AHSA / USET END TALKS

[Twister]

The USET says it is not interested in those of us at the bottom, so to speak. Yet, to be NGB, they have to organize all the horse sports at all levels, meaning little me at the bottom.


The USET hasn't fielded many Olympic winners lately, the area in which it claims expertise.

Since I want,
1)my needs, as one of those little people, addressed and
2)A winning Olympic team

Why woud I support the USET?

Is there anyone here supporting the USET position who can answer my question?

[SGray]

Okay all you folks let's send her gas money (and hotel money if she has to stay the night)

She doesn't have to give out her address - we could send it to her care-of her barn.

[AHC]

Portia, thank you for taking time out of your weekend and time with your horses to attend the USOC meeting. The more "up-close-and-personal" information that is available, the more many of us will feel we have enough information to form useful opinions and to express them.

So far, I think I'm with the AHSA on this one. Did you all see the COTH ad with the athletes names' endorsing the USET plan? I remember an earlier thread on it here, or maybe it was something written on towerheads, that explained that athletes weren't told exactly what they were agreeing to, or weren't told about alternatives or something. Anyone else know where to find this?

[Portia]

I can't stand not being there to see it first hand. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif And I don't need gas or hotel money, though thank you for the offer /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif - my little Audi A-4 gets good mileage, and I'm driving over in the am and back in the afternoon. As you know S.Grey, it's not a bad drive as traveling around Texas goes. And I know my way around downtown San Antonio and have stayed at the hotel where the meeting is being held many times.

I guess I should also make a disclosure -- I've been invited to join two AHSA committees, the Hearings Committee and the Legal Review Committee, and I'm going to accept the invitations. I don't know if that makes me part of the establishment or not -- but then several people on the USET are AHSA board members, so I guess being on a couple of committees doesn't disqualify me from telling people what happens at the meeting and offering my opinion on it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[cmf]

AHSA Approves Budget Supplement Insuring International Athlete Support,
Defense Against USET Challenge


A special meeting of the American Horse Shows Association (AHSA) Executive
Committee was held late on February 22, 2001. Its members voted to approve
a supplement to the 2001 budget of approximately $3.5 million, immediately
responding to any threat to international athlete funding support that might
be caused by the United States Equestrian Team's move to challenge the
AHSA's historic status as National Governing Body (NGB) for Equestrian
sport.

The special meeting was triggered by a USET trustees telephone conference
earlier in the day. USET trustees were advised by Vice Chairman Armand
Leone, Jr., that he and Chairman Finn M.W. Caspersen had already signed and
submitted a formal challenge of the AHSA's status to the United States
Olympic Committee (USOC) without seeking advance approval of the trustees.
Upon a motion by USET trustee James Wofford that the USET officers
immediately take steps to rescind the challenge, Leone ruled the motion out
of order without waiting for a second. During the ensuing discussion, Leone
stated that he had been "forced" to commence this litigation since the
AHSA/USET Operating Agreement is due to expire Sunday evening, February 25,
2001. AHSA president Alan F. Balch, who is also a USET trustee, asked Leone
why the expiration of the Operating Agreement should cause this action,
since the USET grew for 46 years without such an agreement with the AHSA.
Leone had stated that the USET could not rely on the "whim" of the AHSA's
oversight of its activities. At the conclusion of the meeting, Leone
accepted a motion by trustee Dorothy A. Matz to endorse the challenge. It
passed by a wide margin, but with 4 abstentions and 4 votes against.

The AHSA Executive Committee meeting was noticed to all members of the AHSA
Board of Directors, affiliates, athlete leadership, and equestrian media,
who were invited to attend the teleconference. The budget supplement was
approved on the recommendation of the AHSA Budget and Finance Committee,
which had met immediately upon the conclusion of the USET trustees meeting.
The supplement approved will authorize investment for new efforts in
marketing and development, including staff hiring, to raise the needed
funds. The overall budget as approved now forecasts a deficit for the 2001
fiscal year of approximately $17,000 in a total budget of about $15.6
million. The new expenditures will be devoted to international athlete
programs and competition, and additional hiring which may be necessary in
that area, should the USET withdraw support. Balch emphasized that he saw
no reason for the USET to do so, since the AHSA as NGB had always welcomed
support by any approved affiliate organization to support international
competition efforts for the United States. The USET has historically filled
such a role.

A sweeping resolution was also passed by the Executive Committee authorizing
the AHSA officers to take any necessary steps to defend the AHSA against the
formal challenge by the USET filed with the USOC.

Following the meeting, Balch said, "I want to repeat how disappointed we all
are that the USET has chosen to take this approach to the sport's
governance, as well as by its tone in doing so. But the AHSA has been
tested many times over the decades in protecting the whole sport in the USA,
and has always had the ability to do it effectively. We will continue to
welcome the USET's assistance in supporting our country's international
athletes, if they choose to offer it. A formal challenge can be filed, and
it can also be withdrawn at some point. We continue to believe that a
consolidation of the sport's important governance functions, international,
national, and administrative, is best for its long term health, and we also
believe the law requires it. We'll go forward this weekend to the USOC
Membership Committee with these ideas, while seeing to it that the rights
and opportunities of all equestrian athletes are protected and funded
without interruption. The USOC's procedures for resolving such formal
challenges as the USET has filed will be followed in every respect."

[Portia]

Here's the link to the thread on the USET ad in the COTH --
http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=691099205&f=602099205&m=5670983211

[SGray]

re "I guess I should also make a disclosure -- I've been invited to join two AHSA committees, the Hearings Committee and the Legal Review Committee"

I don't know how the AHSA became aware of J but I applaud both their decision and hers.

[SGray]

see http://www.chronofhorse.com/features/01/uset_challenges_ahsa.html

[Portia]

Thanks Again, S., that's very kind of you.

The AHSA became aware of me through what started here on these boards a year or so ago! These boards introduced me to a whole range of issues I'd never been aware of before, and politicized me about the governance of the sport.

Snowbird asked me to look at the AHSA Rules to answer a question she had about rules amendments, and it took me 4 hours to find the right provisions in the rulebook. I thought if it takes a lawyer who is used to working with complex regulatory schemes 4 hours to find an answer to a relatively simple question, something is wrong in the way the rules are organized. I also figured that, given I have the necessary professional skills to suggest improvements, I couldn't bitch about unless I made some effort to try to fix it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif So that set me off on my entirely unilateral and unsanctioned AHSA rules reorganization project.

I assumed it couldn't possibly succeed and would be rejected as soon as the AHSA saw it, and then I would be free to bitch about the AHSA to my heart's content. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif However, Linda Allen saw the rules reorganization project mentioned here, and contacted me to offer her support. (Boy, was I floored by her offer!) So I did a proposal for reorganizing the rules, and rewrote several chapters of the rule book as an example. Linda showed it to some people and it got great support from various people on the Executive Committee and from counsel for the AHSA. Hopefully it will be implemented along with the big changes that are inevitable with the events concerning the NGB status. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

So, that's how I came to the attention of the AHSA. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif I'm as amazed as anyone. But it is, I think, an excellent example of the AHSA management's interest in getting the grassroots people involved in issues affecting the sport and in making decisions regarding those issues. They really do seem to appreciate an offer of help when it's given even from a little adult amateur with a couple of horses out in Texas. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[hoopoe]

Portia, YOU SAID IT! Grassroots people are the base that makes up the bulk of the AHSA. We need people like you who are well grounded in reality.

I have not been able to follow all of this issue due to constraints on my computer time, but this board seems to be well versed and I am going to print out and review this issue.

I primarily work in show management as I am not currently an active rider. I shudder to think what the loss of AHSA will do to the average show. Managing one is hard enough, even with AHSA help. Cant imagine starting the system over.

[JustaLurker]

Portia, it's great that the AHSA offered and you accepted positions on both the AHSA Hearings Committee and the Legal Review Committee.

It's great to see that the powers that be have an eye out for those who can contribute and that they will actively recruit.

Cheers, Maggi

[woodbern]

Good of you to make yourself available to attend the meeting. Looking forward to your take on this. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Allyn M]

Happy to see that the AHSA recognizes the hard work and interest that both you and Snowbird have committed to bettering things for everyone concerned. I will have to admit that I am confused about the general attitude of the USET. For years I have been hearing that the horse sport division of the Olympics was just barely hanging on,because of the perceived elitism of the sport and now they come to the Olympic committee with an unbelieveably elite attitude and ask that they approve of their program. Doesn't that seem strange????

[Glimmerglass]

address the news of the $3.5 million in approved funds by the AHSA Exec Committee to continue this battle? Equal time in criticism on this thread would be appreciated. (see AHSA press release for 2/23/01)

[This message was edited by Glimmerglass on Feb. 24, 2001 at 11:09 AM.]

[cmf]

The $3.5 million approved by AHSA was not for attornies or to 'continue the battle' as you say. It was to maintain the status quo for athlete programs should USET refuse to cooperate in any way.

[woodbern]

Sincere question.... you have all the time in the world on this thread. Do you want to criticize? Then by all means, do so!

I think most of us are open to other opinions, though some might not agree.

I don't think that most of us believe our individual opinions are gospel.

(As I have already stated, mine is worth less than a cup of green tea...) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[poltroon]

David O'Connor wrote a really nice op-ed article for US Event Horse http://www.useventhorse.com/. It's subscription only, but the jist is
- elite athletes will benefit either way (no doubt just from the end of the controversy!)
- one organization is better for marketing & fundraising
- there are legal issues with having two organizations administering rules -- and here I'll quote directly:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
It is unrealistic to have two hearing committees and grievance processes to govern our sports. I maintain, and my conversations with experts in the fieldsupport, that a clever lawyer will have no trouble exploiting that gap in the system. For example, a person found guilty at the national level and prohibited from being on the grounds at a horse show may be able to argue that they stillhave the right to compete in protected international competitions, i.e., selection trials, even though those selection trials may be held on the grounds of a national competition. This model would force our sport into a legal minefield in no time at all.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a very good article.

[Snowbird]

The fact is that the AHSA has to be prepared to pick up the price tag of the contracts of the athletes expenses etc. in the event that they are the NGB and the USET refuses to come home.

Since the USET has done it's own fund raising there is nothing in place at this time to absorb the costs for those athletes that choose to stay with the AHSA and become the nucleus of a new program. The USET is in the hole for $2 million and the reports indicate that the $3.5 million is less than half of their annual expenses.

You know what? I don't even mind a $2.00 a show fee for our Olympic team if it saves them from being bought and paid for by the "rich" benefactors who just want the glory of being very important people. Or the wealthy who buy their favorite riders a slot on the team. I'll bet that both Frank Chapot and George Morris would really love the opportunity to prove themselves based on their ability and not the rich people that like them.

It seems to me pretty pathetic that in order to defend their right not to be accountable for their income and expenses the USET has chosen this route. Although, I should qualify it to the extent that from the paper work the Board of Trustees was never even asked to vote on this issue. This seems more like a runaway situation with a couple of egotists taking control away from the organization.

I commend the AHSA for being able to recognize the superior talent and intelligence of Portia and inviting her to participate where she is best suited. It seems to me that not only has Alan Blach talked the talk, but the AHSA is walking the walk. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Does anyone know if Portia has a lap top, or do we have to wait till she gets home to give us the news?

I figure eastern time it would be about midnight here when she gets home unless of course she decides to eat dinner. Well, Ill be checking in all night.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Feb. 24, 2001 at 07:34 PM.]

[Portia]

This is the short version - I've got pages of notes with what people said.

Just got back in after an accident closed the freeway near Sealy (about an hour West of Houston). Here's the short version - The USOC cancelled the compliance review scheduled for today because of the USET filing the official Article 8 challenge to AHSA as the NGB, which is USOC's SOP in such situations (enough acronyms do you think?) But the USET (Bob Standish) had sent a letter to USOC saying that the USET and its athlete programs will be irreparably harmed if the Operating Agreement is not extended past its expiration tomorrow.

So today turned into a hearing to find out whether the AHSA can immediately assume all the functions that the USET has been performing to get the athletes ready over the next six months of the challenge process. The USET asked the USOC to take over the functions of the NGB as far as athlete programs and dispursing money goes, or to officially give those responsibilities to the USET during the challenge period.

The USOC Membership and Credentials Committee was delegated by the USOC Executive Committee to hear the immediate issue on an emergency basis and make a recommendation to the Exec. Comm. So, much of the materials each side had prepared for the compliance review became temporarily irrelevant and the only issues were (1) whether the parties would agree to extend the OA, which the USOC Exec Comm asked them to do, and (2), if not, whether the programs and preparation would be irreparably harmed if the relief the USET requested was not granted.

Alan Balch explained that the AHSA could not agree to extend the OA because the USET is using the existence of the OA as the primary basis for claiming AHSA is out of compliance and that USET should be made the new NGB. David O'Connor and Alan Balch both asked several times whether the USET was going to stop funding programs and fulfilling the function for which it exists simply because the OA would no longer be in place, and the AHSA did not see any reason why the USET would have to close up shop as it is threatening to do. They operated together without an OA for 46 years, they can do it again. They never got an answer from the USET people, except that Jim Wolfe finally said that "the last thing the USET wants to do" is interrupt the athlete funding and programs.

Both parties presented their arguments, Alan Balch, David O'Connor, Jim Wofford, Kathy Meyer, Kate Jackson, Peter Alkalay (lawyer), Ira Finkelstein (lawyer), John Boesch (development consultant - media, fundraising, sponsorship, etc.), and others for the AHSA.

For the USET, Armand Leone, Eric Strauss, Jim Wolfe, Bonnie Jenkins, Robert Dover, Mark Leone, Mike Huber. and the Mark Piawar(?), CFO for the USET, and their lawyer Ed Williams.

The AHSA's main point was that if the USET refuses to continue to perform its functions the AHSA has international staff ready to go and it has $7 million sitting in the bank ready to fund whatever programs are necessary, and it has passed a budget to fund and fulfill all the athelete programs. The AHSA emphasized that it wants a unified sport and that this is a great opportunity to develop a unified sport with increased sponsorship, and it hopes the USET will participate in that opportunity. However, if the USET continues to chose not to do so, the AHSA is prepared to and able to assume all the functions the USET has performed without interruption of athlete programs or services.

The USET's main point was that it is the one who has funded and fielded the teams and it has the programs in place and the contacts and experience to be able to serve the atheletes, and the AHSA doesn't -- can't remember whether it was Leone or Dover who said the AHSA proposal was "all smoke and mirrors." Leone insisted that all the AHSA has is plans and proposals (pipe dreams, I think he said but don't quote me on that), and could not take over the USET functions.

Alan said the AHSA can and will assume those functions, but how much the AHSA has to do depends on what the USET decides. He pointed out that the USET has known about the expiration date of the OA for a very long time but delayed until the last minute to raise this "emergency" for strategic reasons, the USET has caused its own problems. He said the USET is saying the sky is falling, and the sky is not falling.

The USOC committee members asked various questions. It was very hard to tell which way they were thinking, the questions were pretty evenly divided challenging each' side's assertions -- other than that they really wanted the AHSA to agree to extend the OA so it would take the problem out of their hands.

The athletes (O'Connor, Dover, Huber, and Mark Leone) met privately with the Committee for several minutes.

The Committee met in closed session after dismissing the parties to decide what recommendation to make to the USOC Exec Committee, and they were going to keep it confidential and the word on the final decision would have to come from the Exec Comm.

I have pages of notes with details, but that will take awhile to get put together. I wish I could give you something concrete, but we won't know until the USOC decides on the USET request for relief to avoid alleged irreparable harm - that decision will only be for the period of the challenge review, though. The USOC has appointed a hearing panel to deterimine the challenge, and that will apparently take about 6 months.

[Dru]

for a terrific report !

[Portia]

Not a lot of hard facts today, but one thing that struck me as significant.

The USET got 40% of its entire operating budget for last year from a total of 7 people. Alan Balch mentioned that fact in saying that the sport can no longer depend on a few individuals and needs to develop a broad base of support. The AHSA proposals are designed to try to achieve that with a concerted and professional program to develop sponsorship. That's why the sponsorship consultant was at the meeting today.

Another thing, the USET threw out some budget numbers for the money they say they have budgeted and have in hand for athlete programs; however, Alan Balch, Jim Wofford, and David O'Connor are all on the USET board of trustees and confirmed that the USET has not yet presented a budget for 2001. Apparently the USET has set a meeting for this week sometime to address the budget, but Alan Balch emphasized that the USET has refused to present one to the trustees up until now. Also, according to what David O'Connor said, approximately $6 million or more of the USET budget does not go to any athlete programs.

Because the USET did not have budget numbers and would not provide them to the AHSA, the AHSA had to try to reverse engineer the budget used for athlete programs by interviewing various people involved in them. When the USET people said the budget passed by the AHSA two days ago to fund athlete programs would not be sufficient, the AHSA people said that it should be, but if for any reason it is not, the AHSA has the money in the bank to increase the funding to ensure that athlete programs are not disrupted.

I'll give you more details tomorrow.

[Lord Helpus]

But I just do not understand the USET's problem. They are being so secretive and obfuscating (obfuscatory?). Talk about smoke and mirrors!

Is the USET trying to hide something? The situation goes beyond egos now --- it almost seems like a desperate attempt by the USET to avoid showing their books (or, if the AHSA takes over the funding, then the AHSA can prove exactly how much money it takes to run these programs.) Perhaps the USET just does not want that known. Does anyone else get the feeling that the USET is desperately trying to avoid laying their cards on the table?

[Snowbird]

I am personally very grateful for all your efforts and so pleased to hear the news from someone that I can trust to tbe telling the truth.

My question is in your "intuitive" impressions did you feel that they would at the worst extend the Operating Agreement? And can they do they quickly enough?

While they are investigating do you have "hunch" what they will require to keep all the ducks in a row? Since the USOC is just trying to recover from the scandal of the Utah Winter Olympics do you "feel" that they are less inclined to support the patronage concept that the USET operates under?

Did you get any sense at all of the direction they were taking in their recommendations? If you were the attorney for the USOC how would you see the proposals?

I am in ultimate suspense. I do so believe that we can make a difference as individuals and I am so gratified to see that there are now so many who really care and will get involved that it makes all my work feel really worth while.

I just find it very hard to believe that under these circumstances any "hearing committee" could not tell the difference and not prefer an association with a 100 year history of organizing this industry to a select group who want to run a private club with no accountability.

Can't wait for your posts tomorrow, you deserve a good night's sleep and I'm looking forward to the details.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Snowbird]

Well PamM,

I do think that a big part of what brought this to a head was that they didn't want to disclose how much salaries were and what they spend their expense money on. I'm sure they also didn't want to disclose that they have no headquarters and that Finn Casperson misled everyone into thinking they had a deed to the property. When is reality they have no physical assets. The farm afterall would be worth about 20 million in assets which could be financed to get cash whenever they needed it but that doesn't exist and when the new owners take take over they may very well be on a month to month basis.

Don't forget that we were all mislead into believing that Hamilton Farm would always be the home of the Team. They certainly also didn't want anyone to know that 7 people have control by virtue of their financial support. I can't help but believe that is a deciding factor for the USOC.

Another interesting question would be how many of the horses in the top line to go to the Olympics belong to those 7 people, and how many riders and coaches depend on those same 7 for their financial stability?

[Portia]

I checked back in, but this is the last time tonight! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

The issue now before the USOC is whether the USET's assertion that the expiration of the Operating Agreement will cause irreparable harm to the athlete programs and ability to prepare a team and put them forward for the 2002 World Games. The USOC does not have the power to force the parties to extend the OA -- it is a private contract and if one of the parties does not agree to extend it, then they can't force it to stay in place. Alan Balch and the AHSA were absolute in saying the AHSA cannot agree to extend the OA because of the claims asserted by the USET in its challenge to become the NGB.

The USOC is to first decide whether the AHSA is capable of organizing and funding the athlete programs during the interim period while the challenge procedure is going forward and whether irreparable harm will occur. If the USOC determines that the AHSA is not capable of doing so, then it will decide whether the USOC itself will assume the responsibilities for dispursing funds and coordinating activities, or delegate that authority to the USET (as the USET has requested) and thus "preserve the status quo" until the NGB decision is made.

The USET was complaining that its contracts with its coaches for the teams might be endangered by the expiration of the OA. The counsel for the Committee asked why the USET went ahead and entered into these new contracts with Mark Phillips, Klaus Balkenhol, even David O'Connor just last week, when they knew very well for many months exactly when the OA would expire. Armand Leone's response was that they "had to move ahead or fall behind," so they felt they had to get the contracts in place despite the uncertainty. Alan Balch said the AHSA believes that these people are committed to winning and to the US athletes, not to the USET individually, and the AHSA will ratify all of these contracts and support them regardless of what the USET decides to do.

The USET eventually had to concede that its contracts with coaches like Klaus Balkenhol and Mark Phillips won't terminate when the OA does, and nothing is forcing the USET to suspend its funding of programs or stop its operations. Jim Wolfe explained the real problem if the OA expires is not that the USET will want to withdraw athlete funding ("the last thing the USET wants to do is withdraw athlete funding") or cease to be able to perform its functions, but that if the OA expired the USET will have to get together with the AHSA to work out new parameters for their responsibilities that were governed by the OA, and the USET does not like the uncertainty of that situation.

David O'Connor explained that from the athlete's perspective, all of the USET programs for the next 9 months or so are already in place -- grants have been given, the arrangements are already made. The only way that would fail is if the USET decides to withdraw funding, and he can't imagine why it would do that since funding these programs is its reason for existence. The issues regarding the OA, therefore, are really issues of determining spheres of influence on an administrative level, not on a level that affects the athlete programs.

The last question the committee asked was whether the AHSA would allow the USET to continue to perform "relatively unfettered" the functions it has been performing, even without the OA in place. Alan Balch said yes, absolutely, and it would be relatively unfettered. He could not say absolutely unfettered because of the duties the AHSA has as the NGB. But the AHSA sees no reason why the USET cannot continue to operate in the interim while the NGB challenge in being decided.

The questioning from the USOC people was very evenhanded in challenging each side's assertions, and I honestly could not get a feel how they will decide. They are primarily concerned with the athletes and with making sure that the athletes programs are not disrupted.

The USOC people were disappointed, I think, that the AHSA did not agree to extend the OA and thereby take this very hot potato out of the USOC's hands, but I think they are certainly sharp enough to know why the AHSA could not agree to do that. And I hope they are sharp enough to see that the USET is using this whole irreparable harm claim as a power play (that's my opinion, at least) and it has no intention of folding its tents on Monday and abandoning everything already in place.

I liked the attitude of one USOC committee member very much, Cynthia Kelly who comes from the badminton world -- she specifically asked how this situation might affect the welfare of the horses. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Oh, and there was a reporter there - a stringer from the San Antonio Star-Ledger who was there freelancing for "some horse magazines." He couldn't remember which exactly, but we will see some stories from him on it. He asked me for a little bit of background on what was happening, and caught on quickly to what the proceedings were about. I know he got a copy of the NGB Challenge the USET filed along with some relevant correspondence and the directive to the committee for what they were to do in the meeting, so that should be appearing somewhere.

[woodbern]

We can't thank you enough for taking your time to attend.

What a scribe you are, too! All that info, whoa...!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Allyn M]

Now I know why they keep calling and asking for a renewal of our pledge to USET ----- I guess I thought we were helping our team. I never realized that there was absolutely no accountability and no yearly audit and no ownership or at least a long term lease of Gladstone -------- A lesson well learned !!!

[wtywmn4]

You always are precise and well written. Thank you for taking the time and energy to fill us in.

Thankfully, with Alan Balch's leadership, the AHSA is finally seeing what they have available to them in their members. Using this to help progress the organization forward. Congratulations Portia,we are very happy to see you so deeply involved!!

There has always been an excellent, untapped resource in the membership. Finally it's being used. Something that many of us have felt was long over due. Without the current leadership we still might have remained in the dark ages. This in itself, is a tremendous step forward. Sorry to be so long, but feel VERY strongly about this.

[Snowbird]

This is exactly the kind of resource that I knew was out here and hoped I could help stimulate. I am sure there are a lot of you that once you realize that one person can make a difference will step forward. And, I pray there will be a lot of new faces from different perspectives on all the committees.

Somehow, I feel that what we see in this debacle with the USET is the unseating of those who have been in charge of this sport as "elitists" losing their hold as we all step forward.

I believe you have all given Alan Balch and the AHSA the kind of support and encouragement they needed to keep going. I can tell that many many of them are lurking out here and feel which way the wind is blowing.

All of the very competent questions and dialog have helped us to clear the air for our own thinking and that in reality can change our little piece of the world. I can now visualize a sport where every little kid who has a dream will be able to "TRY" to get it to come true.

I had a debate recently with someone regarding the value of the collective intelligence. While I do believe in the "individual" rights and responsibilities, I am convinced that the collective intelligence if cultivated can do wonderful things. The age of ideas and principle is not over, I think all of you are giving it a rebirth not unlike the days of our founding fathers when "individuals" came together for a greater good purpose.

Like Portia, I will not believe that the USOC will not see through the manipulation of the situation by the USET. It does seem very clear that if they wish to continue during this "Investigation" of the facts that they can, and if they don't the AHSA is prepared and capable of making sure that the athletes and the "TEAM" which is supposed to represent all of us in a country will not perish.

Again Thank You Portia for answering my questions and taking the time and energy needed to keep us all up to snuff. With your legal training you have put the issue fairly and concisely.

Thank you also to David O'Connor who once again has proved why he deserved to be an Olympic Champion. His focus and level headed fairness throughout these discussions has been model of what intelligent people can accomplish when they are dedicated to the good purposes.

So much more inspiring than watching the self-serving efforts of a few who believe they somehow deserve privilege simply because they inherited so much riches.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Feb. 25, 2001 at 12:35 PM.]

[Portia]

From some comments from people I was introduced to yesterday, the AHSA people read these boards - lurking out there to make sure they get an idea of what people are thinking and care about. Not all the time of course, no time for that, but they do check in. They knew what people were saying.

The USET people may read the boards as well, I don't know, but I would think they would want to know what's going on out there with the little people.

[Portia]

oops, I forgot to say thank you for all the kind words. I'll have more info later, I've got to go to the barn and get the kids cleaned up for a local show next week. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Weatherford]

into a new thread of its own, as this one is getting rather lengthy.

http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=691099205&f=602099205&m=1430923021

We would appreciate it if people would go to the new thread to post.

Thanks - keep the discussion going - this is critical to the future of our sport!

[wtywmn4]

Put something like follow the bouncing ball with arrows...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>