just most of the people don't have the means/courage/gumption to stand up and be counted.

So people, is it true? Is the United States Equestrian Team a group of not honorable men and women? I can't go that far.

Portia
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:05 PM
My understanding is that Ms. Clark did fly in Gunter Seidel from Germany for the meeting, and possibly some others sympathetic to the USET cause who otherwise might not have attended.

However, Snowbird's characterization and perception of that action is her own opinion (to which she is entitled, just as we all are entitled to our opinions). /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Coreene
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:06 PM
Isn't it just staggering how Small Man Syndrome manifests itself in so many different ways?

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:10 PM
The hell of this is that most of the people on the USET board of trustees are honorable, without any doubt.

I bet that many of them are even more appalled by this turn of events than what is being posted here. But what do or can or should they do?

If they resign, they turn things totally over to Leone, Clark, and those people.

If they object, they are subject to the same treatment as Balch.

If they are silent, they just suffer, and so does everyone else.

They ought to be getting together now to stop this kind of thing, because now it is clear that USET will stop at nothing to remove any independence of mind from its board. How to get it done?

What an awful day for USET and our whole sport.

Glimmerglass
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by HemisphereDancer:
BET has been a very generous sponsor, and USET can ill afford those sponsorship $$$$ from walking out the door. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

With the Johnson family having divested from BET ownership the company has only a contractual agreement lingering. Accordingly, BET sponsorship will cease at the end of this year.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:27 PM
Herr Seidel didn't even open his mouth.

So much for his contribution to the sturm und drang........

Anne FS
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:35 PM
Ahhh, but Portia, what do YOU think? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Do you think the United States Equestrian Team is a group of dishonorable ladies and gentlemen?

brilyntrip
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:46 PM
is I guess an opinion for each and everyone of us who watches this mess unfold and unfold and yet again UNFOLD!
I was so disgusted by the treatment Sheila Johnson got that words cannot express my feelings.
But just how honorable is it to sit in a room while you know your team is filing suit somewhere else??Honor ?? There is no honor here just a big fat mess!

Coreene
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:52 PM
That dear lady has done so much for our sport, and the treatment she has received simply reeks of pig ignorance.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:59 PM
It is not honorable to behave that way. It is squirrelly and undignified and slinky and downright "unsporting".

Mind you, no one is saying that it is "illegal" to file the countersuit in such a manner or on the same date as they are sitting in the USAEq meeting. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (Someone is bound to say, "Duh... if it isn't illegal, what's the problem man?" /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

It's legal, and to some, it may look ever so clever. But it looks sleazy and may not prove to be so clever at the end of the day.

poltroon
Jul. 11, 2002, 12:59 PM
It will be fascinating to see their grounds for this suit in light of the current environment where corporate boards are being held more responsible for actually overseeing their corporations - as opposed to the past, where in many cases a board was more ceremonial.

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 01:11 PM
I heard what I heard and what I saw not by hearsay but with my own ears and my own eyes was organized and the elation of those involved in what they fully expected to be the permanent exile of Alan Balch.

I believe my scenario to be plausible and based on my some 3o years of experience with the people involved I have no doubt that they all fully expected to be having a celebration.

Certainly, it is not honorable for people to be present only to seek the demise of one man. It is not honorable to be false in your presentation of facts. And, need I point out that they were there and seated for the purposes of trying to find some other resolution of the problems.

This was afterall the President of the USET, and an attorney who was elected to represent the USET Board in all business. Therefore, it is not an unfair assumption that they approve of his actions or he would not be in that place at this time.

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:00 PM
USAEq delayed making constitutional changes to make it more NGBish. They did not take action to set up their own international division. They have accepted USET dues and reinstated it as an affiliate organization. In short, they've been had.

Once USET learns about those things, which is another reason for AL to leave early, he calls with a go ahead on the suit.

There is no time difference, so AL had until about 4 pm to stop the filing. I think the meeting had made the necessary decisions before 4.

JMHO

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 02:39 PM
I think it was about 3 PM when a defining vote was taken that truly indicated the votes were not there. I didn't see AL reach for his cell phone. There was still some hope that TS would make his motion to ask AB to resign and that the votes they all thought were there would materialize afterall. I am certain that before the meeting TS was certain he had the votes to get a motion passed to require that AB would resign.

Perhaps, they felt that at least they would have some time before the actual hearing to still get it done.

Does anyone know if the Operating Agreement or some other required that the President of the USAE have a seat on the Board of the USET? I note that both the law suits are against AB and from AB were personal suits in his name.

Surely, if there was no agreement they would have dumped him along with the others who were not on line with the decisions otherwise.

I am anxious to know the actual terms and conditions or reasoning for this suit. It doesn't seem to me to make any sense to have bothered if AB were to retain his position on USAE.

HMMM! unlikely but does it mean that if the court says that AB is gone according to the USOC opinion that AL will be gone too? What benefit would there be for them to demonstrate they would comply if the USAE didn't comply? Anyone have access to the USET Board Meeting which is scheduled for next week?

Will the other members of the Board be equally as appalled as we are that such an action was taken? Were the other Members of the USET Board consulted before the suit was filed and do they therefore approve of the hypocracy?

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jul. 11, 2002 at 05:50 PM.]

marianne
Jul. 11, 2002, 03:21 PM
who also have the dressage arena named after them and are a "deep pockets" patron.

mbp
Jul. 11, 2002, 04:31 PM
actions.

Yep.

If you hold yourself out as a person of honor, you step up to the plate to make financial information correct, to make it available, to fulfill your fiduciary responsibilities to support the sport and not to spend $$$$ in personal vendetta suits against a trustee who does ask for financial information, you do not deceitfully go to make your peace at a public meeting while secretively filing nuisance suits, you don't hide behind closed door sessions, and most importantly - when your peers are doing all fo the foregoing, you do NOT sit in silence. That is NOT honorable.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>If they object, they are subject to the same treatment as Balch <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That has been my biggest problem with the whole debacle, the way in which someone who questions the good ol guys and gals club is so attacked and demonized for doing his job. Do honorable people sit back and shut their mouths while this goes on?

No.

I don't find it a hard question or hard answer.

Snowbird may go further and with more vehemence, but how can you reach the conclusion that what is going on is representative of honorable men and women? Or of an honorable organization.

And BTW - does the USET have the MONEY to go around filing personal vendetta suits??

I will never feel the same way about any of those people again - and I used to ROOT for any horse owned by the Browns. I thought, and still do think, that it was wonderful that the stepped in and bought Graf George away from the insurance swindler/horse killer. But I will never feel the same way about any of the USET heirarchy again.

If having an Olympic team means having to support such an organization - I pass.

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 11, 2002, 04:32 PM
to the meeting but you can bet your bottom dollar there were participants from the "other side" whose plane fare was gratis. Get real.

By the way, I consider Bill Stienkraus honorable. As well I do Frank Chapot, Jack Fritz and Bruce Duchossois to name a few. All of the above mentioned are Trustees and/or Officers of USET. Not to mention Bert, who is no doubt spinning in his grave over such a statement.

Most of the posters here are firmly planted on one side of this debacle. However, somewhere in the depths of the sub conscious, no matter who one favors, one must come to the conclusion that neither organization is squeaky clean.

Ray Texel made an excellent point at the meeting, re: no results, no job. And Armand also said basically the same in his statement about unsucessful CEO's.

Isn't that just what the USOC was trying to say?

mbp
Jul. 11, 2002, 04:44 PM
Jack Fritz resigned I believe.

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 04:49 PM
Sorry, Emmett, the people that you & I RESPECT, ADMIRE, ADORE (WORSHIP??) and ARE HONORABLE in this debacle are generally members EMERITUS on the USET Board, now.

That is, no power, no say.

from the USET web site:
William Steinkraus- Chairman of The Board Emeritus

Jack Fritz has retired and moved to the Chicago area. HE was a "Life Trustee" and staff member, regardless.

Frank is also a USET Employee, thus cannot take a stand, technically (conflict of interest).

Very sad.

And, even though I am firmly on the one side, NOTHING condones Armand Leone's behaviour on Tuesday - from his rudeness to Sheila Johnson and Karen O'Connor to his filing a suit as the USAEq was searching for compromise. Ungentlemanly and rude, simply put.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Weatherford
Jul. 11, 2002, 05:04 PM
Also, Directors all flew in under their own $$$$, as did observers.

There has been talk of reimbursement to Board and committee members who do attend meetings, but I am not sure where that went. I think Hearing committee members' expenses are now paid, but I am not sure of the others.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 05:13 PM
Jane Clark did fly people in.

I don't know anyone who did not pay for their own tickets. Certainly, no one paid for mine but me! and including at least two Directors that I know well enough to talk to them about it. Prior to the meeting we all were discussing various prices on various airlines and shared the information to get the best prices.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> you can bet your bottom dollar there were participants from the "other side" whose plane fare was gratis. Get real.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's funny how people can justify things because they can say well everyone did it. In this case that won't work.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>By the way, I consider Bill Stienkraus honorable. As well I do Frank Chapot, Jack Fritz and Bruce Duchossois to name a few. All of the above mentioned are Trustees and/or Officers of USET. Not to mention Bert, who is no doubt spinning in his grave over such a statement.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, unfortunately, guilt by association is not a new concept is it? I think however, even honorable people can be misinformed and ill advised about an action which they might not sanction. If they do sanction a dishonorable act then are they still honorable? I think we'd have to segment and say they are honorable as horsemen and not so honorable as a Member of the USET Board if in fact that Board sactioned such actions at all.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Most of the posters here are firmly planted on one side of this debacle. However, somewhere in the depths of the sub conscious, no matter who one favors, one must come to the conclusion that neither organization is squeaky clean.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

To me there is a big difference between not sqeaky clean and dirty.

NO! In my humble opinion the USOC was simply saying a pox on both your houses the only solution is to throw everyone out and start again. The point is that was choice E and F and they did not have that option. They had a multiple choice question with only answers to be chosen from A-B-C-D.

The mandate of the USOC is not to tell people how to run their associations, they can say only if one is acceptable or not acceptable. They can say you have 3 months to fix it. After the 3 months they can say you failed.

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 11, 2002, 06:36 PM
Those of you firmly planted on USAE's court are in the majority here.

Personally I don't think either organization is doing a bang up job. For example, why does it cost $300.00 to purchase an FEI passport from USAE when the actual cost of the document from the FEI is $65.00. It can't cost $235.00 to mail it and stamp it with the Fed's stamp. By the time all is said and done, the total cost to the applicant is in the range of $500.00. (BTW, one cannot obtain a passport directly from FEI, one must obtain it from your National Federation.)

As far as USET's errors, well y'all know more about that than I do.

Weatherford, don't take me so literally. I could have used Leslie's name in place of Frank's, Anne's name in place of Jack's, etc. and made the same point.

Snowbird, in my oh so humble opinion, referring to the "ladies and gentlemen" of the USET as dishonorable was a bit too far below the belt for my liking. I consider that sort of mudslinging the pot calling the kettle black. Nevermind it being unproductive.

All this rehtoric is the underlying reason nothing has been accomplished to date. After a five and nearly a half hour meeting, nothing has moved an inch.

What we members should demand is immediate action, in some positive direction. Until then, everyone involved looks like a bunch of spoiled children. Who's gonna be the hero?

brilyntrip
Jul. 11, 2002, 06:59 PM
No one could ever use my name as a supporter of AB OR AL I honestly think generally AB has done only ok.No one has been able to step up to the plate due to a few changes in the constitution I think I am right here . Weatherford please correct me if I am wrong .BUT ( big but here)until somone else comes along willing to do what has to be done then I have to just support USA eq leadership until someone else comes along .

At this point I can say I would NEVER support any of the current USET leaders because I honestly think 90% of this mess is due to personal vindictive ness.Sadly much of the vindictiveness may have come because of the treatment AB gave to former bigwigs at USA EQ ( formerly AHSA)But jeeeez louise get over it .. get past it go about your life. Work toward something that will keep what still does work working and be a part of the solution for the problems we still have .

It seems that many of the main movers and shakers here need serious medical help obsessive behavior is what is fueling this mess and its starting to resemble a mother that eats its young !

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:11 PM
Dear Emmet, Hopefully we are in the majority every where. I would hope that the rest of the industry and for that matter the world does not share such shoddy business practices.

I suppose you can rationalize by saying that Enron, Worldcom and Xerox are all just as bad or worse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As far as USET's errors, well y'all know more about that than I do.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guess that's why we have a justified opinion different than yours.

And I on the otherhand find it very unproductive when you call the "truth" and "facts" mudslinging.

Nothing moved an inch because the USET was not dealing in good faith. While they sat there making flat statements they were simultaneously filing a law suit in contradiction to their statements.

I remember all the rhetoric when AB filed just to get the financials. Imagine such a thing, how horrific to expect as a Trustee to know how much money was coming in and how much money was going out and where it was going. Shame on AB for such insulance certainly justifies exiling him.

The problem dear Emmet which seems to elude you is that no one can define what a positive direction is so no answer to your question.

There are four directions up to the high road and ignore what is, down to the low road where it's mean and dirty and we accept the reality of greed, sideways to the left and give it all away to feel good, or sideways to the right and in righteous indignation pull it all down.

What's your choice? You be the hero.

Beezer
Jul. 11, 2002, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by JulieMontgomery:
It is not honorable to behave that way. It is squirrelly and undignified and slinky and downright "unsporting".

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Merle, my resident backyard squirrel -- along with his wife, Pearl, and their brood of Earl, Burl and Shirl -- greatly resent THAT comparison!!

Proud member of the "Huh. I thought I'd fixed that" phase of baby green hunter ownership.

Snowbird
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:03 PM
I do not believe any animal with four legs is ever dishonorable. Snakes are slinky and they are eligible because they do not have four legs.

vineyridge
Jul. 11, 2002, 08:17 PM
Biz experts--

Not knowing about how corporations function, would it be possible for the USET to spin off their administrative division and for USAEq to spin off THEIR NGB functions, with each organization keeping its own debts, and the spinoffs going into a totally new corporation created just for the purpose?

That wouldn't be a consolidation of the whole shebang, nor would it be a merger of the whole shebang. It would create a fully functional NGB that focuses on the FEI aspects of the sport. Since no merger or consolidation of the two entities has occurred, then wouldn't each group get to keep its own assets and debts?

AHSA could keep all its current breeds and shows, and represent the hunter/jumper constituency in the new NGB as a constituent organization of the NGB.

The USET could continue to raise money for team under its own current organization, and continue to sponsor awards and classes.

In short, leave each organization whole, except for international administration, which would go directly to the new NGB. The governance of the new NGB would reflect the findings of the USOC that USAEq and USET have been co-NGBs from the beginning, so equal numbers and THE ATHLETES break the ties until the NGB gets going and the board is elected and composed of all the disciplines.

I think the problem is that each organization is so afraid of becoming superfluous that it's become a fight for survival. They can't see the forest for protecting their individual trees.

It just seems to me that neither organization is worth saving as is for an NGB, but that parts of each put together would make a very nice NGB.

And I guess I'm saying that I don't like the way the USET is and has acted, but I've come to favor their ideas about what an NGB should be.

The constituent organizations should run their own disciplines, and the NGB is over all like the godfather.

SoEasy
Jul. 12, 2002, 04:56 AM
of an NGB focused only on international is not the LEGAL definition of an NGB in this country.

Besides which it begs the question of delegating the functions of rule making and enforcement, drug testing and enforcement, training and licensing of officials, competition scheduling, and how to deal with the 'show within a show' things that result when your FEI class(es) are at a 'national' show, and the rules are VERY different.

Yes, this happens now, but you have 1 organization set up to make sure all the rules are followed - what happens when there are 2 or 3 organizations trying to enforce different rules? What happens when one organization sanctions a competitor and the other organization doesn't?

Beans
Jul. 12, 2002, 05:35 AM
that this is similar to a Merger & Acquisition situation in corporate America. Unfortunately these two entities don't get it! The USET seems like some kid in a sandbox - throwing sand in people's faces and the USEQ (is that the name now?)doesn't get the issue that no one wants to play with one kid in their group. BUT - they MUST play together - it's been decided.

So what should happen - IF (AND I MEAN IF) they were professionals? Well an outside firm would be hired to come in and evaluate both organizations, they would evaluate and create the structure for the new NGB, Organization charts and job descriptions would be created in writing and a business plan would be completed. Current employees would be asked to submit new resumes and be evaluated for suitability for the positions in the new NGB. Those that were qualified would be offered positions, those that weren't would be terminated.

Sounds a bit straight forward, perhaps cold in some ways BUT - that's life in the business world. Problem is these non-profits tend to function as though they are NOT business's - they crayon outside the lines ALOT and sort of smudge the details....it's time to kick butt, clean house and move on.

Snowbird
Jul. 12, 2002, 08:07 AM
If arbitration is the only solution then what will be put together is something like what you are describing.

The problem is everyone is dancing to a different tune. And, until the music stops and they stop dancing we can't accomplish anything.

I would guess that USET will link up with TS and they will go to arbitration with a whole package. And, I understand the USAE already has somewhat of a plan that would be complete without the USET.

Assuming that both plans are equally competent then the arbitration board will have to choose finally. What will be the criteria? USET with experience fielding teams or USAE with stability a large membership base and solid funding?

What then will the loser group do? Stay in competition with each side sanctioning different shows? Will they sanction the same shows two ways?
Whose rules will be enforced? We will have people who are members of either group and we will have members who belong to both groups.

We will have shows popping up sanctioned by the new association and running against shows sanctioned by the winner.

vineyridge
Jul. 12, 2002, 09:09 AM
My thought is that the AHSA would spin off all its Ted Stevens Act required functions to the NGB, and retain all its other functions and services to the individual riders, breeds and disciplines. For example, it would continue to license hunter judges and breed judges and stewards for local/national shows. It would continue to have show zones and points and awards. It would continue to require membership to show in its shows. BUT 1/4 of ASHA membership dues would go directly to the new NGB, and so would 1/4 of the dues from the constituent delegate organizations, whose individual members wouldn't have to pay dues to AHSA unless they wanted to.

The NGB would license judges and stewards for FEI disciplines and license labs and conduct all FEI drug screening. It would maintain the administrative structure for appeals and arbitrations for those disciplines. It would
maintain the rule book and international rosters. All of this would be fee for service, except maybe the rules. The rules for each discipline would be developed in conjunction with the FEI and the disciplines, and would apply the same in all competitions at all levels. If a constituent FEI discipline wanted its own rules for non FEI aspects of its sport, they could develop new ones where they didn't conflict with the International level rules and ask for waivers from the NGB for changes to rules that would conflict.

Every member of a discipline organization would automatically be eligible to compete at all levels, including internationally for one membership fee to a constituent organization.

Snowbird
Jul. 12, 2002, 10:37 AM
We got into this problem in the first place by allowing the USET to spin off and do it's own thing. The mandate is one organization from top to bottom.

poltroon
Jul. 12, 2002, 11:03 AM
So, vineyridge, in the scenario you propose, a judge who wants to have a hunter-jumper-equitation card for three disciplines will have to apply to two separate organizations for licensing. And hunter-jumper shows will have to have the jumpers drug tested by one org, and the hunters tested by the other. They will have to get sanctioning from both national offices. They will need stewards recognized by both orgs. What if they can't get the same date from both orgs?

poltroon
Jul. 12, 2002, 11:22 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Emmet:
Those of you firmly planted on USAE's court are in the majority here.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Emmet, I find myself firmly planted in the USA Eq court ... but that was not my first reaction when this all came up.

I would love to have a reason, any reason, to see the USET perspective. That information has not appeared, which has led me to believe it doesn't exist. The secrecy and the rudeness displayed by its leaders have not helped its cause.

If USET partisans want to clearly lay out their position, and a proposal that complies with the Ted Stevens act and works in the interest of the sport, I'd love to listen and debate its merits.

vineyridge
Jul. 12, 2002, 12:22 PM
I would envision the same relationship between the AHSA and the NGB as currently exists between the other FEI disciplines and the AHSA and USET.

As I see it, the Ted Stevens Act says the NGB can't delegate "core functions" but oesn't give a rat's ass about non FEI equestrian sports. It is really concerned with Olympic sports down to the grassroots level. Since the NGB is the national voice at the FEI, it has to be concerned with all the FEI disciplines--down to the grass roots level.

What are the core functions of the NGB: determining, training and sending International teams, USET.

Administrative tasks connected with sending international teams--FEI passports, legal stuff, AHSA

Rider Development, AHSA and USET

Drug Testing and Animal Welfare Issues in FEI Disciplines, AHSA

Representation of US Equestrian Sports at the International Level, AHSA

Rules and Administration of Grievances over International issues or FEI discipline matters that can't be resolved within the discipline, with an exhaustion requirement. This, I think, might be a huge change, but I'm not sure. If a Dressage person wanted to contest a drug test, it would first go through the dressage federation before it got to the ultimate authority, the NGB.

I think the FEI disciplines should be administered by the NGB directly. It should license drug testing labs, and if it wants to use the same ones that currently do AHSA testing, that would be sensible and reasonable.

It's my understanding that FEI drug rules are not necessarily the same ones applied in "National" competitions. And does the AHSA have its own lab or does it use USOC labs or licensed independent labs to do its tests?

I'm ignorant here, but are all AHSA licensed hunter /jumper judges and stewards also licensed for FEI competition? If not, what would change? A show that was having classes run under FEI rules would have to have NGB/FEI licensed officials and use NGB/FEI drug rules. For their other non-FEI classes, they would either use Dual licensed officials or get AHSA ones, and they would either use FEI/NGB drug rules and labs, or they would use the ones set up by the AHSA for the non-FEI disciplines.

It seems to me that the other Non-FEI parts of the AHSA are kind of getting pushed out of the way by the NGB dispute. Maybe if the AHSA WEREN'T the NGB, it could concentrate more of its energies on keeping the breeds happy.

I just really can't see how it would make all that difference if the NGB was a super body over all FEI disciplines, and the AHSA was a constituent organization over jumping, just like the USDF is a body over Dressage.

In my life, I have developed enough lines of authority for personnel matters to know that as long as the NGB is the body for direct appeals or "can issue certiorari" to decide FEI matters, then it will NEVER be considered to have delegated its core functions.

Aren't we basically talking about setting it up like the federal government and the federal constitution? With, I would suggest, powers limited to those required by the Ted Stevens Act, with the disciplines being the states.

[This message was edited by vineyridge on Jul. 12, 2002 at 03:50 PM.]

[This message was edited by vineyridge on Jul. 12, 2002 at 04:26 PM.]

Snowbird
Jul. 12, 2002, 12:32 PM
It always has been the NGB, it does a lot of the work of an NGB now and has done it. It simply delegated to the USET a committee of USAE the duties of actually training the teams and fund raising. Until recently the USET only did Eventing, Dressage and Jumpers.

Apparently they are also only an east coast group since the people from the west coast have their own thing going.

AHSA/USAE has been and is today the NGB. The USET is trying to overturn the applecart not USAE.

vineyridge
Jul. 12, 2002, 12:53 PM
The problem with what you say, Snowbird, is that is NOT what the USOC hearing panel found. It found very unambiguously that the AHSA has never handled the International Teams, and that, in effect, we've been having co-NGBs *all along*.

poltroon
Jul. 12, 2002, 01:06 PM
vineyridge,

Yes, FEI has its own licensing of officials. In practice it is a super-senior qualification of judges... I think you must be a senior judge with your NF to apply. There aren't a lot of FEI officials worldwide.

Having an FEI competition is a big deal. It is very expensive to hold one, and off the top of my head, there are fewer that two dozen held each year in the whole US for all three olympic discplines. I think in CA we have one CCI (that's a three-day event) and maybe 3 CDI (dressage) each year. Last year there was a show jumping competition, which was unusual. One of the judges must be from a country other than the host country.

The horses entered in FEI sanctioned events need special passports, which very specifically identify the horse. FEI competitors are housed in separate barns fenced off from the others; you must have credentials to enter the stable area.

What would be different is that in the jumpers you have a sizeable number of classes that are not FEI recognized. You would not need (thank goodness!) an FEI judge for children's jumpers. Currently it is relatively easy, and common, to get hunter-jumper-eq at one time. It is expensive and time consuming to do all the travel, seminars, and interning necessary to get a card as it is.

USA Eq owns the only drug testing lab in the US certified for FEI drug testing.

poltroon
Jul. 12, 2002, 01:16 PM
I got the dressage right, but I forgot that they're having more CIC's in eventing, and understated the show jumping (I was thinking of CSIO only, doh!).

2002 US FEI calendar (http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/inter/2002calendar.asp)

vineyridge
Jul. 12, 2002, 01:50 PM
The labs--the US is large enough to support two horse testing labs. One of the breeds' gripes is that they aren't getting the benefit of their drug testing fee, because they aren't getting tested.

Let the AHSA keep its lab, and the NGB could either license out to Purdue or Cornell, or it could set up its own facility. The federal government now requires random drug testing for truck drivers, but there are numerous "private" labs that can do the work, I believe. They just have to have a federal license. I wonder if the NGB could "license" the AHSA lab to do its testing under NGB rules and procedures for the FEI disciplines.

I think that the reason the judge problem is so great is simply because that's the way we've been doing it. Are all over fences judges certified for hunter/jumper/eq at once? Equitation needs to be part of the NGB, because there is nothing more grassroots than that. But it seems to me that jumping doesn't take much judging, since it's determined on objective criteria. So you would need an AHSA judge for hunters and an NGB judge for Eq and Jumpers. Probably the same with stewards.
I admit that thisproblem is difficult, but I think it may be solved for the immediate future by grandfathering in current ASHA judges for the NGB's disciplines.

I was licensed in two different states and the federal court system, and I was able to get Continuing education that worked for everything. I just had to make sure that my courses would be acceptable in the different jurisdictions.

SGray
Jul. 12, 2002, 02:16 PM
reading the testimony of Dr Kent Allen at the Austin Hearing

the D&M (drugs and medication) program of USA Eq had a budget in 2001 of approx 2.1 million

it tested approx 8,000 horses at approx 800 shows across the country

each competitor pays a $5.oo fee

at protected FEI competitions ALL of the horses are tested

those tests (which require extreme sophistication because of the stringent FEI drug rules) actually cost $350.00

without the little $5.00 contributed by each rider at all the competitions across the nation, all of the good for the horse's welfare accomplished by the D&M rules would be in jeopardy

SGray
Jul. 12, 2002, 02:20 PM
my point being that vineyridge's scenario is possible but if the USA Eq's lab were to run the drug tests for other organizations then it is highly unlikely that they would do so at a loss

so instead of paying $5.00 at the show, the competitiors would be paying hundreds

they may not seem so terrible to someone with big bucks or a big $$ sponsor - but for the Vaulters, the Endurance competitors, the Four-In-Hand drivers, etc it might very well be a big deal

poltroon
Jul. 12, 2002, 02:38 PM
I don't agree, SGray. For national competitors you would not test all. Yes, the NGB in this scenario would pay $350 (or whatever) a test, to be funded however it sees fit.

Of course, this is very specialized testing. You'd have to develop the procedures & expertise if you used another lab... the race horse testing is similar but not the same.

Vineyridge, I think it's interesting that you'd move Eq into the NGB... is eq more gateway than hunters? And now there's stock seat eq as well. Remember, though - Steinkraus showed Saddlebreds when he started out. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif They're all gateway disciplines. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

SGray
Jul. 12, 2002, 02:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
I don't agree, SGray. For national competitors you would not test all. Yes, the NGB in this scenario would pay $350 (or whatever) a test, to be funded however it sees fit.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

No more drug testing of hunters, arabians, national level dressage, etc?

vineyridge
Jul. 12, 2002, 02:45 PM
I'd move equitation because the rider is being judged, and we need to develop the next generations of riders. Equitation horses won't possibly step up to international competition like the horses in the lower jumper division.

One thing that I found fascinating about the list of FEI competitions in the USA, is that I saw no Nation's Cup class at all.

Is this because of the NGB dispute?

phanilah
Jul. 12, 2002, 03:06 PM
USAE already contracts with AQHA and FEI to do their drug testing. USAE also does some "contracted" specialty drug testing for the Arabian division.

The idea of the drug fee increasing significantly doesn't really make sense. All an organization has to do is spread the cost of their drug testing program out over the number of their horse entries.

For example - when the Arabian division requested to prohibit anabolic steroids, the additional cost worked out to be ~$1/Arabian horse entry. That covered the additional lab costs for adding anabolic steroids to the panel of drugs tested for.

The IAHA Planning Committee has put together a rather extensive proposal re: the Arabian division withdrawing from USAE and one of the sections deals with having to develop a drug program. The proposed fee structure they are looking at is $10/horse entry - which is equivalent to the current combined USAE drug fee of $7 and the current USAE competition fee of $3. With that amount of money, IAHA could probably even increase the number of samples tested or add additional substances to test for - without going over the $10/horse entry mark.

The USAE lab isn't the only lab capable of doing equine drug testing - even if the anabolic and corticosteroids are added (which is essentially the drug panel testing difference between the FEI no foreign substance rule and the USAE therapeutic substances provision).

Beth

Snowbird
Jul. 12, 2002, 05:12 PM
Just for the reasons you mention, it has been my thought that "hunters" should include the hunters offered by the breeds.

I can visulize a different format where we first find out who are the best hunters in each affiliate breed group and then have ride-offs to see who is the best of show, rather like the dogs do. Except we would include a category for "generic" horses i.e. no one knows their breeding because they are performance horses only.

I could see that type of competition being broader and more spectator appealing. I use hunters as an example but it could also be for the Western Committee, the Jumper Committee, the Saddleseat Committee, Eventing and even Dressage.

This period of re-organization is the perfect time for new ideas and new approaches to old problems. It's a time to speak up and be heard. Alan Balch has invited everyone to email him directly with any ideas they have and any problems they see that need to be solved.

canyonoak
Jul. 12, 2002, 05:53 PM
Once upon a time, some committed and concerned horsemen got together and created the American Horse Shows Association.

They recognized that horses in sport needed some governing, some structure, some standards.

The horses in sport began to compete on foreign shores.

So, just as AHSA had created various departments to deal with the other real-life situations that composed the world of the horse in sport, they now created the International branch, originally run by the cavalry, and then, by private citizenry who decided to name this branch, United States Equestrian Team, in honor of the goal--to nurture and support the elite athletes who would represent the US abroad, and be part of 'the Team'.

And now, we have the situation where the branch has decided it no longer wants to be a branch ,but be the entire enchilada.

Sort of.

In order to create an opportunity where it could be judged as a candidate for Top Enchilada, it caused to be created a document,the now infamopus document, that delegates certain responsibilities to itself.

The head of the parent organization, reading it, realizes the document is seriously flawed on many levels, not least legally.

But he feels he is in a position where he must sign it, and does so, registering his discontent and non-agreement.


...and now, here we are. A lawsuit is brought ,demanding that the financial records of the branch be made available to the parent organization's proper officers.

The FINANCIAL RECORDS of a non-profit organization (501c)..a lawsuit required to view this..

OK.

The fraudulent and infamous document is used as the basis for the rest of the mishigash, a drama we are all overly acquainted with in nauseating ways that I need not repeat.

And here we are. A counter-lawsuit.

tee hee.

All this talk about who has right on their side, which orgnaization is squeaky-clean, which officers have personal agendas..

none of this matters.

What matters is that USET wanted to mount a putsch, using thinly-veiled and rather unsavory connections to USOC to do so...and the putsch failed.

It is time for everyone to do what losers and victors always do: sit down and negotiate the settlement.

We seem to be well on the way to this, with the creation of a new negotiating team; with the reality of arbitration looming in the background if negotiations are not accomplished by a specific date.

No new lawsuits, no last-ditch depserate measures to delay the obvious, are going to seriously derail this train now.

and I am still depressed at the stupidity, and seriously unhappy aboput the amounts of money, let alone the incredible talents and energy wasted on this entire soap opera.

lauriep
Jul. 12, 2002, 06:47 PM
There was a Nations Cup at Wellington (CSIO 3/6 - 3/10), and they still have Washington listed as having one, although it has been cancelled.

This country has always only had 2 CSIOs, Washington and NY. The demise of NY killed its Nations Cup and has now caused the death of Washington's. Has nothing to do with the NGB issue.

Wellington's Nation's Cup is the first ever held outdoors.

Laurie

lauriep
Jul. 12, 2002, 06:51 PM
I still haven't seen anything concrete about what exactly is in the "new" lawsuit. C'mon spies, the overactive rumor mill on this BB isn't enough...

Anyone actually seen it or know anyone who has???

Laurie

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 12, 2002, 07:20 PM
It is a countersuit to the original lawsuit filed by AB in order to see the financial info from the USET.

Although the original AB lawsuit was filed some time ago and has already been ruled on (favorably towards AB), the USET picked the very day of the USAEq board meeting to file the countersuit. Make of that what you wish.

I suggest that you request that a copy of the countersuit be emailed to you from the USAE offices. Perhaps you could email AB or one of his assistants. As it is a matter of public record, there is no reason that any of us cannot see it.

I plan to do just that the first of next week. I am having a lot of trouble receiving attachments on my ancient computer here in FL.

canyonoak
Jul. 12, 2002, 07:48 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by lauriep:
<<This country has always only had 2 CSIOs, Washington and NY. The demise of NY killed its Nations Cup and has now caused the death of Washington's. Has nothing to do with the NGB issue.>>

__________________________________

I could be wrong (really???) but it seems to me that the demise of The National was due at least in part by Mr. Struzzieri's refusal to modify/compromise on the show's rating vs. monies offered vs. days of show.

As ,if memory serves me, Mr. Struzzieri wanted to replace The National with a show of his own management.

Not saying that the National was in goos shape before that happened, or that there were not any other problems...just (sigh) in a conspiracy-friendly fashion, finding a relationship to the dread NGB problem...

khobstetter
Jul. 12, 2002, 10:30 PM
I am a staunch supporter of USET....BUT I don't like some of their tactics!!!!!!

I am a stanch supporter of AHSA/USAE...BUT I don't like some of THEIR tactics!!!!!!!!!

I was soooooooooooooooooo angry about this latest suit (or countersuit...whatever!!)... Juliemontgomery, I am NOT going to ask USAE to email me a copy... I called USET.

I am a member of USET and I am not a very happy one at this point. I listened to the entire meeting and then LATER we hear about this new lawsuit.

I called USET direct and asked that EVERYONE who went to Lexington for the meeting return my call. I am most interested in their reasons for filing it at all and I am definately most interested in their timing. I asked to have Armand Leone himself return my call, along with several others...let's see if he is upright enough to do it...

For Heaven Sake !@!!!!!!!!!!!!1*&%(^%*(^$*%

Just let Alan, and everyone else, have complete access to the books, records and assets of USET.

I personally know just how very suspicious you get when the legal right to access is blocked at all.

Alan Balch has a legal right to see ANYTHING and EVERTHING connected with that non-profit.......

You guys at USET......GET THE HECK OUT OF HIS WAY AND STOP THE NONSENSE !!!!!! I think you are silly if you think Alan will back down...he won't till he gets access....

GEEZ !!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif Just let the guy in and go sit at a settlement table and make this mess go away..... GEEZ !!!!!

Negotiate and stop it...GEEZ !!

ALAN BALCH (and the rest of us) HAS A LEGAL RIGHT !!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

appyhunter
Jul. 13, 2002, 01:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Albemarle Cty:
The hell of this is that most of the people on the USET board of trustees are honorable, without any doubt.

I bet that many of them are even more appalled by this turn of events than what is being posted here. But what do or can or should they do?

If they resign, they turn things totally over to Leone, Clark, and those people.

If they object, they are subject to the same treatment as Balch.

If they are silent, they just suffer, and so does everyone else.

They ought to be getting together now to stop this kind of thing, because now it is clear that USET will stop at nothing to remove any independence of mind from its board. How to get it done?

What an awful day for USET and our whole sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If they are Board members, then they need to remember the point of this position is to speak up and to guide the actions of USET.

If they are unwilling to do the job that this position is meant to do, then they don't belong there. No one FORCED them to ask for, and accept these positions.

Every last one of them takes such a position because their ego (and sometimes their actual abilities) believes they can "improve" the sport. By their silence.. it's not neutral, they have made a choice, and that is to support, tolerate, condone the actions of the leading members.

Honor?

Beans
Jul. 13, 2002, 04:14 AM
Don't expect a reply. We wrote to Armand Leone and didn't get one. We were Gold Medal Club Members for many years and big supporters of the USET. When we voiced extreme concern over what was happening and that we would not renew the following year - we were removed from the mailing list last August...(even when we made a large donation in June!). The letter asked why. We spoke with the Treasurer and he couldnt' explain it and to this day we don't get anything. And Mr./Dr./Esq. Leone didn't have the common decency to respond to us. I guess because we referenced in the letter that we weren't in his small group of very wealthy patrons.

Snowbird
Jul. 13, 2002, 06:53 AM
If there is nothing to hide there is no reason to see members who have been sponsosrs disappear and make the situation they face worse.

The fact that they are so beligerant and defensive makes they look guilty of some kind of conflict of interest and deceitful practices.

If the members of the Board at USET refuse to shut this nonsense down they, I'm sorry but honorable as they may be they are condoning the actions that have been taken. I would never sit on a Board that I knew was not honest and up front and open at least with the Board Members.

lauriep
Jul. 13, 2002, 10:48 AM
I'll just wait til you get yours, and I realize it is a coutersuit, sorry for my faulty wording.

It isn't mentioned on the USAEq website as of last night when I looked, and I would like to see verification before anymore bashing goes on here. Not doubting that it exists, just want verification.

Laurie

Weatherford
Jul. 13, 2002, 11:09 AM
LaurieP - I am sure the suit will be posted as soon as it can be scanned and made into a pdf file. I think, given that it was only received on Wednesday, we need to give them a few more days to do this. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif (Remember, they are also transcribing the meeting to be posted - although an abbreviated version is already online.)

However, I will guarentee it is NOT a rumor!

By the way, the meeting was videotaped as well as audiotaped. I am sure you will be able to get a copy.

Also, it was interesting to hear from someone who had spoken to "someone who was there" that Sheila Johnson "made a fool of herself" at the meeting. Made a fool of herself ?????

That is NOT what I saw!!!

Oh well, talk about perceptions!

By the way, I was an ardent USET supporter up until the USET filed its challenge. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 13, 2002, 12:26 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
I'll just wait til you get yours, and I realize it is a coutersuit, sorry for my faulty wording.

Laurie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just wanted it to be known that it is not a "new" lawsuit (as in unrelated to the previous one), but a countersuit specifically related to the original AB suit.

No offense meant to you.

Kate Jackson was the one who notified me of this by email on Wednesday, July 10. It was Kate who attempted to send me the attachment file as well, but my Model-T computer wouldn't accept it.

lauriep
Jul. 13, 2002, 01:04 PM
we were talking about CSIOs and what happened to them. As far as the international part of NY, TS had nothing to do with that, nor did the NGB dispute. After the show moved to the Meadowlands, and then back to NYC, they were unable to get the old weeklong dates back. Hence, they were unable to offer complete jumper divisions to make it worthwhile for the foreign competitors to make the trip.

As far as the hunters go, the above reason is probably the biggest one for their demise, also, as full divisions could no longer be offered there either.

Julie, no offense taken!!

Laurie

Weatherford
Jul. 13, 2002, 06:49 PM
Re Nations Cup classes - I also think there was a fair amount of pressure from the FEI to guarentee these would fill, which stopped happening some time ago.

Frankly, it is expensive for the European Teams to come over, and the show(s) don't have the sponsors to pay their way. There is more prize money in Europe now, and there simply isn't the incentive for riders to come.

I think WEF was even hard-pressed to fill the new NC class in Wellington this year.

I would love to see International level Prix des States classes or some high level TEAM competition - sponsored teams? state or zone teams? I love the format and love the compeition, and it WORKS so well for the audiences!

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

vineyridge
Jul. 13, 2002, 07:24 PM
As I understand it, the host country pays a lot of the expenses for shipping over Nation's Cup horses. Or am I thinking of something else?

At any rate, if it were us, the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Chileans, the Argentinians, and the Brazilians, with the odd Asian country, it would still be an exciting show, even if the Europeans decided to save their Euros and stay home.

That's another thing our NGB should be doing--working to have Nations Cups in the Americas

duggieboyus
Jul. 14, 2002, 08:18 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by khobstetter:

Just let Alan, and everyone else, have complete access to the books, records and assets of USET.

I personally know just how very suspicious you get when the legal right to access is blocked at all.

Alan Balch has a legal right to see ANYTHING and EVERTHING connected with that non-profit.......

ALAN BALCH (and the rest of us) HAS A LEGAL RIGHT !!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A friend told me that USET (Leone) asked to see certain USAE info a couple of weeks ago -sent a list of specific things - then sent someone named Piwar sp? the very next week! My friend said Balch complied completely.

Yet another Trustee of USET, Shiela Johnson, can't even get finacial statements from Leone!!

Talk about open - did you see the USAE web site? The documents for each agenda item from the July 9 meeting is available there for EVERYONE.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 14, 2002, 08:26 AM
Thank you.

Beans
Jul. 14, 2002, 09:39 AM
that they send Mark Piwowar to look at the USAE books when he's the keeper of the books at USET and has on many occasions refused to let people see them!!!!

Weatherford
Jul. 14, 2002, 10:57 AM
Tom Streuzzieri and a lawyer (accoutant?) also spent a day going through the USAEq books very thoroughly. An staff-member/observer said they left disappointed. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 14, 2002, 02:53 PM
Oh my, the spin, the politics. Will it ever end?

Methinks not. Recorded conversations, audited books, yours, mine, theirs. Insatiable egos, lost revenue, found money. Mutiny. Lurkers reporting back to camp. Internet savvy, internet illiterate.

In reality, to whom, aside from the principles, thinks this amounts to more than a hill of beans?

"If you build it, they will come." With our without USAE/USET.

wtywmn4
Jul. 14, 2002, 06:32 PM
But Emmett what will be left after all this muck raking? When everything is done, one fears that the $$$$'s will be long gone for both organizations. No matter how much is in the bank, this is a very costly affair.

vineyridge
Jul. 14, 2002, 07:46 PM
You sure did decide to stand in the sunshine today.

Either that or you have a horse with a very human name. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 15, 2002, 08:23 AM
Good Sherlocking to y'all.

This is what I think about all this.

After many years of going to shows, here and abroad, I'm going to do what is best for the horses in my care, drug rules or not. If one of mine needs a prohibited substance for their well being, so be it. They don't show.

As far as the shows themselves go. I don't care who sanctions them as long as the show provides what I think is important. Those ingredients are: good footing, knowledgeable and fair hunter judges (big R or not), good furniture in the jumper ring placed by a competent designer and decent stabling.

Prize money is important as well and last time I looked neither USET/USAE has much to do with that in spite of Host Communications.

My gut feeling tells me there will still be horse shows that fit the above criteria with or without a NGB. That's not to say we don't need some sort of governing organization, I simply don't think any of the existing organizations are the be all to end all.

I do virtually no international competition any longer so the NGB issue does not afftect me personally. However I do believe the elite riders need representation. Yes, I understand about Ted and grassroots and all that.

And for those of you who are trying to read something between the lines, I have no alligance to any particular management team.

[This message was edited by Ruby G. Weber on Jul. 15, 2002 at 11:37 AM.]

buryinghill1
Jul. 15, 2002, 08:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
and decent stabling. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then what the hell were you doing at Culpeper?
/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 15, 2002, 08:39 AM
Running the Somerset Shuttle.

SGray
Jul. 15, 2002, 09:01 AM
does anyone know if the uset bylaws are available online?

Snowbird
Jul. 15, 2002, 03:33 PM
Snarling at each other will not solve anything. It's like the "kick the dog" syndrome.

If those of you who are in favor of the USET being NGB would be kind enough to tell us why, maybe we could persuade you.

If those of you who are in favor of the USAE even as the lesser evil state your positions and why perhaps those who differ would have an answer.

The rest of you who want to just use this media to sit around complaining because this is not affecting you in any way but your pocket book then let's see if we can be constructive and cut the losses to a minimum.

OK! Agreed this is not the best of all possible worlds. There are no regulations to enforce "honesty". There are no regulations that can make everyone love each other nad be kind.

However, please consider the options.

SGray
Jul. 16, 2002, 07:34 AM
things change

some folks have given me a 'because they always have' type of argument - that the Gladstone facility is 'the place where the Team trains', etc

which was true in years past - there was a 'resident' coach, riders would live at Gladstone, generous individuals would donate horses, coach would match up riders with the Team horses, ..........

the above is no longer true - period

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 08:49 AM
These are changing times and this sport like everything else has to evolve into a new format.

We have to start thinking about the audience and how to please them as more important than what we need and want.

Will it be different sure! Will we look back to the good old days sure! But, we all have the unique opportunity of being part of the changes. We can in the new format have a voice and have the information we need to make intelligent opinions.

Looking backwards doesn't work over a fence, one of the wonders of our sport is that you always have to look where you're going and not where you've been on course.

vineyridge
Jul. 16, 2002, 08:51 AM
for those who really care about United States participation in horse sports to create a new NGB that works ever so much better than the old one.

There are NGBs in all countries and all sports, some that work well and some that don't work at all.

We need bold, brave, innovative leaders, and we ain't got them.

After reading some of the history, I think I understand the hows and whys. I truly believe everything that was done was done in good faith, with the actors believing that the best interests of US horse sports was at stake, Whether or not those decisions will be shown to be wrong is for the future.

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 16, 2002, 09:35 AM
First we have to get an audience.

Granted there are several GP's that are limited to 30 -35 horses through qualification or invitation but...

Until the time arrives when management/owners/riders/trainers can agree entries need to be limited to approximately a two hour time span, only the die hards will be in the stands.

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 10:07 AM
So we need a plan.

We can sit around and name call or whine and complain or we can here on this BB start and effort to change everyone's perception of this industry.

The last time we had this kind of discussion we came up with two new rule changes among 10 others. But, these were given to the Planning Committee.

The Right to Know! That seems established in the USAE. Never before have so many people been knowledgeable of the facts.

The Right to Vote is still on the drawing board at the Planning Committee.

So what should we do? Let's start a plan for convincing the Planning Board to keep going with or without the USET or the USOC.

Anne FS
Jul. 16, 2002, 11:48 AM
If I was really rich, I'd buy a farm and some good, solid American TB mares and they could be found for not an arm & a leg, too. The farm would have lots of hills. I'd breed the mares to good, solid TB stallions and let the foals grow, back them at 3, turn them out again until 5, start 'em right and then ask George Morris and Frank Chapot to come and take a look and take what they wanted and match it with whom he wanted.

I'd couldn't afford to foot the bill for competitions and travel, but I could sure as heck run the farm and raise/start them right. Surely, surely in this great American land we can come up with ways to breed/raise our own great ones. And I would trust George Morris (and a few others) to know more than I about managing their careers. I just want to breed them well and start them right. I would be proud to then say, here chef d'equipe or coach or whomever, you know horses and you know riders. Match 'em up and let's go kick butt. Ownership of the animals would remain with the investors in the breeding farm and USET/USEA fund-raising would pay the travel/competition expenses. The farm owners/investors would have the pride of owning Olympic and World Cup horses and our best riders could concentrate on riding and not have to kow-tow to the owners. I have no need to hold power over other peoples' heads. (Could be some truth to the statement that that attitude will never make me rich enough to do my plan, though).

Within 20 years, probably less, we'd be at the top in world competition.

Sorry, OT so please ignore but Snowbird said 'we need a plan' and I've had that fantasy plan for a couple of years now.

Mr. Morris, if I ever hit that Powerball lottery, expect a phone call from me!

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Jul. 16, 2002 at 02:57 PM.]

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 16, 2002, 03:03 PM
First substantial prize money should be offered in the "feature" event. That purse should be 100% sponsored negating a need for any nomination or entry fee. In today's world of show jumping, I believe most manager's are footing the bill for the greater percentage of the prize money. In other words, the So and So Corp. Grand Prix is not fully sponsored by So and So Corp.

Additionally, So and So Corp. must be convinced to foot the bill for advertising the event. Not many managers have within their advertising budget the funds to pay for a 30 second gig in prime time on a major network. And lacking a Michael or a Tiger, So and So Corp. will have to be patient.

Those pieces of the puzzle must fit before the "gate take" begins to trickle down to management.

Without the first part of the equation solved, there is little hope of the other elements (of which there are several) falling into place.

Nothing would please enthusiasts more than to see crowds like at Devon, Upperville, Harrisburg or the Hampton Classic for all major events.

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 03:49 PM
The question is if we want sponsors what will they get for their money? As donors they can write of some charity but the big bucks mean we need to give them a performer. How many people will be there? How many people will know that they sponsored, they don't pay for advertising they donate to a known market and want to be included in the advertising.

The average show with 200 horses isn't big enough for them. That's what Host tries to do, build and event big enough to attract the sponsors get it on TV sell TV rights for more income and then the money goes in the prize pot. What can we do to build a "Super Bowl" worth $1 million for a 30 second slot by having an audience that would tune that is huge as the one who cares about who wins the super bowl.

I can picture a ride off between breeds. Which breed is the best and fastest horse over fences? Or maybe instead of a flat race a fences race.

The question is how much trickle down will there be? Let's say we got a sponsor for an annual award for Junior Hunter four sections at $25,000 a piece.
XYZ soda puts up the $100,000 or even in my dreams $1,000,000, that would trickle down through the qualifiers.

The Hampton Classic is huge because all the tourists and spectators want to see the rich and famous beautiful people up close. That works for the Classic but there's no spillover because the other shows don't have celebrities.

So then we need a Tiger Woods for fencing instead of beating up a little white ball. That's why Rodeo works and our horse shows don't.

Dad Williams can go on for years with the rivalry between his two girls for 1st and 2nd, where and who are our stars?

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 03:55 PM
OK! If this was the best of all possible worlds, could we get Ford to sponsor a horse breeding farm so they could advertise that they have 240 horsepower engines but their horse are best, the biggest or the fastest?

Could get a rivalry going with horses like with the racing cars? Ford horses beat GM horses and would the Mercedes horses beat them all etc.

Then there would a subsidy for that perfect farm that could and would donate horses to the TEAM. Both athletes, horse and rider truly Amerca's best.

You see you have to think not what they can do for us but what can we give them for their money.

What matters to me right now for the first time we have an association that wants to try. The old AHSA never cared, the old USET never cared before.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jul. 16, 2002 at 07:20 PM.]

khobstetter
Jul. 16, 2002, 08:05 PM
I spoke to several people back east today and I now understand there is definately more than one AHSA/USET lawsuit !! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

I was told that there is an additional one just lately by Alan Balch (a friend of mine) against USET.. and that is the one USET just filed a countersuit against....

NO..not the first one regarding acess to the books... another one recently..

Who knows?????????? Tell us !!!!!!!!!!!!!

vineyridge
Jul. 16, 2002, 08:28 PM
We've talked about them here.

As I understand it, AB won his original suit. Then after the USET kicked so many board members off and redid its bylaws a dozen times and completely ignores the judge's ruling, he filed a suit to enforce the findings in the first suit and have specific USET actions (like the challenge, for instance) declared null and void. At least I think that was the essence of the second suit.

Then, in order to facilitate the merger discussions after the October hearings, he got the NJ judge to agree not to hear the enforcement suit while the mediation was going on.

The enforcement suit was either dismissed at USET request and refiled after negotiations broke down, or it's been in limbo in the NJ court all along and has been awakened by both AB and USET.

Weatherford
Jul. 17, 2002, 12:20 AM
Correct vineyridge, the suit to see the USET books won by AB last summer was put into limbo for the duration of the mediation. Had the mediation been successful, it would have disappeared. With mediation NOT successful AND with the books still being "kept confidential" - which is in direct violation of NJ law, the suit (actually the enforcement part) was renewed.

Most recently, the USET sued to remove Alan from their board. That is the suit filed by Armand's law firm WHILE he was SITTING in in the USAEq meeting!! And he was only sitting there because AB and the Officers recommended he and the other USET delegates be seated - which was not the recommendation of the nomination committee. (The USET had neglected to pay its Affiliated Dues for the past two years, and technically had lost their seats on the Board.)

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:32 AM
I think you may be incorrect. The suit filed on 7/9 was a countersuit to one already on the books, not a new one to remove Alan.

At least that is my understanding from talking to AL last night.


Laurie

Portia
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:26 AM
Yes Lauriep, what the USET filed is a counterclaim in the pending Balch enforcement action against the USET. It is not a separate lawsuit.

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:51 AM
I hoped I had understood correctly, since this is not exactly my bailiwick! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Laurie

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:52 AM
Isn't that Standard Operating Procedure in the legal community?

Portia
Jul. 17, 2002, 10:03 AM
You mean filing counterclaims? If you mean procedurally, if there is an issue that is reasonably arises out of the same facts and involves the same parties as a pending action, then that claim should be asserted in that pending action. It's a matter of "judicial economy" -- i.e., let's throw everything into the mix in the same court and same lawsuit and get it all taken care of together.

If you mean strategically, yes, a good defense lawyer will examine the facts and if a "colorable claim" (one that has a reasonable basis in the facts and law) exists will assert it as a counterclaim. It is often good strategy for a defendant to try to take the offense, if appropriate. That approach can, however, seriously backfire if the counterclaim is one perceived as being not valid and asserted primarily to spread the mud around and try to deflect attention from the defendant's bad acts.

SGray
Jul. 30, 2002, 09:34 AM
that the uset suit is to remove Balch from the Board of the uset because Balch did not support the uset's quest to become the NGB

"The action filed in New Jersey Superior Court says that while Balch holds his positions on the board and executive committee solely by virtue of his being president of USA Equestrian, he holds and owes a duty of loyalty to the USET that requires him to act in the best interests of the USET at all times while addressing USET matters."

and a bit later

"The USET argues that it has an opportunity to become NGB that would provide significant economic advantages and benefits to the Team, including increased membership, increased fund raising capabilities and corporate sponsorship revenues and increased marketing potential, all of which would increase teh USET's ability to govern equestrian and support international programs for athletes."


----- So, as the uset representatives are being seated at the USA Eq. board meeting, they are having a suit filed stating that it is a conflict of interest for the president of USA Eq. to sit on the uset board............

Weatherford
Jul. 30, 2002, 09:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> ----- So, as the uset representatives are being seated at the USA Eq. board meeting, they are having a suit filed stating that it is a conflict of interest for the president of USA Eq. to sit on the uset board............ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup, right...

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

CAH
Jul. 30, 2002, 10:39 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:

"The action filed in New Jersey Superior Court says that while Balch holds his positions on the board and executive committee solely by virtue of his being president of USA Equestrian, he holds and owes a duty of loyalty to the USET that requires him to act in the best interests of the USET at all times while addressing USET matters."
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Huh? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SGray
Jul. 30, 2002, 10:43 AM
CAH - that is quoted from page 4 of the August issue of Horse of Delaware Valley - article titled "USET court action seeks ouster of Balch as trustee"

SGray
Jul. 30, 2002, 10:45 AM
http://www.horsedelval.com/news.htm

"Now it's USET's turn to file a suit
By SARA CAVANAGH - The U. S. Equestrian Team has responded to a lawsuit filed by Alan F. Balch, asking a the court to remove Balch as a trustee of the USET and as a member of its executive board.The action filed in New Jersey Superior Court says that while Balch holds his positions on the board and executive committee solely by virtue of his being president of USA Equestrian, he holds and owes a duty of loyalty to the USET that requires him to act in the best interests of the USET at all times while addressing USET matters. But, the USET action says, that by virtue of Balch's being a USAE director and president, he is also bound by USAE's Statement of Principles, Ethical Behavior and Conflict of Interest, which states in part "Those who chose to serve USAE are held to the highest standards of conduct. As guardians of the National Governing Body of equestrian sports in the United States, whose mission is to inspire, encourage interest in and regulate equestrian competition, they assume an obligation to subordinate individual interests and interests of other entities to the interests of USAE " As a result, Balch has an inherent material conflict between his duty of loyalty to USET and his duty of loyalty to USAE, the USET suit says."

CAH
Jul. 30, 2002, 10:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
CAH - that is quoted from page 4 of the August issue of Horse of Delaware Valley - article titled "USET court action seeks ouster of Balch as trustee"<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

SGray - I meant it as a "you have to be kidding?" question. I just cannot believe that a lawsuit would be filed based on the reason noted in the article. Remove someone from a Board of Directors appointment because they do not represent "the best interest" of the organization?
Gee, why bother even having a Board?

Can't wait to receive the current issue of HODV. Tell me, was it an "objective" article??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

jr
Jul. 30, 2002, 11:07 AM
I was discussing this whole thing with a friend who shoots, and he commented that his sport saw similar nasty disputes between organizations wanting to be the NGB, so evidently this is not an unusual occurrence, sad to say.

That said, what ARROGANCE. This sport has always had an element at the highest levels who appear to believe that this sport is supported by the elite, for the elite. In reality, the sport is about the horses, and the individual horse owners. Sponsors of top riders and grand prixs and marekters of producs like Cosequin etc. know that for every person riding at the A level, you have many more showing local, or trail riding etc. etc. The industry is supported by the little folks (of which I'm one)

Why the big boys and girls battle over the NGB, what suffers are our teams, our sponsors, and the individual riders like me who really want to see US talent well represented at competitions around the world.

The personalities responsible for this disaster clearly think their own wants and desires are paramount. What astounds me is that after all of this, the outcry, lawsuits etc. etc., they are still unable to see the forest, but only their own, personal tree.

poltroon
Jul. 30, 2002, 11:59 AM
Here is a story about a similar set of legal battles, but completely non-horse related:

ICANN Director lawsuit (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,54199,00.html)

All I can say is that USET has lousy legal advice. There is a legal way to remove AB as director: it requires redoing their bylaws AGAIN to remove the ex-oficio slot for the USA Eq president. I doubt any judge will give them much traction on the conflict of interest given that the USET corporate bylaws are expressly written to create that conflict.

Snowbird
Jul. 30, 2002, 01:21 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> As a result, Balch has an inherent material conflict between his duty of loyalty to USET and his duty of loyalty to USAE, the USET suit says."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK! so he signs an oath to be honest for USAE and he gets dumped off the USET Board because he's honest..wouldn't that be an admission of guilt by the USET that they're doing something dishonest?

I can't believe there is a single lawyer that could stand up to defend that position without breaking out laughing.

CAH
Jul. 30, 2002, 01:41 PM
poltroon - the change to the bylaws also crossed my mind as a way of removing Balch, but don't you think it would have been tried without going into court? I am sure, however, that it would require approval by the Board itself....and maybe, just maybe, there may not be enough support to approve this bylaws change.

All I have to say is /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif:confused:

SGray
Jul. 30, 2002, 02:36 PM
poltroon/CAH - wouldn't that be considered 'frivolous' then? using the Courts time/resources for something that could be accomplished be the uset's own Board?

Snowbird
Jul. 30, 2002, 03:08 PM
I believe it was part of the Operating Agreement and the Charter under which the USET was permitted independence.

I'm certain there was and agreement between the two associations because certainly Jane Clark as President of USAE/AHSA was very much on the USET Board as President of AHSA.

Lashkari
Jul. 30, 2002, 04:51 PM
The really outrageous counterclaim is that Balch attempted to interfere with the USET's "business opportunity" and "economic advantage" to become NGB, and the money, esp. fees, that it would bring in.

Business opportunities? Economic advantage? What happened to the best interests of the sport? Looks like its all about power and greed from the USET's perspective.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

CAH
Jul. 30, 2002, 05:08 PM
Well, now that I received my edition of the HODV and read the article, now I understand the intent of lawsuit. The article states that the USET is sueing for the removal of Balch, and for compensatory and punitive damages in addition to all legal fees. To quote the article,

"The USET argues that Balch intentionally and unreasonably interfered with the USET's pursuit of prospective business relations, including its applying for the NGB title."

Oh yes, the article also says this is at no legal cost to the USET, as the work is being done pro bono by Leone's office.

Makes sense now. Doesn't mean I agree with it, however.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 30, 2002, 05:31 PM
Nothing, repeat NOTHING, that one reads in HODV is gospel.

Sara Cavanaugh is one of the most biased anti-USAEq writers known....

For unbiased facts and anything near the truth, find another writer.

CAH
Jul. 30, 2002, 05:38 PM
Yes, the article is written in true to fashion HODV style......

poltroon
Jul. 30, 2002, 05:39 PM
Julie - I would, however, consider HoDV to be a good source for figuring out the USET's state of mind, wouldn't you? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Duffy
Jul. 30, 2002, 06:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:
Julie - I would, however, consider HoDV to be a good source for figuring out the USET's state of mind, wouldn't you? /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Among other things.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

This suit is ludicrous at best. Armand has stooped even lower yet - very sad and pathetic state of affairs. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

"I can justify anything!"

AM
Jul. 30, 2002, 07:00 PM
I find this turn of events rather funny. I stopped supporting the USET after the 1990 WEG selection dispute that resulted in the lawsuit. What impressed me was that the person suing didn't argue that they would have contributed to the team but that they were denied the opportunity to make money in the future because they wouldn't be able to claim to have been on the team. Now the USET itself is claiming not that it should be the NGB because it could benefit/govern the sport better but because it needs the money it would receive as the NGB.

Portia
Jul. 30, 2002, 07:28 PM
I still haven't seen the lawsuit pleadings, on either side, but there are strategic reasons for asking for damages that lawyers (at least /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) consider legitimate considerations.

I don't know the exact nature of the claims made in the case of the rider who was kept off the team in 1990, but I did always wonder how it got out of arbitration, where athlete complaints for having been left off teams must be decided as mandated by the Sports Act, and got into the courtroom. Making a claim for damages for lost business opportunity would achieve that goal, because it wasn't a complaint about the selection itself, it was about the alleged damaging effect of the alleged unfairness in the selection.

In the USET counterclaims against Balch, asking for damages -- especially punitive damages which may be awarded only for certain particularly nasty behavior -- can do a few things. It is almost certainly intended to try to pressure on Balch and USA Eq to settle the case because of the threat of being made to pay damages. It u[s the ante to become a direct threat to the pocket book. Of course, for that to have any hope of working, the claim has to have some real chance of succeeding -- so I'm guessing this one isn't having much of the intended effect. A damages claim that isn't backed up by the facts and the law isn't going to be much of a threat.

Bringing the claim and asking for damages may also create a public relations opportunity by formally allowing the USET to make particularly nasty allegations in public and claiming all sorts of financial harm from the supposed bad conduct, allegations that can and will be reported by the press (whether it is HoDV or some other publication). It gives the USET the chance to try to play the role of victim instead of just the role of the org that is once again accused of being unable or unwilling to follow New Jersey law and the court's order from last year.

One question I have is why Leone's firm is suddenly representing the USET now when it hasn't before. What happened to the lawyers who represented the USET in the USOC challenge and the ones who represented it in the first New Jersey lawsuit? Did they quit? Were they fired? Did they ever get paid? (Being the business-minded mega-firm lawyer that I am, that's a question I want answered! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif )

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

Sparky
Jul. 31, 2002, 06:26 AM
I think calling the HODV biased here is the pot calling the kettle black.

Both magazines have their biases and so be it. But to criticize one while writing from the website of another equally as biased is less than a compelling argument.

Lauriep on Sparky's computer...

Duffy
Jul. 31, 2002, 07:08 AM
You are kidding, aren't you, lauriep? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Nuffin but the facts here, maam. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I can justify anything!"

canyonoak
Jul. 31, 2002, 07:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky:
I think calling the HODV biased here is the pot calling the kettle black.

Both magazines have their biases and so be it. But to criticize one while writing from the website of another equally as biased is less than a compelling argument.

Lauriep on Sparky's computer...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
__________________________________________


Clarity is what I have: bias is what the other person has.

<G>

That said...it truly disturbs me that rational people can look at this mess and see two totally different realities.

No matter what one's misgivings about AHSA/USAEq/The Fed....no matter how long one has given one's heart to USET/"The Team"..

the situation now is ridiculously wrong.

I do not believe that anyone can condone USET's recent actions and activities.

One can shake one's head and mutter, all is fair in love and war...but the language and priorities of this countersuit reveal the bitterness and pettiness and venality..

oh well.

SGray
Jul. 31, 2002, 09:52 AM
? - isn't today the USOC voting deadline?

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 31, 2002, 10:17 AM
It isn't the pot calling the kettle black.

I'm not speaking on behalf of the Chronicle. I made no reference whatsoever to the COTH's reporting of the same issue, nor did I reference the reporting of any other horse publication.

I am using the COTH bb to speak for myself, as this is the bb that I frequent.

Weatherford
Jul. 31, 2002, 01:29 PM
Ah, yes, SGray, it is...

However, you know that the USOC Director were getting a "free" subscription to the HDV (after both sides were told not to lobby) as "the leading Horse Publication in the US - with a TRUE pulse of the Horse public..." Of course, the USAEq was not told about these subsciptions until the hearing last October, by which point USOC Board members had already gotten this for nearly a year...

They probably still believe everything printed there - where else are they going to get an opposing view? Certainy easier to read the newspaper than slog through thousands of pages of testimony and correspondance. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

I am a pessimist.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

2Dogs
Jul. 31, 2002, 01:53 PM
okay, I know I am sheltered, but what the heck is HODV???? ??"Horsepeople on deVerge"??...cause I might buy it as I am on the verge of thinking, again, that this is the biggest bunch of ego balderdash I have read about (I am speaking of Leone here), right there with all the other miserable(predominately male) ego and greed that has been lately so in the news. What if we members just tell them we ain't paying any more legal fees (a financial coup, harrumph).

Horseyguy-KY
Jul. 31, 2002, 02:19 PM
Their Staff writer, Sara Cavanaugh, is a piece of work.....

Portia
Jul. 31, 2002, 02:25 PM
HoDV = Horse of the Delaware Valley, a horsey publication from the Mid-Atlantic region (NJ, DE, VA, PA, MD ) Sara Cavanaugh (who I believe is the wife of the publisher -- someone correct me if I'm wrong) is the reporter on the NGB issues. She's been known to have friendships with some at the USET. (Don't you dare giggle, YD and Weatherford.)

Here's a link to its website, which has excerpts from some of its articles.

Horse of the Delaware Valley (http://www.horsedelval.com/news.htm)

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

SoEasy
Jul. 31, 2002, 02:56 PM
*I*, being neither yd nor Weatherford, am ROFLMAO /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

yaya
Jul. 31, 2002, 03:15 PM
Is just a cover for a suit that's really from Armand himself. Since he probably can't sue on his own about this, maybe he's just "borrowing" the USET name to cover a personal agenda.

Or maybe the other lawyers just thought it is all too ridiculous?

Snowbird
Jul. 31, 2002, 03:25 PM
I'm curious whether they even had a Board Meeting to approve what he filed.

Portia, I didn't giggle I downright had a big laugh at your careful phrasing.

dublin
Jul. 31, 2002, 03:37 PM
And I gather still no word as to whether the USET will agree to mediation with the "Balch-less" USAEq???

Weatherford
Aug. 1, 2002, 04:48 AM
Dahling, Dublin,

It is all a great state SECRET! I mean, didn't you know, the future of the WORLD and the security of the US absolutely DEPENDS on our little players doing everything in TOTAL SECRECY!

Or perhaps the TRUTH is just too embarrassing for the USOC & the USET to be out in the open - remember Salt Lake?

As I said in my other thread, secrecy be D****D!!

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Weatherford
Aug. 1, 2002, 04:52 AM
Have you looked at the Timeline?

I don't know if this will come up for everyone - you do need Adobe Acrobat. I will link to some of the other documents on the other thread.

NHB Battle timeline (Up to July 8) (http://www.equestrian.org/equestriangovernance/PDF/NGBTimelineAAG.pdf)

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

upperco
Aug. 1, 2002, 05:14 AM
Hard to get online here in Vt.So I have just caught up on this topic. The talk at this circuit has not been as venemous as the comments here.To be honest everyone is sick and tired of the attorneys billing hours and millions of our dollars for the small number of elite athletes and their rich owners.The vast majority of the hunter jumper exhibitors have no interest in the elite athletes other than to cheer for them in the international events.How many of these special riders are we talking about? I have been told that it is somewhere in the neighborhood of 200. The UEAE has 80,000 members.What is all this fuss and millions of $$$$ about? Weatherford said that Mr Leone was rude to Karen O'connor.Several people who listened on the webcast(I couldn't make it work)said that she was relentless in asking for funds for her owner.Leone told her in a very calm voice several times that the team and her owner would be fully funded.She continued to press him and he continued to assure that her owner would be funded.Weatherford,how was that rude? My sources said that she was, to be polite,relentless in repeatedly asking him for the funds. I was also told that her owner is Mrs Mars who is a billionare.This raises the question Should our money be spent to pay the way for a billionare to go to a competition or should the money be awarded on a to need basis?Please Weatherford let me know how Leone was rude to Karen,?There seems to be conflicting reports on this issue.

buryinghill1
Aug. 1, 2002, 05:25 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
Don't you dare giggle, YD <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Why would I?

Weatherford
Aug. 1, 2002, 07:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Weatherford said that Mr Leone was rude to Karen O'connor.Several people who listened on the webcast(I couldn't make it work)said that she was relentless in asking for funds for her owner.Leone told her in a very calm voice several times that the team and her owner would be fully funded. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I was there. Karen asked a legitimate question. Armand waffled around it - didn't give a straight answer, yes or no, and, to my way of looking, blew her off. All the disciplines had received a letter from the USET saying that they had to cut their budgets - no word on how much - and Karen was aware of it.

You are right, she was relentless - looking for a straight, honest answer - so she could go back to her owners (and she has more than one) and give them a budget. Also, so she could go back to the other people in her discipline and report what had been said so THEY could budget.

I will find the transcript. He was rude.

He was also VERY rude to Mrs. Johnson, who has been patiently waiting the opportunity to see the USET financials (as she is entitled to see them) since mid-October.

Which was not what I heard in Florida last week from someone who had heard it from "someone who was there" Amazing the different perceptions of different people. That gentleman heard that "Sheila Johnson made an a** of herself at the Board meeting." To which I said, not the Board meeting I attended.

So, it is peception. And the whole thing was VIDEOTAPED - so if you want to WATCH it, I am sure you can.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

buryinghill1
Aug. 1, 2002, 07:11 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
And the whole thing was VIDEOTAPED - so if you want to WATCH it, I am sure you can.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
But you have to go to Lexington to watch it.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Ruby G. Weber
Aug. 1, 2002, 07:18 AM
I really don't want to get into this any longer but...without question Karen O'Conner knew the answer to her question before she asked. She knew her horses way was paid to WEG. What wasn't clear was if there was enough funding for the coach (applied for 300K) to go around and "get to know the horses and riders before Spain."

Concerning Mrs. Johnson, it is my understanding that she and Mr. Leone had a private conversation before the 7/9 meeting about the very subject she brought up. She too already had an answer.

An aside, the Brits are not able to fully fund all the disciplines going to WEG.

canyonoak
Aug. 1, 2002, 07:31 AM
Yanno, here's a point to consider:

While Armand Leone(USET)was sitting at the USAEq board meeting, fielding questions and answering them, and while we here can discuss our perceptions of who was rude to whom....

THE REALITY is that AT THAT TRUE MOMENT IN TIME, Armand Leone was having his law firm file a countersuit against Alan Balch, claiming that it was injurious and harmfulto USET for the USAEq president to be involved with USET.

And then of course, he got up "to catch a plane" coincidentally before the news of the countersuit was announced.

Now what I think is: Mr Leone was just being considerate of everyone else's feelings at the meeting, and wanted the meeting to be able to carry on purposefully and in good conscience without being annoyed by the piffle of the countersuit.

Thank heavens Mr. Leone is a considerate, thoughful adult!

I think I shall write a letter to his bar association and his mom, commending him for his character, professional courtesy etcetera.

Yes..the above is inflammatory.

That is because it is obvuious from the rest of the post--without even hearing the inflection of my voice--that sarcasm is the ruling quality.

I think it is safe to say that MANY questions and answers at that USAEq board meeting held content that was already known.

The question is: who knew the answers? When? How?

and that is why the meeting was public.

That is HOW we are able to discuss it here...as opposed to the USET meetings/telephone conversations for the privileged few.

I could go on, but why. Everyone here has picked sides and I seriously doubt that any of us will convince any of the others to change their views.

That is how we got here in the first place.

Laurel and Hardy.

"This is a fine mess you've gotten us into, Ollie."

Weatherford
Aug. 1, 2002, 07:59 AM
Send them a blank tape - one of the 8 hour ones - yd, and see if someone will dub it for you...

Go for it - why not??

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

(Darned - I just hate it when I type too fast and don't bother to proofread...) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by Weatherford on Aug. 01, 2002 at 11:14 AM.]

lauriep
Aug. 1, 2002, 01:12 PM
as usual, has her facts in order.

With regards to the biases I referenced above, I did not say that either was right or wrong, just that both publications CLEARLY have their side picked and report from that perspective. Actually, it is quite useful if you read both because you get a, shall we say, well-rounded view of the proceedings. But to imply that one is overly predjudiced and the other is reporting without bias, well, I see it differently.

And yes, even listening to something with predjudice will color one's perception of what one heard. What some perceived as rudeness on Armand's part was perceived as annoyance at answering questions that were already answered by others.

As I have said so many times, NO ONE HERE knows the full story on either side. There are dimensions that only the uppermost players are aware of. And I don't care HOW much USAEq posts on their website, I am quite certain it is only what they want seen. I would bet that there is much more to the story that does not get posted.
And yes, I DO wish USET would get with the program of being more open. And I think they will eventually.

JMO.

Laurie

buryinghill1
Aug. 1, 2002, 01:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
Send them a blank tape - one of the 8 hour ones -
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure... and there'll be "18 minutes" missing.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Speaking of missing. Weatherford deleted my HINTS thread. It's a CONSPIRACY! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif OH WAIT.. It's back. Musta been an X-File. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[This message was edited by the artist formerly known as yd on Aug. 01, 2002 at 04:24 PM.]

Weatherford
Aug. 1, 2002, 03:07 PM
No way would I delete that thread! I need all the Hints I can use - even though the entries and entry forms are totally different in Ireland!

I did move it as you asked, though.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

JustJump
Aug. 1, 2002, 03:19 PM
<<I really don't want to get into this any longer but...without question Karen O'Conner knew the answer to her question before she asked. She knew her horses way was paid to WEG. What wasn't clear was if there was enough funding for the coach [applied for 300K) to go around and "get to know the horses and riders before Spain."
Concerning Mrs. Johnson, it is my understanding that she and Mr. Leone had a private conversation before the 7/9 meeting about the very subject she brought up. She too already had an answer.
I really don't want to get into this any longer but...without question Karen O'Conner knew the answer to her question before she asked. ...
Concerning Mrs. Johnson, it is my understanding that she and Mr. Leone had a private conversation before the 7/9 meeting about the very subject she brought up. She too already had an answer.>>


LOL anyone who thinks that anything that happens at a meeting such as the one of 7/9 is a surprise to anyone is nuts. All the moves are planned out in advance...the only surprises come when the players on the other team are out maneuvered and their pre-game plan doesn't work out the way they thought it would. That's politics.

Portia
Aug. 1, 2002, 03:35 PM
OK, assume that Karen knew the answer to the question before she asked it, and that Mrs. Johnson had a private conversation with Armand before the meeting. But maybe they thought that those were issues that needed to be addressed by the USET in public, and the only public forum available was the USA Eq meeting.

Maybe Karen and Mrs. Johnson would not have felt the need to raise those issues at that place and time if the USET would be more public and forthcoming in its dealings with its trustees, athletes, and members.

If it was rude to ask questions to which the person already knew the answer, then Armand's efforts to cross-examine Kathy Meyer about the USA Eq financials fall into the rude category too. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

poltroon
Aug. 1, 2002, 03:52 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
And I don't care HOW much USAEq posts on their website, I am quite certain it is only what they want seen. I would bet that there is much more to the story that does not get posted.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sure. USET has a website - if there are documents that should be posted, they should put them there.

Heck, webspace is free or nearly. Anyone with documents can put them up for all to see.

If KOC and SJ already knew the answers (highly possible), it's doubly sad that AL could only answer them with personal attacks.

Snowbird
Aug. 1, 2002, 05:20 PM
For heaven's sake please let's not get as silly as others in this view. The simple fact is that just shortly before the meeting the USET had announced that each discipline would have to raise their own money. That the budget had been cut for all disciplines.

Karen O'Connor had serious reason to believe that what she was now being told for public reference was not what those in Eventing had been told just a short time before. Have you forgotten the weeks of belt tightning and the declarations of financial problems because there had been so few donations.

It is understandable that both she and Sheila Johnson could be told that all was well with the world and it really wasn't all taken care of by the USET.

Well, Ruby we have your word:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I really don't want to get into this any longer but...without question Karen O'Conner knew the answer to her question before she asked. She knew her horses way was paid to WEG. What wasn't clear was if there was enough funding for the coach (applied for 300K) to go around and "get to know the horses and riders before Spain." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then this is an association of members so you must forgive us if we as members do not have the same information.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Aug. 01, 2002 at 11:08 PM.]

lauriep
Aug. 1, 2002, 08:21 PM
With regard to the WEG, which was the point of Karen's question, she had been told her owner would not have to pay anything, the trip to the WEG was covered. As Ruby stated, there was additional cost that was questioned, but eventually worked out. And this expense was unique to eventing.

As to the disciplines having to raise their own money: the three main disciplines have raised an enormous amount of money. The other four have only raised a fraction. Armand does not think it fair to take from the ones who have done their homework and give it to those who haven't. Hence, they are being told to "get to work" and get their fundraising in order.

Laurie

Snowbird
Aug. 1, 2002, 08:50 PM
Can you understand that someone who is not an insider the members don't know the facts.

That's really the point every conversation and statement is interpreted from the perspective of the individual's knowledge. I had the feeling that Karen O'Connor did not believe that it was so, therefore my impression was one of doubt.

Why, because I had no knowledge that it was true.

PMJ
Aug. 1, 2002, 09:07 PM
Wouldn't one point of asking the questions in dispute here not so much be to stir up trouble by the people who seem to support USAE, but to get the answer in the public record. Again, perception, but I would think the questions would be asked for the purpose of recording them so the facts would be on record, not just to be a pain even thought the individual asking may have known the answer/result. That way everyone can be informed about both process and in this case the way monies are being put forward.

wtywmn4
Aug. 1, 2002, 09:14 PM
Could someone tell me if this is true? Heard that Thom Brede and Joe Dotolli resigned this week at the board meeting. And why on earth did they?

Snowbird
Aug. 1, 2002, 09:22 PM
But based on no facts I can prove the rumors at the meeting were that Dotoli was going to be the nomination of TS for President if he had gotten far enough to bring up the point of Alan Balch being forced into exile.

The 2nd half of the rumor was that Thom and Wissie moved to Kentucky and he would be the TS choice for President either if Dotoli didn't make it of if Dotoli would just be an interim President since he could hardly commute from Connecticut to Kentucky.

Actually, the resignation if it happened was probably of Thom from the Zone 2 Committee since he's not in Zone 2 anymore.

Please remember the operative words are "rumor" and "based on no facts whatsoever".

Weatherford
Aug. 2, 2002, 04:06 AM
Unfortunately, Dotoli's resignation is a fact.

As is Tom Streuzzeri's.

It is also a fact that TS is also advertising for a secretary and Director for his new horse show association, based in NY State.

I think both resignations are a loss to the association, especially Joe's.

Found the view, just a-lookin' fer some $$$$ /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ...

Ruby G. Weber
Aug. 2, 2002, 06:23 AM
Could it be that TS is getting "his ducks in a row" in the event USOC declares a vacancy?

buryinghill1
Aug. 2, 2002, 06:57 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
Could it be that TS is getting "his ducks in a row" in the event USOC declares a vacancy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So that this new group of fine upstanding citizens could start the new NGB? Yup. I can see it. The USOC will skip USAEq, skip USET and point the finger at USAStruzzieri. "Here - you be the NGB." /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Portia
Aug. 2, 2002, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
As to the disciplines having to raise their own money: the three main disciplines have raised an enormous amount of money. The other four have only raised a fraction. Armand does not think it fair to take from the ones who have done their homework and give it to those who haven't. Hence, they are being told to "get to work" and get their fundraising in order.

Laurie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Just to be clear, vaulting has raised its entire budget on its own -- as it always has done. Although vaulting has been an FEI discipline for who knows how long, the USET brought vaulting under its umbrella -- at least on paper -- last year only because it was forced to do so as part of its bid to become NGB.

As for TS's new group, does anyone imagine it will cover anything other than H/J? TS doesn't have any interest in any other discipline and I doubt he's planning on expanding now.

"I'm designed for sitting. That's why my butt is covered in soft fur." Dogbert

buryinghill1
Aug. 2, 2002, 07:50 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
As for TS's new group, does anyone imagine it will cover anything other than H/J? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
No. There's no money in vaulting, eventing or dressage. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

SGray
Aug. 2, 2002, 09:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
Could it be that TS is getting "his ducks in a row" in the event USOC declares a vacancy?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I just assumed that an NGB had to be non-profit

Snowbird
Aug. 2, 2002, 09:56 AM
All the spin offs can be very profitable.

I thought TS only resigned from the Executive Committee.

Snowbird
Aug. 2, 2002, 03:12 PM
Did both Dotoli and Struzzeri resign from their respective zone committees too? or just from the Board or the Executive Committee?

Did Thom Brede resign from the Zone 2 committee since he now lives in Kentucky?

Does anyone know yet who was elected to the Zone 2 Committee?

upperco
Aug. 6, 2002, 02:53 AM
Have I missed something or has the USOC not ruled or commented on the IOC hearing panel reccomendation that the officers of the USAE and the USET step aside?Is it true that the USAE is going to push for arbitration.? If it is true,why don't the officers just step aside?

SGray
Aug. 8, 2002, 12:04 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:
Did both Dotoli and Struzzeri resign from their respective zone committees too? or just from the Board or the Executive Committee?

Did Thom Brede resign from the Zone 2 committee since he now lives in Kentucky?

Does anyone know yet who was elected to the Zone 2 Committee?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Both Mr. Struzzieri and Mr. Dotoli have resigned from the USA Equestrian Board of Directors, but are still active as members of their respective Zone Committees. The Zone 2 elections are taking place this summer and Mr. Brede did not run for re-election. The new members of the committee are: Bob Allen, Katie Benson, Mary Chapot, Leo Conroy, Robin Fairclough, Raymond Francis, Frank Madden, Judy Ricther, Susan Schoellkopf, Louise Serio, Thomas Struzzieri, Rita Timpanaro, Alvin Topping, and Sissy Wickes. The election for Chairman and Vice Chairman are underway and will conclude by the end of August. The new committee takes office on September 1.

Snowbird
Aug. 8, 2002, 09:26 PM
If you're going to resign I would hope you'd really do it and not stick like a thorn under a toe nail.

Looks like Zone 2 has some hope though the new guys at least know something about the C/B/A shows. Glad to finally find out who's on our committee the new faces should help a lot.

SGray
Aug. 9, 2002, 07:31 AM
Isn't he the gentleman that fought so hard for the helmet regulations?

If so, I find it sad that he is stepping down.

Snowbird
Aug. 9, 2002, 11:28 AM
TS has been advertising for an Executive Director and Dotoli was his candidate to replace Alan Balch if that had worked.