AHSA / USET END TALKS

[Dru]

AHSA has an announcement on their website:

www.ahsa.org (http://www.ahsa.org)

[Dru]

AHSA has an announcement on their website:

www.ahsa.org (http://www.ahsa.org)

[Mazzy]

.....that egos cannot be contained and the horse-owning paying public will have to fund the price of this argument.

With attitudes like this I would imagine that we will continue to field such strong teams of experienced jumper riders to compete so successfully against the world's best (inject sarcasm here!).

I DON'T GET IT!!!!!!!!!! GRRRRRRRRRR.

[AHC]

I read this as not good news..... Sounds like once again the spirit of cooperation was lost in the midst of infighting and egos. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Portia]

Sad, but not really surprising. From what I saw of the USET people at the AHSA meeting, they were polarized and never going to accept a compromise that might deprive them of any degree of power (and, for some, high paying jobs).

The USET has an announcement about the vote on their site, but they focus on what was apparently a subsidiary vote of the "equestrian atheletes" who are members of the USET Board of Trustees. The USET press announcement says that "Active Athletes from the Olympic disciplines voted 22 to 0 for the USET plan. In total, the USET plan was endorsed 22 to 2 by the athletes."

It would be interesting to see which active athletes voted. (I recognize only about 15 or 16 of the names of Board members posted on the USET site as people who are active atheletes, but obviously there are names I don't know.)

The USET is definately trying to give it the spin that the rest of us should just accept their plan because the "active atheletes" voted for it. I, however, continue to believe that our best hope for the future is in the hands of the AHSA and that the USET plan has serious practical deficiencies.

[Snowbird]

All is not well with the assets of the USET. This article in today's New York Times tells their other dilemma, will they relocate to Wellington? or Ocala?

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>January 24, 2001

Market Place: Lucent Tries to Sell Golf Course

By SIMON ROMERO

If Lucent Technologies, as expected, announces a corporate revamping today that includes a
write-down and the elimination of thousands of jobs, its investors and employees may also want to
hear about the company's outlay of more than $40 million the last two years to create one of the
world's most exclusive golf courses.

Although the project was never announced, or clearly spelled out in Lucent's financial documents, since 1998 Lucent has backed the construction of the Hamilton Farm Golf Club, a rambling, 36-hole complex in the town of Peapack-Gladstone in the heart of the New Jersey fox-hunting country. The complex includes a helicopter-landing pad, a guest home of 20,000 square feet with 10 suites, a wine cellar and tasting room and a full-time concierge.

Until recently, Lucent had planned for Hamilton Farm to sell memberships in the club to 18 large
corporations for $1 million apiece, in addition to charging annual fees of several hundred thousand
dollars a year. That plan never materialized, though several high-ranking Lucent executives did play on the course.

The aim of the club under Richard A. McGinn, a former chief executive who was ousted by Lucent's
board in October, was to create an exclusive meeting place for executives from a close circle of large
companies.

But now, with Lucent scrambling to cut costs, the company is trying to disentangle itself from the golf club. To sell the property, Lucent has offered to be the sole guarantor on a $45 million loan to three companies interested in buying it, according to documents of the financing proposal.

The documents were provided to The New York Times by a person close to the golf course project,
and their authenticity was confirmed by the company. Neither Mr. McGinn nor Henry B. Schacht, a previous chairman and chief executive who has returned to those jobs on an interim basis, could be reached for comment.

Lucent's involvement in Hamilton Farm, embarked upon when its earnings and stock price were
highflying, exemplifies the company's lofty ambitions when it became the world's largest maker of communications equipment after its spinoff from AT&T in 1996. The current attempt to quietly extract itself from the project underscores Lucent's reversal of fortunes in the last year, as it has repeatedly fallen short of earnings forecasts and its stock price has dropped 62 percent.

"In the heady days of the late 1990's they may have thought this would have worked," said Finn M. W. Caspersen, a wealthy investor in Peapack-Gladstone, whose recent offer to buy the golf course from Lucent for about $25 million in cash was turned down. "They had what I considered to be a flawed business model," he added, referring to Hamilton Farm.

Lucent, through its support of the Daylar Group, a Connecticut real estate development company,
provided about $18 million in financing for the sprawling 5,000-acre Hamilton Farm in 1998. Lucent's total investment in the property after the subsequent construction of the golf course was more than $40 million, people close to Lucent said.

While Lucent, based nearby in Murray Hill, N.J., has never detailed its involvement in the golf course in its financial documents, it has been closely involved in the management of Hamilton Farm.

Tony Marano, Lucent's vice president for real estate, was required to sign any check of more than $5,000 related to the property's expenses, people close to the company said. And a telephone list of administrative contacts distributed to employees at the club's headquarters provided the contact information for Mr. Marano and his executive assistant, next to a statement reading: "These numbers are not to be given out."

It was after the ouster of Mr. McGinn in October that Mr. Schacht, the interim chief executive, became aware of Lucent's involvement in the golf course, said Kathleen M. Fitzgerald, a company
spokeswoman.

Under Mr. Schacht, Lucent underwent an internal review of its operations and announced last month
that it would restate financial results for the quarter ended in September, reducing revenue by $679 million after it became clear the company was too aggressive in recording sales.

"Henry decided it was not the best use of our assets," Ms. Fitzgerald said. "We're confident a sales agreement would allow us to recoup our initial investment."

The property's elite character dates to 1911, when James Cox Brady, a New York financier, acquired
land next to the estate of Charles Pfizer, the pharmaceuticals magnate. Next to stables with Shetland ponies and Clydesdale horses, Brady built a 64-room Georgian brick mansion with 11 fireplaces and a chapel with stained-glass windows.

The Beneficial Corporation, a financial institution whose chairman was Mr. Caspersen, eventually acquired the farm and allowed the United States Equestrian Team to train for the Olympic games on its grounds. After Lucent took over Hamilton Farm in 1998 from Household International, which had acquired Beneficial, Lucent allowed the equestrian team to continue training on part of the property.

But Lucent's construction of two 18-hole golf courses on the property drew the ire of nearby residents who became concerned about the project's potential impact on the community.

"The opening of this golf course frankly threatens our way of life," said David Troast, president of Essex Fox Hounds, a fox-hunting group in the area. "It's not only a threat to local fox hunting but to the entire cultural landscape."

Mr. Troast's concern was echoed by David Peifer, executive director of the Upper Raritan Watershed
Association, a local environmental preservation group. "The amount of water wasted on a golf course this size is astonishing," he said. "You would think that Lucent would have had more on its mind than golf privileges."

Under Lucent's plan, the 18 corporate members were to designate 10 representatives each that could
use the club, so that no more than 180 people could frequent the property at any time. Lucent was planning to keep at least one corporate membership for itself, in addition to maintaining some administrative control over the club.

Lucent is seeking to transfer ownership of the Hamilton Farm Golf Club to a group that includes
Townsend Capital, an investment company in Towson, Md.; the Buena Vista Hospitality Group, a
golf-management company based in Tampa, Fla.; and Bill Howell Associates, an operator of boutique
hotels. PNC Capital Markets of Philadelphia is arranging the financing proposal.

According to people close to the companies involved, the golf complex's new owners would use a more conventional membership structure, with more members paying lower fees. Part of the deal would allow Lucent to remain a member of the club. Lucent expects to complete the transaction within two months, people close to the company said.


Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Portia]

OK, Snowbird, I posted this at the end of the other thread where you posted the very interesting article above, but we may as well continue it here, with this shorter thread.

Snowbird or anyone else who knows, what is the story behind the Gladstone property and the USET? I'm in the dark here. I remember reading a bit about the furor a couple of years ago when Beneficial sold the land for the golf courses, but I thought there was some way it was all smoothed over so that the USET was guaranteed some kind of rights to use the land and actually bought part of it outright. (That all happened before these boards raised my consciousness!)

The article says that Lucent let the USET continue to use the property. Does the USET own any of the Gladstone property, or lease it, or is it just some kind of guest? What's the real story, does anyone know?

[Weatherford]

The land (100+acres) was given to Open Space - through either the Nature Conservancy or another group in that area, with the USET having the primary right to use it. Should the USET move, the group takes control. There can be NO MORE development on the property - which would preclude the addition of stands, rings or other buildings that could make that a premier facility.

HOWEVER, according to my Uncle who spoke to the conservation group director last week, these plans are still not finalized, and they have been wondering about the delay. The article above speaks to that problem: if the place is back up for sale, the new owners may not want an "open space" albatross.

The buildings, including the main barn, Nautical Hall and the original jumping ring - now dedicated to Dressage - are supposed to have been deeded to the Team, however, no one has actually gone to the County Hall of Record to see if that is official. I suspect it is still a lease, although, I may be wrong.

[Weatherford]

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I am puzzeled on how a vote of 20/2 (active atheletes) can be considered a vote that represents the ENTIRE board of trustees of the USET.

There are 15 executives, 40 regular trustees, 16 Honorary Life Trustees, and 46 members of the National ADvisory Council. Of these, there are 21 members of the Executive Committee. I could not find a list of "Active Riders", though, there are certainly a few on the Board.

Regardless, 22 people is only 1/4 of the USET Board!

[Portia]

Well, I think we can safely say Lucent will be selling the property ASAP:

Lucent to cut 10,000 jobs
Telecom giant to take charge of up to $1.6 billion

REUTERS
NEW YORK, Jan. 24 ? Lucent Technologies Inc. Wednesday posted a first-quarter loss and said it would cut 10,000 jobs, or 10 percent of its work force, as part of a plan to cut $2 billion in expenses and recover from recent profit shortfalls and product development missteps.

etc.

Weatherford, as for the vote by the USET, I think they did have a full vote of the board. However, the USET chose to highlight the votes of the athletes in their press release to make it look like it's what "the equestrian athletes" want and reduce criticism that the USET move to take over NGB status is a decision by a few wealthy individuals who don't want to give up power.

You know, spin. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Heather]

Well, ok first, let me zip up the flame suit.

OK--I know and know of "active equestrian athletes" in a variety of sports.

Although by and large they are wonderful coaches/trainers, brilliant riders, and wonderful horseman--well, lots of them couldn't manage their way out of a paper bag. And even the few that do have some concept of managmenet skills don't really have a clue what its like to be me or what my needs might be--not a criminal offense to be sure, but certianly something to keep in mind.

So you'll excuse me if I don't find the fact that "elite athletes" voted in favor of a certain management system terribly compelling. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[woodbern]

A-U-D-I-T the USET. A thorough examination of the books, records, etc. would go a long way to answer some of the murky questions.


And after the audit, a report should be made available to any interested person... as most legitimate non-profits prefer that their supporters know the ins and outs of their business.

And because I am an "all occasion" curmudgeon, the AHSA might as well be audited as well..... and any of these other related groups who are raising money to promote equine related activities under this thin veneer of non-profit.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[wtywmn4]

Well, Lucent did it, so now where will they go? Me thinks Wellington. Percentages being what they are, this is a place where the "athletes" are completing. What's so very sad about this whole situation, is possibly the lose of Gladstone. Many horsemen rose thru the ranks to participate there. Only hope that possibly the state of NJ would be consider a conservancy for this property or is it too late for that? Weatherford?

[Mazzy]

I consider myself a mildly intelligent person (no flames here /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif), it amazes me that I cannot understand head or tales of the USET / AHSA debate, and the voting process. And no, I am NOT from the sunny state of Florida!

How can so much bureaucracy be involved? How can life be so complicated? Even the recent election of the President of the United States of America was somewhat simpler to comprehend and at least resulted in a CONCLUSION. Although it may not be the conclusion that people favor (obviously 50% do not), it is still a conclusion and the country will progress.

The equestrian world however seems to perform concentric circles with no end in sight. For this I pay massive membership fees each year? Ha. I for one, am truly disgusted!!!

Why do we not simply have an FEI affliate that manages the team under the AHSA and while we're at it clean house at the AHSA too. Start with egos first. That should require an 18-wheeler.

I thought the AHSA was supposed to organize and PROTECT my four legged creatures against abuse and provide me with a fair playing field on which to compete across the country. I didn't realize they were supposed to be the Second Coming.

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Bad day. Thanks for letting me vent.

[pwynnnorman]

Revenue
Contributions $7,273,163
Government Grants $0
Program Services $749,257
Investments $746,118
Special Events $0
Sales $0
Other $43,924

Expenses
Program Services $4,869,224
Administration $536,930
Other $1,806,895
Total Expenditures $7,213,049

Total Revenue $8,812,462
NET GAIN/LOSS $1,599,413

Assets (read as three columns of data)
(col 1): Jan. 01, 1998 (col 2): Dec. 31, 1998 (col 3): Change (btw 1-01-98 and 12-31-98)

Cash & Equivalent
$999,693 $234,379 $-765,314
Accounts Receivable
$57,325 $142,034 $84,709
Pledges & Grants Receivable
$3,159,491 $4,808,812 $1,649,321
Receivables/Other
$0 $0 $0
Inventories for Sale or Use
$0 $0 $0
Investments/Securities
$0 $0 $0
Investments/Other
$5,046,679 $5,457,369 $410,690
Fixed Assets
$946,119 $975,322 $29,203
Other
$34,240 $69,017 $34,777
Total Assets
$10,243,547 $11,686,933 $1,443,386

Liabilities
Jan. 01, 1998 Dec. 31, 1998 Change
Accounts Payable
$290,648 $502,924 $212,276
Total Liabilities
$290,648 $502,924 $212,276

FUND BALANCE
$9,952,899 $11,184,009 $1,231,110

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[Glimmerglass]

The FEI already has North American represenation and last I checked that same person was an ex-AHSA President and former USET VP.

As for Hamilton Farm, Beneficial Finance deeded the USET 100 acres prior to their larger 513 acre sale. The former Brady stable complex, the core of the USET facility, had already been deeded in a 10 acre deal many years ealier by Beneficial. 120 acres of additional lands were annouced as having been placed into a conversation easment which allowed for USET equestrian use. That could be withdrawn, as discussed by another poster, with the Lucent development sale.

[Weatherford]

The fin statements do not show the entire picture. (We spent a year in B-school learnign how to manipulate the darned things!)

A cash flow analysis of the past few years, or better yet, donors and how much they donated. Then you will see what Armand Leone admitted to at teh AHSA meeting: the USET sets a budget, routinely overruns it and certain Trustees fill the gap.

This also does not reflect the significant (!) increases in salaries for three members of the staff. I do not know any other smaller non-profits where there are at least three staff member who earn well into the six figures.

[Caruso]

Check your facts on those deeds.

Or perhaps someone who lives near there can look it up. That was the spin, but, I do not believe the truth.

For sure, there is NOT 10 acres surrounding the barn & arenas - maybe 2. Go look at it! /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Glimmerglass]

I really don't have the time to trot down to Gladstone so I have to trust a few things that I read .. see, "In the Counrty" The Chronicle of the Horse, January 30, 1998, article titled "Decision Looms on Future Use of Hamilton Farms".

Perhaps you should call the Chronicle and let them know they've been hit with spin?

[Weatherford]

I do believe they are checking.

[Portia]

I've enjoyed and admired your posts for a long time, but I do believe the one above may be my absolute favorite so far. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Snowbird]

If actually the USET was deeded the land way back by Beneficial wouldn't you suppose that that $20 million dollar asset would have been listed on financial reports. It would show the USET then with total assets of some $30 million dollars and that's certainly merits some sense of security.

I also wonder why there would have been talk of them being forced to leave their headquarters when Beneficial sold the land around them. They would have been safe with a deed in their safe.

[DMK]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I've enjoyed and admired your posts for a long time, but I do believe the one above may be my absolute favorite so far.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm with you Portia... I've met plenty of trainers and riders that I would love to be able to sink a million dollars in horses and send to them... but not to head up or make decisions for a multi-million dollar company. That is a different kind of talent /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Heather]

Thanks you guys (blushing)!

[wtywmn4]

When will we find out the absolute truth? Possibly never. This entire thing is so convoluted, it will take years to unwind. In the mean time, we once again are stale mated. No one is about to give up or in. So, does that leave us without a team? Or does that allow people to elect a team, you know similar to our voting fiasco in Florida. Like one other poster said, at least there was an outcome. Sorry to be so short about this. But we go over & over the same things. Nothing happens. When an Olympic year occurs, then everyone rallies and rushes to get a team together. We are still left with the same problems. Maybe, we should just not have a team for the Olympics, once, then we might get this ironed out. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Snowbird]

If in reality the USET does not own it's headquarters and it's position is tenuous wouldn't that be a factor in the decisions of the USOC for choosing an NGB?

If it were the AHSA that was continued as the NGB, they would I am certain welcome the USET back home without punitive damages.

At least then the question of Hamilton farm having to be included in the merger agreement would be a non-issue.

[Ruby G. Weber]

Wouldn't it be "loverley" if the brains and the brawn could come together. However, while the "brains" are out there practicin' their book learnin' the "brawns" are out there doing the animals that this whole thing is all about. No wonder neither party knows what the other one is about!! I might add, I have met some of the most brilliant business people through my association with horses. They CAN turn into the dumbest human beings when they try to manage their horses like their businesses. Now Heather, you can remove your flame suit.

In case I've left any doubt, I come down on the side of the USET. The elite riders need representation. As do all other levels. I read the USET's proposal just that way. They will become, in name, the NGB and continue to do what they have always done. The AHSA loses the "title" but continues to do what it has always done. No reinventing the wheel, no one has to learn the ropes.

As far as the Ted Stevens thing...seems to me that each side's legal team has interpreted the law to their liking. Isn't that what all those hoardes of lawyers who converged on Florida were trying to do? Interpret the law to their advantage? So, does this whole thing come down to who has the better team of lawyers? If history is any indicator, I'll bet the USET is calling Mr. Gonda right now and asking for his attorney's phone number.

The TRUTH is the people who do this horse and horse show thing day in and day out, year in and year out, know what is best for the industry. They may not have the best idea of how to implement it but THEY are living it.

We can argue the details of sports acts and who holds a deed and even who is "smarter" but the bottom line is what counts in the end, and that is an organization that has but one goal...gold medals.

[Snowbird]

What you say is true and I don't think anyone doubts their ability to field good teams. The Atletic Act however requires a grassroots program and do you seriously think they who are already in the cream level of the top of the bottle have a clue or a smidge of interest in what it takes to get there?

I agree with those who say that superior horsemen are rarely superior business people with broad interests. They have become successful because of focus. That focus doesn't include us. There is no doubt that they cannot delegate to another corporation the obligations of an NGB. They can create their own national organization to handle national issues but it has to be within their corporation.

The AHSA Plan has in one corporation a combination of what is about international competition and what is about national and zone or district competition. That's no re-inventing the wheel that's just letting everyone do what they do best.

[DMK]

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> If it were the AHSA that was continued as the NGB, they would I am certain welcome the USET back home without punitive damages. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, the same cynicism showed for the concept of horse people as executives of multi-million dollar companies resurfaces...

Sure... they would welcome them back with open, loving arms... And the merger between Daimler and Chrysler was a "merger of equals"...

Nope, I suspect there has been too many harsh words in this discussion for such a thing to happen, regardless of who wins.

[Ruby G. Weber]

I seriously doubt all of the riders at the top of the tree have forgotten from where they came. I remember, and I am quite sure you do, The Leones riding with Sullivan Davis. And Leslie Howard, why, if I'm not mistaken, she grew up riding at the very place you live. I know quite of a few of these "elite" riders and I can assure you most of them have not forgotten where they came from and many of them, in the off season, teach clinics to the lowest level riders until they are hoarse.

[wtywmn4]

Agree with Emmett on this. The riders do know from wence they come from. Haven't met one who hasn't given back, down to the bottom of the ranks, and in some cases for free. Also agree that they do know what is best, but implementing it, is another question. In this day of litigation, many have had to trust owners. This has not always proven correct. Am not on "sides". I think this has a tendency to become an issue, rather than figuring out what is best. One organization cannot address so many specific needs. Our NGB/NF needs to focus attention & money directly. Specifically, bringing the best to the fore front. Getting them to europe, bringing along the best horses, not using them up. This takes enormous amounts of $$$. If they come under the umbrella of the AHSA, who will foot these bills?? Owners? Riders? AHSA?

[Heather]

Just to clarify what I think is a slight misunderstanding of my point.

It's not that I don't think that the elite riders have "forgotten where they come from"--my point is they've never been here, where I am. I'm sure they remember what it likes to be a hungry talented kid who dreams of riding in the games. But, do they know anything about being a zooming-in-on-30 amateur rider, with a fulltime job, a mortage, family obligations, whose greatest dream is to make it through a CCI* without embaressing herself? Do they understand how hard it is to find a trainer who keeps hours working people can use? Do they understand that most of us can't galavant to Florida when the weather sucks, and we try depserately to keep fit in ice and snow? Do they understand a "schedule" that is determined by money and vaction days rather than what's ideal?

I'm not harshing on these elite, nor trying to sound overly whiny about my life--in the scope of the world I am INCREDIBLY fortunate. But the point is, while I support their team efforts, and dutifully send in my proper donations, and cheer and scream for their sucess, I need an orgainzation that can deal with ME. Has some tiny clue about what my needs might be. Thta's all. If I'm selfish for wanting some share of the pie for myslef, then OK, I'm selfish.

Also, Ihaven't noticed anyproposal that ignores the notion of fielding top teams. In fact, it seems to be a grerat preoccupation for both groups. So I don't see why one group is believed to have cornered the market on this. Nobody thinks the athletes are unimportant--I just don't don't think I should have to get screwed on their behalf.

Finally, and I will admit this is a slightly catty question, everything I hear indicates that the eventers and several of the dressage people are in the AHSA camp. Now, if the USET proposal is really better for the elite athletes, why wouldn't all the FEI level competitors be in their camp? Perhaps because our organization, the USCTA, has made keeping the grassroots and the top connected, and they understand that they are only as strong as the people supporting them.

[Snowbird]

I know exactly where you are coming from and I so agree. I admire your ability to put it so simply and clearly. I dearly wish I had that talent.

[SGray]

The county that I am in (and the neighboring county that I pay school taxes to) have their property information online (ex. www.hcad.org (http://www.hcad.org) - you can look up property by name, address, or account number). Does anyone know the county that the Gladstone property is in and whether they have online info?

[AHC]

Right on Heather!!!!!!!!!!

[SGray]

at

http://www.ultimatedressage.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004399.html

you will see that Mark S is going to the source (one of them at least)

"Mr. Wofford has responded to my email request to join our conversation on this..he may join in later this week so prepare some questions about this issue you would like answered. "

Get your questions together, give'em to Mark and see what replies you receive. Could be interesting.

[Beans]

The real problem with the AHSA/USET mud-wrestling event is the fact that they have forgotten this is about our SPORT STUPID!!! We have two organizations where egos have run off like some badly trained horses and no amount of tack changing or heavier bits seems to work to bring these horses back under control. All of these "summit meetings" are being paid for by the two organizations - US! While large donors certainly help our sport and sponsors are certainly necessary for various compeitions and individual riders - the base in both organization is the members. For far too long there has been NO focus on the members - we have become a silent and neglected commodity. Board members of both organizations treat the average horse person like "yuck" - and this elitist attitude has done more to hurt our sport than to grow it.

We need to grow our sport to stay alive but about all we've grown in the past decade is two top heavy non-profits. Has anyone ever seen 'DETAILED FINANCIALS' for either organization. Note above that the "other" expenditures line item for USET is a huge number. As an ex-accountant - this isn't kosher - Other should be the smalles line item - a catch all for items that don't fit in the big categories. Has anyone ever seen an organization chart for either organization? I don't think a month goes by that we don't read about yet ANOTHER change in personnel at one or the other of these corporations. HOw does this support our sport?? It doesn't. The AHSA wants to take on a horse data base!!! They can't even send me a correct membership card with dates that make sense. I get furious when I see Alan Balch has the time to send nasty letters to even small publications that take exception with his "slash and burn" management style. Doesn't he have more important things to do with his time on OUR DIME?

Countries that are successful in the equestrian sports have tremendous unity in their base of support. Our two large horse organizations pander to a few at the top and walk all over the people who keep the horse industry going. If people didn't need an AHSA membership to compete at horse shows - would they?? I think the answer to that is a great big NO.

One of the new proposals talked about a new organization with a board made up of 30-50 people - are they kidding?? If a camel is horse designed by a committee - how in God's name can a board made up of this many people get ANYTHING DONE? And we can all sit here and list THE SAME OLD, SAME OLD NAMES that will surface for the Board. The SAME OLD SAME OLD NAMES that have gotten us in to this "clash of the titans".

We need an organization that's lean and mean and service oriented. With strict standards, a straight forward business plan, organization chart and mission statement. Perhaps it's time for a clean sweep and a clean house and some FRESH HORSES. After all it is about our sport ....stupid!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

[Allyn M]

Since Farm brokerage is my business ( necessary to support a beginning breeding business ) ---- these are the steps that need to be taken to find out to whom the property is deeded ------------ call the treasurers office of the Somerset county,N.J. court house and find the tax parcel number ( it should have one even if it is tax exempt ) ----------------- call auditors office with this parcel number and find out when the parcel changed hands ------------- call the recorder with this date and names of seller and buyer and you can obtain a copy of the deed ------------- There should even be a copy of survey on record when they subdivided it for the golf course and equestrian facility ------- All of this is a matter of public record ,but most county court houses don't have the staff on hand to put everything online.

[Portia]

Illona, I appreciate your feelings, but one correction -- the base of the AHSA is the members, the base of the USET is the large donors.

Having attended the AHSA Annual Meeting where these issues were discussed, and talked to a lot of people there, the only group that cared about the grassroots was the AHSA. The USET's focus is, and they intend it to remain, only on the elite.

I asked Armand Leone, Jr. at a public forum whether any of the corporate sponsors of the USET had threatened to withdraw if the USET did not maintain its separate identity and become the NGB. He said no, but that certain major individual contributors had done so. I asked him whether the USET had considered that its attempt to take over the NGB status and the resulting controversy might result in a backlash of the USET members against it, resulting in a loss of membership and contributions from the grassroots. That somehow led to him explaining that the way the USET budget works is to have the board members pull out their checkbooks and make up the shortfall at the end of every year.

He never answered my question whether they cared if there might be a backlash by the members.

[This message was edited by Portia on Jan. 26, 2001 at 01:53 PM.]

[wtywmn4]

IlonaE "DETAILED FINANCIALS" were requested on numerous occasions. You see how far that went....

[Snowbird]

I agree totally Ilona with Portia. As another person present at the two presentations. While I especially understand the anger you feel because it is what drove us to our proposals, I agree that at least the AHSA has made efforts to compromise.

Unfortunately, now the USET has put USOC in the position of making a choice "right or wrong" it will affect all of us at least for awhile. We are not isolationists and our participation will be affected whether in cost or enforcement of rules.

You made a negative comment about Alan Balch responding to every little inquiry while he should be tending to business. Actually, that is the proof that he cares about what we think. The USET on the other hand during the presentation clearly indicated they did not care about our problems and interests at all.

I went to the Convention totally ambivelent with no opinion on the USET/AHSA question. I went because of structural changes to increase a domocratic form that would let us be heard. BUT! After hearing both presentations it was clear that the AHSA compromise was well intentioned and well thought out for all involved.

While I thought the problem was the transfer of ownership of a valuable asset like the USET property I was more than willing to be compassionate to the concerns of the USET. Like everyone else I thought they had a deed and that it was a slam-dunk.

I don't think that we can compare the 1300 members of the USET to the 80,000 members of the AHSA when it comes to who better represents this sport. Their members may all be rich, I don't know, but that is not a balance of power. The AHSA was very generous to offer them an equal position to themselves in the new Corporation in order to comply.

As I understand it, and Portia correct me if I'm wrong, all the USOC can do is choose between the AHSA and the USET, they cannot consider the proposed compromise Corporation.

Ilona if you were on the USOC Board with their Mission statement and Constitution and had the vote,

Would you choose a corporation which has 80,000 members and almost everything in place including a headquarters and staff or would you choose a corporation that although it fields the teams has no grassroots support, limited membership and possibly no fixed assets but depends totally on the generosity of rich patrons who will extract a price for their generosity?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that the USOC does as I believe they must and chooses the AHSA. What then?

[pwynnnorman]

Why can't USET do as you state under the AHSA umbrella in the same way as USCTA, NHRA, USDF, NHJC, etc. Why do they have to BE the NGB to represent the elite athletes?

"For far too long there has been NO focus on the members - we have become a silent and neglected commodity. Board members of both organizations treat the average horse person like "yuck" - and this elitist attitude has done more to hurt our sport than to grow it."

AMEN, IlonaE!!!

Meanwhile, you noted that "The AHSA wants to take on a horse data base!!!" Yeah, but did "they" even BOTHER to ask YOU if YOU wanted to support it? That points more than anything else to the fact that "they" are not and do not represent you/us at all. A "membership-based" organization takes on a significant investment in money, time and labor without ever asking whether the members support the effort and without ever taking into account anything that the members indicate the effort will need to do to satisfy them.

"Our two large horse organizations pander to a few at the top and walk all over the people who keep the horse industry going. If people didn't need an AHSA membership to compete at horse shows - would they?? I think the answer to that is a great big NO."

AMEN, again! That is the absolute bottom line to all of this. BOTH organizations are classically elitist...and until they appoint (or accept letting the members ELECT) more "commoners" onto committees, that is how these organizations will remain. (Granted, if it were that simple to get "them" out and more of "us" in, campaign finance reform would have been passed decades ago.)

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[pwynnnorman]

I wonder who those individuals were? And I wonder how many horses they have had vying for and/or obtaining team slots?

Gosh darn, can't the USOC see through this? WHY, WHY, WHY would "certain individuals" withdraw their support of the team if USET were no longer the NGB? Simply because of personality conflicts with AHSA leaders? I doubt it. Sure doesn't illustrate UNCONDITIONAL SUPPORT for the team, does it?

So what IS their "conditional" support then?

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[Portia]

Forgot to mention one thing about the size of the Boards of the two organizations. Ilona mentioned the AHSA proposal to have a joint organization with a board of 30 to 50 members, and said that was too unwieldy. Guess what? The size of the board of directors proposed in the AHSA plan is significantly smaller than the current boards of either the AHSA or the USET.

By my quick count, the USET Board of Trustees has 53 members, while the AHSA Board of Directors has 64 members.

One of the goals of the AHSA plan is to reduce the size of the board and thereby increase efficiency while ensuring representation of all disciplines. (The AHSA plan would be to have closer to 30 than 50, and remember, it was for a combined organization). However, the USET opposes reducing the size of its board, and, as is apparent from Tom Struzzieri's comments in the interview on the Towerheads site, there are those who don't want to reduce the size of the board for fear they will lose power.

[Beans]

But the problem with Alan Balch's "take no prisoners" management style is what we all know happens in the for profit business world. You don't have good people flocking to this organization for a job and the people left after the "off with their heads" work is done - tend to lay low and not speak up about ANYTHING - fearing they will be the next victim. He made a comment that the computer debacle was paid by the Insurance carrier! So who pays the Premiums?? Some foreign country...no we do. And losses and pay outs have to be absorbed by the industry and we end up getting it down the line. Bad management can't be excused by an insurance policy.

As far as what I would do - well as Jackie Mars wrote in the Chronicle about a month ago - I say a new organizatino with a very small board. The Boards now are just ridiculously large. Look at the size of the average corporation in this country or other non-profits that are run well. As far as comparing membership - well that's apples and oranges - people MUST join the AHSA if they want to compete or have one of their horses shown. It's not an option it's a requirement. And would the AHSA be able to pull the sponsors for paying the costs of Olympic, Pan Am and World teams??? I'm not sure. YOu must again go back to Balch's temperament - not exactly a "shmoozer" kind of guy and believe me - getting money requires it. I'm not defending either organization - they'd both make a great case study for a Business School to look at - but we all have to agree - this current situation is costing us money, time and if not resolved by the two parties - it ends up back to the USOC making a decision that WE ALL MUST LIVE WITH. And where is OUR voice??? How many "members at large" sit on these Boards and really have a voice?? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Ruby G. Weber]

...please read today's column at Towerheads.

Is it at all possible that the AHSA is the Spin Doctor? After all, the current leadership has a history.

[Portia]

Emmet, by column do you mean today's press release from the USET (which KK printed in his column along with the AHSA release from 2 days ago)?

For me, I don't go by press releases. I've read the proposals of both groups. I've read the applicable statutes and rules. I went to the AHSA annual meeting and questioned the participants, because I wanted to see it all for myself and make my own judgments. I asked questions and heard the responses of, and saw the attitudes of, the AHSA and USET leaders whom each organization chose to present their position.

Frankly, having seen Dr. Leone's outburst during the discussion of a particular rule change at the Sunday AHSA board meeting which, completely inappropriately, he used as an excuse to rail against the AHSA acting as the NGB, I strongly disagree with the statement in the USET press release (signed by Dr. Leone and Bob Standish) that "we are not confrontational." He was confrontational. He was, in fact, openly hostile.

The USET press release admits that the SPI agreed on Jan. 9 to present the proposals to their boards, but not to submit them to a vote -- and for a very good reason, so as not to stake out positions and polarize them by having a vote. I've been in enough mediations to be able to see the reasoning behind not voting, and I suspect it was the independent mediator (facilitator) who participated in the SPI sessions who requested that no vote be taken while the process was ongoing.

The USET press release admits, however, that the USET ignored that agreement and went ahead and submitted its proposal first to a vote of active athletes and then to a vote of its board. Whatever their excuses for doing so (which seem to amount to the fact that it was expedient), their actions did not constitute negotiating in good faith.

The USET press release says it did not vote to end the SPI. Fine, but it effectively -- and I'm sure quite knowingly, as these are not naive people -- did so by conducting the vote and announcing the results in the press release it issued immediately thereafter. By doing so, the USET polarized the parties' positions and made it impossible for the SPI to succeed -- except on the USET's terms and with the USET's plan.

As for the rest of the press release, well, "spin" isn't even the word for it IMHO.

[cmf]

Currently, the AHSA *IS* the NGB for equestrian sport. They were instructed by the USOC to come into compliance with regulations regarding the delegation of duties.

If the AHSA corrects these compliance issues (with or without the USET's participation) they are STILL the NGB.

My personal take is that the USET has just cut off its own nose.

Also, in the spirit of cooperation department--if the USET truly intended to explore a mutual agreement solution--why did they register the domain name "usaequestrian.org" on October 18, 2000?

[Snowbird]

While you are certainly entitled to your opinion I can verify that your descriptions are affected by second hand knowledge and hearsay. The attacks on Alan Balch confirm that you have a one sided view of the subject.

I spent quite some time with staff at the AHSA Convention. They were clearly there to be helpful and went out of their way to make me aware of the procedures and give me whatever corrections etc. were needed they certainly seemed like a very happy group of people who were not in the least being terrorized by Alan Balch.

Further if your opinions were correct there certainly was no need to let the 10 Rule Changes we submitted get past the Rule Review Committee. I have not seen any aspect of Alan Balch that in any way implied he was in a "take no Prisoners" mode.

Although I do not know the man and shared perhaps 5 minutes with him during the 5 days, I am capable of judging his successes or failures. I find the staff much more friendly and helpful, they have lost the "police state mentality" that previously existed in New York. I am not surprised that those people from the old system of treating us as all potential cheats and thieves would find the new atmosphere uncomfortable.

As to the computer situation, if he were the micro-manager that people have complained about, there is little doubt that would have never happened. Obviously, there was too much trust placed in people without the responsibility to protect the corporation and that can happen anywhere. Those insurance premiums would be paid whether or not there were any claims to settle so it is hardly an additional expense. No reasonal management would go naked without such coverage and protection because a large staff is likely to make mistakes in judgment.

On the other hand, I found nothing in the USET proposal that was not exactly the flaw you are trying to attribute to Alan Balch. It was arbitrary and assumed that they were of course the only ones competent to deal with the International Scene. While Balch has bent over backwards trying to compromise the USET has done nothing but be manipulative and demanding without any regard for the seriousness of the committment to the rest of us. Obviously, their world begins and ends at the very highest level and they never look down.

It is certainly not a big surprise that the Towerheads is more affirmative than those of us who were there. They are valued supporters of the shows and will be there for the whole 50 weeks I am sure.

I hope Ilona that you can have an open enough mind to give a little credibility to those of us who were there and have made our judgments first hand from the horse's mouth and not the other end. Like Portia I believed it was important to be there in person and to hear for myself and make up my own mind from that information.

[Portia]

Oh my gawd, CMF -- they registered the domain name? Back in October? Did they report this to the SPI group, or was it something they kept hidden? Why do I suspect it was the former? /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

That's very disappointing, indeed, not for the fact of registering the domain name -- who cares, big whoop, there's lots of domain names -- but for the negative and cynical attitude toward the SPI process it indicates.

[Snowbird]

That tells it all doesn't it, they are so convinced they can do whatever they want they don't have to care about anyone else.

I might tolerate that but I find it really replusive that they chose to blame Alan Balch when it wasn't his fault at all. Especially all the stuff about whether they actually own the farm and now the website.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jan. 27, 2001 at 04:15 AM.]

[Beans]

I do have an open mind and I think it's a bit dangerous to defend either group at this point. I just don't think attending one convention makes one an expert on either group. I'm placing blame on both if you'd READ my posts. I just find Mr. Balch's writings to be unacceptable. My personal opinion - which, by the way, I'm entitled to have. I've also stated that Board members in both organizations, need a good tongue lashing or directions to the door. We need some new blood, some direction and a lot less politics in this issue. Both organizations should be more forthright with their financial "details" and by law they have to be - non-profits have requirements under the IRS laws.

I'm sure at most conventions and "big fund raisers" we often see a concerted effort to be more friendly to members and with a "tug of war" going on - well this isn't the time to evaluate public relations. It's what has occurred over the past years that has to be taken into account. Also the post above TOTALLY MISSED the point about the computer fiasco. How did the AHSA get into a position of having this liability to begin with. Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeease don't tell me most people understand that "pirating" software is illegal!!!

I just feel both organizations have forgotten their mission and duty - perhaps we should pull out the by-laws of both and take a look at what they say about about their raison d'etre really was supposed to be and ask the question of both ....are you living up to these by-laws??

I defend neither organization - but again state this is supposed to be about our sport and the future of it! How do we move on after this battle - regardless of the final disposition? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[pwynnnorman]

You do have a right to your opinion. Forgive me (and Snowbird) for trying to change it when it comes to Mr. Balch, who came into his position at a rather difficult time and has presided over the toughest times in the history of the association.

I think if you were to look back to a year or two ago, you'd actually find that Snowbird's opinions about him were not dissimilar to your own. But hers, too, were based upon only an indirect acquaintance and were also evaluations attempted during less-than-typical times. IMO, the only way to get an accurate sense of someone's judgement, style and intent is to examine their words, actions and--most importantly--RESULTS over time.

I, too, was skeptical about the "new" administration Mr. Balch heralded, but time has indeed proven that his intentions have been far more worthy than many of us at first imagined. Horse Show, the magazine, has changed dramatically, both in tone and in content, to represent far, far more of a member-oriented association. The staff, their attitudes and their efficiency has also improved MARKEDLY. These things simply cannot be denied. Have mistakes been made? Sure. But so have honest EFFORTS been made to bring about change. No one is perfect.

Moreover, in the various statements that he has had published, Balch has spoken often and consistently about exactly those sentiments you support--something which his predecessor did not (and also unlike TS, for example, who has given lip service to such ideas and then basically retracts them by saying something contradictory). Balch has opened up a dialog about the role of AHSA in a way that was NOT previously encouraged--you just can't deny that.

So the man isn't all bad--maybe he isn't even "half" bad! Indeed, please look at the sheer number of changes (good and also bad) that have taken place under his leadership. And then ask yourself: on the whole, have those changes (in the administration of AHSA, not in the horse industry, which is beyond his control) been for the better or the worse? I think if you are honest with yourself you will have to say that they have most definitely been for the better. Give the guy a little credit. There's still a ways to go, but I would much rather have someone like him at the helm than someone (or some group) governed by attitudes like those of Leone.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[Snowbird]

Yes, as I said you are entitled to your opinion and even friends are able to disagree. That is the basic of civilization and the rule of law.

As to the computer thing, I happened to be in contact for a while with one of the computer technicians. Therefore, on that too I do have first hand information.

Keven Carlon had been advised of the situation and in spite of the best advice given to him he chose to make the decision. As I understand it, there were boxes with software in the closet that had not been installed. He simply felt it was more efficient and safer to use the same copy and sve the others in the event of a catasrophe.

He kept this information to himself and no one but the technicians were aware of the problem. At that time you may remember that the then current flaming of Alan Balch was that no one got their work done because he was a micro-manager of every one's job. Obviously, that was not true because if it was YES! reasonable people would have known better.

So, if you have fault to find I can agree that hindsite is 20/20 and the Kevin Carlon was a bad choice and that Alan Balch was responsible for hiring someone less than dependable. Then is there a corporation of any size that hasn't had a case of bad judgment once or even twice during it's time. He did finally realize his mistake and make a change. The change certainly appears from the outside to be an improvement.

We certainly agree that both organizations need a swift kick you know where to have let this get so far and so bad. I would guess that the first mistake was the granting of the USET their own corporation and the opportunity to fly the coop.

I think that perhaps the problem with the merger was the need then for a full disclosure of operating procedures assets and expenditures. For example maybe they didn't want anyone to know that they don't actually own the farm or anything else. And, they may not want to disclose what salaries are being paid to whom.

If that was their fear it is certainly more logical than simply writing the USOC and requesting to be the NGB for the sake of pure ego.

[Portia]

about the USOC hearings and any subsequent arbitration between the AHSA and USET is that they are all, by law, public.

I hope that John Strassburger and the COTH and many others from the equestrian media, and perhaps even from the general sports media like Sports Illustrated, will attend the hearings and the arbitration and report to us all what happens and what is revealed.

Several people from the AHSA have told me they welcome the open hearings and the chance for everything to be made public. Perhaps the USET feels the same, I don't know. But both organizations are going to be on display, warts and all.

[wtywmn4]

pwynn, the USET focuses directly on the teams. Under the umbrella concept it seems this direction might become diluted. But all of this is conjecture.....

Thankfully, there will be open meetings and maybe questions will finally get answered.

[Snowbird]

I think that we all feel that at least if it's public and we can know actually verbatim what is going on we can make better judgments.

That's what's been so refresshing in the past year. Before that we would have not known there was a meeting never mind what happened at it.

I too am very hopeful. I have to believe that the USOC is not not going to be snowed because they are so used to that procedure. So their decision I pray will be an honest one based on the facts and reality.

[N&B&T]

See www.horsesportsonline.com (http://www.horsesportsonline.com) and then scroll down the headlines section.

A public hearing would be costly. OTOH, it would also provide the membership with factual information.

After reading all the press releases and comments, I keep wondering if we should try to discuss management style and direction separately from (proposed) organizational structure? But maybe it is impossible to do so.

Perhaps the hot Florida sun has affected my brain /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif but I for one would like to see both current and proposed organizational charts, as well as detailed and meaningful financial information, from both parties; and, in addition, specific proposals outling how future goals (include financial in that too) will actually be met.

[N&B&T]

This may already have been posted, but www.equestrianlife.com (http://www.equestrianlife.com) (which provided excellent Olympic coverage and some great articles) has been purchased by the USET.

[Snowbird]

If you can't beat 'em buy 'em!

[pwynnnorman]

Nancey: organizational charts AND job descriptions AND proposed budgets and salaries.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[woodbern]

from the parties involved.

You might get meaningful financial information from an audit.

As always, my favorite word.

[Ruby G. Weber]

via conference call slated for Mon. at 4:00 p.m. to discuss the actions taken by the USET.

Interesting that they mention it will be a conference call therefore difficult to open to the public but, media is welcome.

I certainly hope some of the media does the necessary scrambling to attend the conference call, even on such short notice.

[Portia]

At least the AHSA makes the effort to allow the meeting to be open, and invites the media to attend. I take that to be a very good sign.

[wtywmn4]

Love those words too Woodbern...Putting all the cards on the table allows us some insite. And IlonaE, you said it right. Don't think there are any clear cut winners. We need real facts.

[Snowbird]

Yes, at least the AHSA is listening and has shown some care about us.

By the way in Nancy Jaffer's column today she says that what Finn Casperson said was the USET has an easement for 128 acres, which will be signed next week

Portia does an easement mean anything permanent? Can't the new owners say forget about it you can't stay unless you pay rent or something. It doesn't say they have a lease or for how long the easement will last.

[Portia]

An easement? Interesting, and somewhat puzzling. Do you have a link to Nancy's column?

An easement is essentially a license to use a piece of land owned by someone else for a particular purpose. The most common type are utilities easements by which utility companies have the right to use certain designated areas of land for a use to serve the general public good, such as laying utility cable, or running telephone poles, or laying pipelines, etc. Such easments may be acquired with, and in most circumstances without, the consent of the landowner.

Private individuals can also acquire easements against the will of the landowner when it is necessary because there is no other alternative. The classic law school example is when your land is surrounded by somebody else's land and there's only one road leading in for access to your property, you can get an easement to use that road. Or if there's a privately owned path that everyone uses and it's the only way to reach a certain public destination, that kind of thing.

How long an easement lasts depends on what the easement is for and the terms of the grant. An easement can be perpetual for as long as the designated use continues, or it can be temporary.

In this case, it sounds like a voluntary easement is being granted to continue a certain use (presumably the team preparing for horse sports). Its terms will be defined by the specific agreement rather than by statute or common law principles, so the terms can be basically anything. We would have to see the agreement to know the extent of the grant and the terms of use.

The reason I say it is somewhat puzzling is that it is an unusual choice for a big piece of land subject to a potentially wide variety of uses, horse related though they may be. A lease would be more typical to can virtually complete control over the property, at least for the lease term. An easement, to me at least, implies non-exclusive use -- meaning that the land will not be reserved exclusively for the use of the team but may be used by the grantor (landowner) for its own purposes. This is just speculation on my part, so take it for what it is worth. I could be entirely wrong.

[Snowbird]

Sorry Portia, when my drive crashed I lost the bookmark for Nany Jaffer's web site for her articles. However, the paper says she can be reached at nancyjaffer@compuserve.com.

The article says:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>USET Director Bob Standish explained an easement will be signed this week giving the team use of approximately 128 acres that includes the historic stables, Pine Meadow area and North Field.

"The team is protected no matter what happens," said Casperson, who said he had made an offer himself for the property with which Lucent is involved. He does not think the use of the rest of the acreage will change, no matter who buys it.

"You can't ignore 36 holes of golf," he pointed out.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I wondered Portia, because it seemed to me that such an easement cannot bind the next owner. I know I was involved in a case with adverse possession and we were granted a 99 year easement because we had used it "without" the permission of the owner. From what I remember if they close it for one day a year it prevents any possibility of proving adverse possession. And, as you said that was for use and not possession or any permanent buildings. I think there is another problem because the buildings are probably "historical" and if the land is given to Green Acres with the buildings that surely restricts use.

We gave up applying for a historical rating just for that reason on our farm, and we haven't signed on for Farmland preservation for the same reason.

I think there may be some very serious trouble coming on that land.

I would say as a land owner, that while I might give permission to someone while I own it, it would not continue indefinitely with a new owner unless it was a lease for compensation. At $250,000 an acre land value, who would give away 128 acres for nothing?

I cannot imagine any circumstances for an easement of let's say 99 years on property that is so very expensive. We granted the previous owner of our farm use of a house and the Middle Barn for a while after purchase but it was renewable every year. They also have a serious problem with the Township which was very reluctant to approve the project in the first place. Neighbors there do not want a high traffic operation. It would destroy the area. I think the USET is standing on a "quicksand pit", they won't be able to run all the fundraisers they need to make it all work.

Interestingly, we received applications to renew memberships we don't have to join the USET. My daughter got one and she hasn't belonged since she was 17 and that was over 15 years ago. Methinks they are in deep trouble.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Jan. 28, 2001 at 11:35 PM.]

[wtywmn4]

Here's the link Portia..

http://www.nj.com/columns/jaffer/

Very interesting to hear all these different sides of what happened. Thank you Snowbird and Pwynn for doing all you did.

Sorry can't figure out why the url won't high light, but it does work.

[This message was edited by Weatherford on Feb. 03, 2001 at 02:09 PM.]

[Beans]

Actually the lands at Gladstone that are being used by the USET have a permanent CONSERVATION easement held by the Nature Conservancy of NJ. This information has appeared in several news paper articles. If the USET leaves the Concervancy takes over those parcels and they can never be developed.

The benefit to the donor is obvious - a huge tax deduction. The sale of Hamilton Farms certainly came with a huge gain to the seller. To offset the tax liability many corporations take advantage of these donations to minimize their tax liability. There is, as far as I remember a 5 year carry forward on sizable donations as well.

Can't follow the notation above about the problems with Historic designation. Unless your local municipality has some restrictions in law - the NJ & National Register designation actually comes with many benefits. One which our local property owners have welcomed is protection from any governmental improvements such as road widenings, etc. We have all of the hamlets and village in our township on the Registers and are now working on historic farmsteads at the request of the property owners. Another benefit is that any work you do on your buildings comes under the Rehab Building Codes and not BOCA - so they are much less restrictive.

[Snowbird]

It appears from people involved that the papers to conserve the property are not yet filed or signed as of this date. I believe Weatherford knows more about that because she is close to the situation.

The problem with the historical zone is that you cannot make additions or corrections or changes without a lot of difficulty and applying to the historical committee. All repairs and expansions must be made in comformation of the history codes.

The loss of private privilege isn't really worth the tax benefits of being designated a Historical site. The Historical Committee can prevent any and all needed expansion or improvements.

On the conserved land you also cannot change any of the terrain, direction of water flow, driveways etc. Usually, there is an awarenes of wild life and their habitat cannot be disturbed.

This I think would make it very difficult for the USET to expand it's services and operation to include all the extras of staff and parking as an NGB.

However, the point is that so far there doesn't appear to be anything in writing, and no contracts that are signed which means that a new owner would be at a very big disadvantage regarding the remaining acres. Without the conservation in contract and approved the new owner may choose not to accept the prohibitions involved for the tax benefits. If it is done after the sale is in place I think it is a very wobbly situation.

[Ruby G. Weber]

Here in my part of Virginia, much of the land is in easements. We have several types, conservation, sight to name just two. In all cases, the land, after being put in easements, is LESS valuable. (Cannot subdivide). In this state, once land is in an easement, it stays with the land, no matter how many times it is sold. As it sounds to me, the purpose is the same in New Jersey. Preserve the land. I imagine the laws don't vary THAT much from state to state.

[Portia]

The USET has a new item on its site under the SPI page, titled "A Letter From America's Equestrian Athtletes." It is a memo to the USET, AHSA, and "equetrian community" that says the undersigned athletes have read the USET proposal and support it, with an online form to submit for those "who wish to go on record as supporting the USET proposal for the USA equestrian." That's fine, I have no problem with that (although I personally think there should also be an option for people who want to go on record as supporting the AHSA proposal, and I hope the AHSA will provide a similar means of going on record).

But the title of the posting really annoys me: "A Letter from America's Equestrian Athletes," as though every equestrian athlete in the US has authorized this letter and supports the USET plan. It is signed by Leslie Howard, Chris Kappler, Wash Bishop, Mike Huber, Betsy Steiner, and Guenter Seidel, all of whom are fine athletes who at some point have competed at the international level (though some not in recent years). But do these six people really represent the entire community of American's Equestrian Athletes? Somehow I don't think people like David O'Connor, who was appointed to the SPI by the AHSA and to all appearances supports the AHSA plan, would agree.

For some reason that just really rubs me the wrong way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[SGray]

at

http://www.ahsa.org/cgi-bin/forumdisplay.cgi?action=topics&forum=International+Disciplines&number=1&DaysPrune=100&LastLogin=

(I was thinking in the Internation Disciplines forum.....)

that's the only place that I can think of offhand that we could initiate stating our opinions

[wtywmn4]

That board is only open X amount of hours Sgray. Or till the office closes. It's easier to speak out here.

[SGray]

wtywmn4 - Portia stated "That's fine, I have no problem with that (although I personally think there should also be an option for people who want to go on record as supporting the AHSA proposal, and I hope the AHSA will provide a similar means of going on record)." and since the Issues and Answers forum is watched and responses are usually rather quick then it is an option to express support. If Jennifer started a topic there then perhaps she could inspire the AHSA to set up a spot for opinions that was universally accessible.

[wtywmn4]

Good point Sgray. That would make it easier for people to support the AHSA's side. Thanks... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Portia]

Good idea SGray and wtywmn. I just started such a topic on the AHSA International Disciplines board. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Hopefully they will set up a more formal method of expressing support.

[Snowbird]

Thanks Portia,
I posted a follow-up to your thread.

Did you read the Straussburger Editorial? I am sure it was tongue in cheek but what a picture Billie Bob as a negotiator! That's all we need in this stew. Shoot he's made more war than peace.

[Snowbird]

I heard on my grapevine, you know I believe that plants can speak and have feelings!

There was an emergency meeting of the NHJC Board of Governors before the AHSA Board Meeting.

Anyone out there know what might have happened?

[SGray]

Thanks for starting the ball Jennifer. I have now added my two cents on the Issues and Answers forum (at http://www.ahsa.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html for those who would like to join in)

[Snowbird]

Suddenly, after 30 years I am a member of the USET. I received in the mail a new membership card with the option to renew my membership by paying my dues. The amount would define the level of my membership.

I have for as long as I have run horses shows sent in all my fees as a show manager. To this date it never included my being a member of the USET. OH! Yes! I take that back, I was offered the opportunity to vote as a member when they were having their proxy fight for control of the USET.

It seems I am only valuable to them when they need an extra vote. Now, my daughter received the same a membership card. She has not been a member since her last junior year and that was about 15 years ago. She was one of the first Junior Members since she qualified for the very first Ride-off at Gladstone. Suddenly, she is also considered a member who just needs to renew her membership.

I wonder how many if the 1300+ members they claim to have are equally in the same boat we are?

[Erin]

Snowbird, I think that's really just a marketing ploy--I don't think they count those numbers in their membership total.

I get lots of junk mail like that. "You've already won..." "You're pre-approved..." "A free subscription is waiting for you..." It's just a gimmick.

I got one too. Went straight in the recycling bin.

[Portia]

Hmmm. I wonder how much it costs the USET to send out all those endless solicitations every year?

Given how focused Dr. Leone was on a very few "major individual donors" during the question and answer at the AHSA annual meeting, and the fact that he never answered my question about whether the USET was at all concerned that there might be some backlash or loss of support from the average members/horsepeople, I have to question whether what the USET spends on fundraising from the average members/horseperson is worth it. I really would like to know what percentage of donations to the USET comes from the average members/horsepeople versus the "major individual donors."

I got my membership renewal solicitation, which really would have been a renewal. But there'll be no more money from me to the USET until things radically change there. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

At least David O'Connor is a far better choice to be asking for money than Alison Firestone. That was one where the USET just didn't get it, on a lot of levels.

Sorry. That last part was catty of me. I'm feeling rather eeeevvilll today. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[SGray]

re "I got my membership renewal solicitation, which really would have been a renewal. But there'll be no more money from me to the USET until things radically change there. "

For all who received "renewals" (real or not) - do you take the enclosed envelope and explain why they will not be receiving any money from you at this time?

[wtywmn4]

Snowbird, they probably made you a member "Emeritus"..hoping to lure you into the fold. /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif (you know that was not against you in the least Snowbird) Just had to throw that ole 2/5 cents in. Have received the same, the round filing cabinet now holds that momento.

[This message was edited by wtywmn4 on Jan. 30, 2001 at 07:58 PM.]

[pwynnnorman]

I wonder from whom they got their mailing list?

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[Portia]

It doesn't really have to do with mailing lists, but the question reminded me of something else from the AHSA meeting. I asked what the overlap was between the membership of the AHSA and the USET. They did not have the exact information, though Jim Wolfe, I think it was, said they could derive it by comparing mailing lists. The USET and AHSA people did confirm, however, that certainly the very vast majority of USET members are AHSA members (though not vice versa, of course, given the huge number of AHSA members versus USET members).

I asked the question because I wanted to know if the two organizations really were somehow serving separate constituencies such that a merger would involve integrating two disparate groups of people or, as the USET people expressed concern about, would actually result in some dramatic or entirely unpredictable change in management. I had the disturbing feeling from their responses that the USET people had not really considered that factor before then.

[Snowbird]

I hadn't even thought about that Portia and you are so right. It is an important factor. It's not just the overlap of officials but the USET having been a part of AHSA for some 50 years is of course mostly AHSA Members.

[pwynnnorman]

Emmet and wtywm never answered my questions about why USET can't become a division of AHSA and now the subject of overlapping membership has yet again pointed to what, to me at least, is just logical.

How can organizations obtaining millions of dollars in donations base their actions and policies on what at least appear to be nothing more than personal agendas?

Didn't anyone look at least a little bit uncomfortable when Mr. Leone mentioned losing one or two big donors if USET didn't remain autonomous (sp?)? What does that MEAN about those donors' relationships with USET and about those relationships' impact on what we are at least "told" are the objectives of USET? Doesn't it imply that the donors themselves have a personal agenda? That they aren't just trying to field the best US teams possible (because why couldn't they do that with USET as a division of AHSA)?

And wouldn't you bet that those same ultra-important, big-dollar donors are also already long-time members of AHSA?

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
Shameless signature plugplugplug.

[AM]

SGray, it does no good to return your membership invitation. I've tried it and finally realized those letters come from and return to a marketing firm and no one at the USET ever sees them.

Personally I think "member" is a misnomer. Membership usually entitles you to something. The only real benefit I've ever received (before I wised up and stop contributing) was the very first Festival of Champions. That year your membership card got you free entrance. When it proved to be successful, they charged members and turned it into a fund raiser. I've also attend at least two WEGs where I learned that the USET had a hospitality tent for "members". However, it was located in the restricted VIP area and only "some members" were invited to use it.

[wtywmn4]

Pwynn I will try to tell you my version /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif The USET focuses on the Olympic team to be. The funds for this type of endeavor are coming from the sponsors/ USET board themselves. I don't believe the AHSA has the type of funds to do this, nor should they. If we accept the NHJC as our breed representative, then why wouldn't the team have the USET as theirs? I thought the whole idea of having an organization within the AHSA umbrella was to allow each disicpline coverage. Which except for the team, we all have.

If you say they have it with the NJHC, no they don't. We are working within the infrastructure of the USA and it's rules. They're working within a european one, or country by country. If we ran our Jumpers by the FEI rules, which are quite different, then yes, there would be no need to have a seperate org. But the rules vary, depending on what classes qualify riders/horses.

Sorry this is so lengthy. As I said, am not taking sides. I feel there are issues which need to be addressed.

[Portia]

I checked out the discussion at the Ultimate Dressage board, thanks for the link. I registered and tried to post some questions for Mr. Wofford, but the board said my IP number is banned from their forums. I'm sure it's a technical glitch since I've never posted anything there before - and I don't think I would have done anything to get myself banned even if I had! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Could you do me a favor and post these questions for Mr. Wofford over there on my behalf? He was appointed to the SPI by the AHSA, but hopefully he can address some of the questions about the USET plan too. Thanks! (You can use my name, of course, and if you don't want to do it, I understand).

1. How does the USET plan to overcome the delegation prohibition in the TS Amateur Sports Act and the USOC bylaws?

As I understand the USET proposal, it would still leave licensing officials, equine drug testing, date allocation, etc., to the AHSA. I know Dr. Leone says this will not violate the delegation prohibition, but I have difficulty seeing how that is any different than the AHSA delegating fund raising and team organization to the USET, which the USOC has said is improper.

2. How does the USET plan deal with governance of competitions that mix both FEI and non-FEI disciplines and "protected competitions" with non-protected competitions?

For example, how would judges and licensed officials be qualified and selected for hunter/jumper shows with one or more $25,000+ GP's, or dressage shows with everything from training level to GP and freestyle tests that could serve as qualifiers for international competition, or Western shows that have big money reining classes. Who would conduct the equine drug testing? Who would allocate the dates?

3. Under the USET plan, what happens in the event of a dispute over sanctions to a rider or driver who may be qualified for international competition but commits the sanctionable conduct in connection with a non-FEI discipline or competition?

For example, what if an international rider is also the trainer of a first year green hunter who turns up positive in a drug test at a show. If the AHSA, after its hearing process, sets that rider/trainer down for a year from AHSA-sanctioned competition, and the USET disagrees with that sanction would the AHSA have to allow that rider/trainer to compete and train horses in non-protected compeitions? That is, if the rider can't take his/her horse in the open jumper classes to warm up for the GP, wouldn't that affect the ability of that rider to qualify to compete internationally such that there would be a jurisdictional clash between what the USET proposes as itself as the international governing body and the AHSA as the national governing body?

Thanks.

[SGray]

It is done - will happily add any more if necessary.

[wtywmn4]

Portia your questions, as always are excellent. These are the types of issues that need to be addressed. Whether we hear answers, well....

For the longest time, no one has asked questions of the USET with the knowledge that many of you have. It bothers me that the numbers discussing them on the BB's has dwindled. Does this mean a lack of interest or a lack of concern? Let's hope not, this is what has gotten us to this point to begin with.

[SGray]

see http://www.ahsa.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000009.html

[Portia]

SGray, thanks for the heads-up on the AHSA I&A reply. Hopefully they will come up with something.

Wtywmn, thanks for your kind words, as always. I think people do care, but it is a complex and confusing situation. It's just my warped legal mind that makes it interesting for me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I was talking with a friend today about how it is that so few of the active athletes have spoken out on this issue. My friend suggested something that made so much sense it created one of those "DUH!" moments where I felt like an idiot for not having thought of it myself.

My friend suggested that perhaps at least some of the active athletes who are currently dependent upon the USET to fund their international activities and select them for teams may be concerned that if they were to speak out in favor of the AHSA proposal, or even if they fail to actively push the USET proposal, the USET might retaliate with cuts in funding and support. They don't want to make enemies of the people who control the money, and who, if the USET wins the NGB fight, will entirely control all funding and selection of our international teams.

That's not to say, of course, that many of the active international athletes don't sincerely support the USET proposal and want the USET to be the NGB. They may well do. And it may be outrageous to suggest that the people running the USET would ever engage in any form of retaliatory action. I don't know, though I have my opinion about it.

But the fear factor may be a reason why, with the exception of David O'Connor, few of the active athletes have stepped up to support what seems to be an inclusive and moderate proposal by the AHSA. (And can you imagine what would happen if the USET tried to retaliate against our only gold medalist in however many years?)

JMHO.

[Snowbird]

That is what keeps everyone silent. Even with our little attempt there is genuine fear that to oppose the powers that be can cost them their license as an Official, their show dates as managers etc. etc.

So I'm certain even though it has not been said, or even anyone has been specific there certainly would be a difference in the treatment of these people who agree than with those who disagree. That is afterall humna nature at the least.

I will say at this point I cannot imagine that the USOC looking factually at both organizations would find any reason to change the NGB. Especially, since the AHSA is more than willing to do whatever is necessary to comply and it would be largely impossible for the USET to comply and all their general members are as you so wisely pointed already members of the AHSA.

[weeble]

I know retaliation exsists. To give specifics would just be heresay here because it didn't happen to me, but to an accquaintance. She dared to disagree with a "prevailing" opinion and it cost her dearly within the horse industry.

It too bad, but you can understand many people's reluctance.

[SGray]

the USET has always seemed to have their "pets" and so I would think that the opposite would be very likely

[Snowbird]

The USET is not better equipt to be the NGB than the AHSA.

[wtywmn4]

Snowbird, how very true. Retaliation is something many of us have dealt with. It seems when people take a stand, freedom of speech leaves by the nearest window. They are subject to retaliation in various forms. Fall into line or else. This will keep many from voicing their opinions. What Portia questioned really has depth. The athletes aren't going to make enemies, it could cost them.

I do have one question for all, what will the USET gain by merging with the AHSA? I don't think being part of the NGB is enough. And, as members of the AHSA what will we gain? Will we have to take over the support of the team?

[This message was edited by wtywmn4 on Feb. 01, 2001 at 04:09 PM.]

[Snowbird]

The AHSA gains nothing and spends a lot of money on legal fees. If the USET hadn't thrown down the gauntlet and wanted to be in charge of the whole thing this would be a non-issue. They already have full charge of everything they want. Apparently they didn't like having to report to the AHSA with financial statements and business reports.

The USET are the ones who filed to be the NGB. The AHSA is now the NGB. The USET are the ones who asked for the AHSA to be found out of compliance, and asking to be made the NGB.

If the USET wins they don't gain anything they really want and will have to delegate which is what the AHSA did when they gave them the job of managing the team. From what I have read the AHSA in the personna of Alan Balch requested copies of reports and meeting minutes. This doesn't seem to me to be a sin worth all this tumult.

[wtywmn4]

It seems like this issue goes deeper than what we've been reading. More like personalities...that is always costly for everyone.

[SGray]

I sent a reply to one of the emails they are sending out - below is the responce that I received. It is a generalized letter but a fairly legitimate one.


Dear Susan,

Thank you for your message indicating that you wish to be part of a solution
to the issue of governance for the equestrian sport.

From athletes in a range of disciplines to long time financial supporters of
our sport, we have heard many requests for more information, for timely
updates to our ongoing process, and for advice on how you can best help.
While we may not be able to provide a specific response to each and every
e-mail, we do wish to provide this general response.

Please continue to read our updates and answers to important questions
posted on the AHSA web site and stay informed. Please provide us with your
best thinking. We are not asking anyone to "vote" or sign petitions because
we believe this is premature.

As the AHSA works to expand its presentation to the USOC, considers the
various alternatives and addresses any compliance issues, we will seek input
from the representatives of the disciplines who serve on our Board. We will
also from time to time ask for broader input to specific issues in order to
involve as many of you as possible.

Bottom line - stay informed; stay involved; question premature rush to
judgment.


The Officers of the AHSA, with address and discipline affiliations, are:

Alan F. Balch, New York and Kentucky, Hunter/Jumper, President
Judith Werner, Illinois, Saddlebred, Vice President
Linda Allen, California, Hunter/Jumper, Secretary
Kathy Knill Meyer, Colorado, Arabian, Treasurer
David O'Connor, Virginia, Eventing, Assistant Secretary
Stephen O. Hawkins, New Jersey, Hunter/Jumper, Assistant Treasurer

[Snowbird]

Hopefully the AHSA will be reassured during the dispute that the membership is aware and cares.

It's wonderful that you are all hearing from them. That proves that they are considering our right to know.

[Portia]

I haven't received the e-mail yet, but I may not have given the AHSA my e-mail address. In any event, I read it here and it sounds like they are trying to communicate and keep us informed to the extent possible. I'll be keeping my fingers crossed that the USOC makes the right choice.

[FranC]

I have been following the debate here closely as I am also keenly interested in what will happen with this issue. I'm a dressage rider, but this has been the most active discussion of this topic I have found. I had e-mailed the AHSA directly with some questions and received the e-mail posted above by SGray. I am registered on the AHSA site as a show manager, so I also received the e-mail below from the AHSA. Thought I'd share it with all of you.

Fran


American Horse Shows Association (AHSA)Officers today issued the following
statement.

February 1, 2001

To the Equestrian Community:

The stakes are high regarding the governance issues now pending before the
United States Olympic Committee (USOC). Its decision regarding our NGB
(National Governing Body) status will likely affect every participant in the
sport, from the children in pony rings to the elite athletes. The AHSA has
a duty to bring all relevant information to light, in its role as the
long-standing NGB for the sport, so that everyone in the sport will have the
opportunity to be well-informed. In no way do we intend any informational
effort to be divisive. The debate now underway will bring forward differing
perspectives so that each individual in the sport may discuss the issues at
hand, on the merits.

The facilitated Strategic Planning Process (SPI), underway since November
2000, has been a worthy effort with moments of real progress as both AHSA
and United States Equestrian Team (USET) representatives struggled to set
aside differences and grapple with what is in the best interest of our
sport. However, with the most recent vote of the USET Board indicating its
unwillingness to further consider any merger of the two organizations'
capabilities, we at the AHSA have reached the conclusion that this
collaborative effort has come to a close.

The AHSA is not closing the door on the best thinking and the spirit of a
unified equestrian community that existed at the last meeting of the SPI.
Our next step is to prepare a proposal to be considered by the USOC
Membership and Credentials Committee. The proposal will be inclusive of
many of the best ideas emerging from the SPI while examining and taking
steps to address any governance issues for the AHSA that have been
questioned by the USOC.

We believe, and the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur Sports Act along with
the FEI and AHSA rules require, that the NGB of equestrian sport must
fulfill an active leadership role, assuring -

- The health and well-being of horses

- National and international competitive excellence

- Fair and consistent application of the rules and regulations of
our sport

- Fair, transparent and conflict-free selection procedures and
selection processes for all international and national teams and tours

- A clear connection and opportunity for grassroots riders to both
support and aspire to the ranks of Olympic competitive excellence.

- Efficiency and elimination of duplication among organizations to
enhance direct and indirect financial support of our athletes, with 'one
stop shopping' for fulfilling their needs

AHSA supports unifying the equestrian sport, providing focus for athletes
and participants at every level and attention across disciplines and breeds,
and expanding the support base to enable more athletes to compete.

Unfortunately, we believe our equestrian sport has for too long been
perceived as an elite sport with competitions often out of the reach of many
who might otherwise be qualified to excel.

At the same time, we also know the financial capability to nurture and field
world class teams is critical to success. We believe a broad-based
financial program managed by a unified organization with financial
stability, solid infrastructure and sound stewardship can best do this for
today's athletes and tomorrow's. Our sense of today and our wish for the
future both prompt us to think about how our sport is funded and how it is
perceived and marketed. We believe there is an exciting opportunity to
raise awareness and enthusiasm, funds from many sources, and the support
necessary to enhance our new profile and our competitive excellence.

We continue to encourage the USET to consider joining the best of its
capabilities with the best of ours. As the next few weeks unfold, we will
flesh out the most basic concepts for the USOC to consider. One is a
potential consolidation of organizational capabilities with a minimum of
disruption - a transformed NGB with full responsibility for today's
stewardship of the sport and a vision for tomorrow's potential.

We must fulfill the USOC's mandate for governance of the sport. Even if the
USOC did not require it, the AHSA believes that having a single,
consolidated organization as the NGB is in the best interest of the sport
long-term. The time has long since come for unified, aggressive management
of the total sport - harnessing all of the financial, operational,
marketing, and human resource strengths that implies - to generate the
public interest and revenue needed to support every participant. Our
proposal will include a structure that guarantees focus for athletes and
participants at every level - from beginner to Olympian - and attention
across both national and international disciplines and breeds.

The "pyramid" of the sport - athletes and other participants that we serve -
needs to be inclusive, not exclusive. The governance of the sport needs to
be democratic, not elitist. If the top of the sport pyramid is cut off to
stand by itself, it is still a pyramid, but is a small one among the giants
of other sports in the Olympic movement. Equestrian sport is small enough
as it is now in comparison with other sports. Why divide it further?

We believe that finger-pointing is not constructive. We will engage our
membership through increased communication, as time permits, in a positive
and informative way.

We hope the principles outlined here can clear the air and allow the focus
to be on what is best for the sport. Your thoughts are welcome as we work
to enhance the AHSA proposal in preparation for our February 24, 2001
meeting with the USOC.

The Officers of the AHSA, with address and discipline affiliations, are:

Alan F. Balch, New York and Kentucky, Hunter/Jumper, President
Judith Werner, Illinois, Saddlebred, Vice President
Linda Allen, California, Hunter/Jumper, Secretary
Kathy Knill Meyer, Colorado, Arabian, Treasurer
David O'Connor, Virginia, Eventing, Assistant Secretary
Stephen O. Hawkins, New Jersey, Hunter/Jumper, Assistant Treasurer

[Portia]

There's new information on what happened at the Monday AHSA board meeting and where things now stand in the new COTH In the Country: http://www.chronofhorse.com/in_the_country.shtml

The article has a lot of good details of what the current situation is and what may happen now. I was particularly interested in David O'Connor's comments where said that while 130 athletes have signed the USET petition to support the USET plan, the USET actually has over 3500 active athletes, not to mention the other 100,000+ people in FEI disciplines, so 130 doesn't sound like that much in context. (And I still have to come back to the "going along due to fear of retaliation" possibility.)

Also, I was a bit worried about the Feb. 1 deadline Dr. Leone said the USOC had imposed for submitting information to the USOC. However, someone I met at the AHSA meeting has confirmed for me that the USOC has formally given the AHSA until Feb. 15th to submit materials in advance of the USOC membership and credentials meeting on Feb. 24-25. So Dr. Leone was incorrect in saying that USET had to vote on the SPI plans last week because they had a Feb. 1 deadline.

By the way, read John Strassburger's commentary on David O'Connor in this week's issue. It's a good one.

[SGray]

gosh - JS doesn't have to do much research these days - all he has to do is read the threads here eh? Concerned list members (Snowbird, Weatherford, et al) have done it for him?

[weeble]

You're right, Portia, the "In the Country" piece lays it out very well. Perhaps if Dr. Leone feels petition signing is indicitive of support, the AHSA's "active athletes" should sharpen theri pencils as well!

Right now it appears to me that the USET is all about spinning this as best they can while they try to take their best shot.

[Beezer]

Portia wondered a page or two ago:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Given how focused Dr. Leone was on a very few "major individual donors" during the question and answer at the AHSA annual meeting, and the fact that he never answered my question about whether the USET was at all concerned that there might be some backlash or loss of support from the average members/horsepeople, I have to question whether what the USET spends on fundraising from the average members/horseperson is worth it. I really would like to know what percentage of donations to the USET comes from the average members/horsepeople versus the "major individual donors."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, Portia, I can tell you from experience, they couldn't care less about the average members/horsepeople. When my sister, Merry, and I organized a local schooling show awhile ago, we wanted to make it a benefit. We (stupidly) picked the USET. They wanted us to GUARANTEE that they would get several thousand dollars!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif Talk about being COMPLETELY out of touch with the real horse show world. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

All we wanted to do was say on the prize list and in the ad we ran in the local horse "newspaper" that the show was a benefit for the USET. We figured that after we covered all our costs, we'd be able to send $300 to $500 to support the Olympic team. They were COMPLETELY uninterested. Unless we could send them UPFRONT about $3,500 (I forget the exact amount but Merry might remember since she screamed at them the most over their idiocy), they did not want to have anything to do with us.

Again, this was a local SCHOOLING show; we're talking classes costing about $8, then we had to rent the grounds and the jumps, pay the judge and the insurance ... well, you all know the costs of putting on a show. We weren't trying to "make money" off the USET, as one of the people we talked to there accused us of. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I can't even BEGIN to describe how subhuman this treatment made us feel. Here we were -- lifelong horsepeople who breed, raise and show horses that go on the A circuit -- and we couldn't GIVE them money. So we didn't. We gave the $600 or so profit (we had a very big show) to a local veterinary research center. They greatly appreciated it.

Never again, USET. Never again.

[SGray]

That's really bad karma from the USET

[DMK]

Beezer, that has to be the single most disturbing thing I have read.

I guess the Wealthy Powers That Be on the USET board would rather fork over money at the end of the year to make up the shortfall than let some horesman at a local level feel like they actually got to support their team.

Quite sad, and indicitive of major problems in the running of an organization.

[Portia]

Oh Beezer, I'm so sorry you and Merry had that experience -- how frustrating and disheartening. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif I guess if you're not on the level of "Denim and Diamonds" or whatever that big bash the USET has every year, the USET isn't interested. So much for the USET's claims that if it becomes the NGB, it will nurture the grass roots and provide pathways for riders to move up the ranks. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

The good part is that you and Merry found a cause that would benefit from your efforts and appreciate them too! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

The more I read and learn, the more I wish there were someway to force an audit of the USET -- like Woodbern keeps begging for!

For example, what Nancey and some other folks mentioned about the USET acquiring this website, Equestrian Life.com. There's a notice on the site that says it has been acquired by "USET Properties." What is that all about? What did they pay for it? Was it a gift/donation and if so, by whom and on what terms? Why does the USET need another website and what do they intend to use it for? What is running it going to cost? And what the hell is "USET Properties" anyway -- some new corporation the USET has set up?

Then there's the situation with the Gladstone property and the new easement they're supposed to be getting. Who are they getting the easement from? What are the terms of the easement? What is it going to cost? How long will it last?

Sorry, I think you can see my level of frustration is growing. And now Beezer's story has really set me off!

[SGray]

Has anyone tried submitting a question from the website?

http://www.uset.com/html/faqs.cfm

might be interesting

something in the vein of "Where may I obtain the financial.......

[Snowbird]

As I understand the situation, the AHSA is currently the NGB. They will propose a plan so that they conform to the requirements of the Athletic Act of the USOC.

The USET has filed with the USOC a complaint that the AHSA is not in compliance. And, requested that they be chosen as the NGB.

If the USOC finds that the AHSA is not in compliance and gives them say 180 days to comply and they do then make the necessary changes.

What would the USET sue about?

As I see it the USET is a private non-profit corporation without any tangible assets i.e. headquarters (since these are still not confirmed with a contract and although promised at risk) At best this property have sever limitations for expansion.

They cannot be forced to join with the AHSA program even though they must be members of the AHSA to compete. If they become part of the AHSA program they will be required to list assets, income, expenses etc. and have a business plan that is approved by the AHSA.

I don't see that happening so if they choose to stay independent how can they function except to field riders that could compete in the qualifying shows. Once the USOC has approved the AHSA as the NGB.

[wtywmn4]

Beezer those $600 were much better spent, going to the local vet clinic, in my opinion.

That is the problem, they are out of touch, and they do perpetuate the elitist thought process with these types of acts. That really was a fair amount for the type of show they put together. Talk about BAD PR!!!

Snowbird, that lawsuit will only tie up the AHSA. One would have to read the why's and wherefore's but using funds for legal fees, well you get the picture... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Ruby G. Weber]

I must disagree with those of you on the retaliation front. Years ago, yes but today, I don't think so.

Every show jumping team the USET sends (and funds) to Olympic Games, World Championships, annual trips to Monterray and Spruce Meadows, Developing Rider Tours etc. is either chosen through a series of qualifying events or from the Computer List. There is no longer any room for picking favorites. I cannot speak for the other disciplines but I know this to be fact in show jumping.

I think David O'Conner has done multitudes for sport horses recently but...he is coming down on the side of this issue that his (and his wife's) major sponsor has advocated.

NO ONE in this issue is TOTALLY unbiased.

[weeble]

Emmet, the retaliation idea running through my mind was much more subversive. You are right about the qualifiers, computer lists, etc. But many of these athletes are also trainers, or licensed officials, and part of their livlihood depends on the good will of some in power who are committee members or show managers as well. Not making any accusations or pointing any fingers, I just know that sometimes the reach on these things is very long and twisted and many people are afraid to anger those who hire them.

[Snowbird]

Rider A, is very good and has a good record and is politically correct. Coach B suggests to an affluent owner that Rider A would be a good person to get the best shot for their horses.

Rider C, is an even better rider but has not been scrupulously politically correct and Coach B suggests to the owner whose horses are being shown, that would do so much better with another rider.

Rider A needs to sell one of the horses because although very nice it is not of Olympic quality. Coarch B refers several trainers to look at the horse which is a good buy and has room for double commisions from the asking price.

Rider C on the other hand with an owner who is also not politically correct has a problem selling the same type horse because no one is interested.

[wtywmn4]

Anyone who thinks for one moment, that what Snowbird just stated HAS NOT happened already, has their head in the sand.

[Snowbird]

And, there are a 1000 other analogies that could be used. People are afraid they will lose their license as an official because of a protest, and show managers are afraid they will be penalized with their show dates and exhibitors buy horses through judges to earn good ribbons.

We need to wake up and realize like the race tracks there is a need for a regulating commission. If we take charge of our industry by not succumbing to the fear then we will be way ahead of the tracks.

How? by making sure that the rules are fair and equal. I do believe the tide has changed and we can accomplish a great deal of good for the children who will inherit our sport.

[Alex]

NOWHERE have I read what the sticking points are which neither party is willing to negotiate in order to consolidate the two organizations. It�s useless reading articles/statements put out by USET and AHSA. Both groups have intentionally retained the mystery around their platforms, perhaps because neither USET nor AHSA seem willing to commit their points of contention to public scrutiny.

My personal choice is for there to be a department within AHSA for handling of any national and international team functions. Team selection, veterinary, and training arrangements are so far from the general business of horse shows, this seems to me to necessitate having its own dedicated personnel.

As for coping with the elitism which is attached to USET.....Elitism is almost impossible to eradicate from this sport which requires dedicated coaching, pricey horses, and carefully honed skills over a long period of years. Very few of the top owners require financial assistance to support their horses per se, but they do need access to the selectors. USET used to be responsible for the centralized coaching of national teams, something which has fallen by the wayside since so many of the team members have become coaches in their own right. But the Europeans still enjoy the benefits of having national coaches and centralized training locations. They just find those professionals who are the most proficient amongst the best of the best. Recognizing the elite horses and riders is one of the functions of any organization purporting to field our nation�s top equestrian teams; selecting team members and distributing training aid is another, far more contentious one. Is this where most of the difficulties lie???.....

[Snowbird]

That the USET functioned successfully in this capacity for 45 years of it's 50 year history. They were a division of the AHSA and met at the conventions with everyone, had their awards luncheon and did their fund raising.

It appears that when the AHSA, through the position held by Alan Balch on their Board of Directors started to ask for copies of reports and minutes from meetings as well as some financial accountability they got their knickers in a twist.

They wrote to the USOC and complained that the AHSA was not in compliance and asked to replace the AHSA as NGB. The USOC said "talk to each other" that was the SPI. The Uset voted not to compromise and merge, made no offers as to how a merger would work if they would consider one.

They offered that they as the NGB would permit the AHSA to continue it's activities for the national horse programs. This would be an equal violation to the one they claim is now in existence, only they wouldn't be accountable to anyone.

The USOC will have a meeting in February and they may find the AHSA out of compliance and give them a period of time to correct that situation if they will continue as NGB.

So, in my humble opinion it is much ado about nothing. The USET can not field an Olympic team for the US autonimously unless they have a plan for an entire new association from the grassroots to the top.

The AHSA has on the other hand guaranteed to modify it's structure in any way necessary to comply. They proposed the merger you mentioned in order to elevate the USET to equal status with the AHSA in a new corporation. It would mean the AHSA would put all of it's physical and monetary assets in the new corporation and the USET would have to do the same.

So I don't think there will be any winners, and we will be the losers because it will cost us much money and time to pursue the argument.

However, the good thing is that there will be in place a system where the entire pyramid will be re-structured to permit anyone to try out and qualify for the Olympic Team.

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Feb. 03, 2001 at 01:30 PM.]

[Snowbird]

How many of you have emailed the AHSA or the USET? /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[wtywmn4]

Well think we should have made that question a poll Snowbird. Seems we're losing for lack of interest again /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

[Snowbird]

Well, it would make me really sad if I believed that everyone was really really willing to roll over and have the pick pockets who want the money take over this sport.

I really hope that what I've been reading really means what it says and that there are problems that could be solved to make this sport once again a viable and worthwhile sport. I really don't want to believe that people don't care that this sport is being made a tool of despots.

I hope and pray that this generation has not become so self absorbed that they can not put effort in to protecting the future of the children, never mind what it would mean to horses and the environment.

[Lord Helpus]

I did not email the USET, but I did send back their fund solicitation letter with a note saying that I would be happy to contribute to the new NGB whenever the USET stopped being such a horse's patootie (my exact words---seemed descriptive enough).

The way to vote is with our pocketbooks, people. If the USET sees a major change in their fundraising totals (and is told the reason WHY contributions are not being made) then it might just have to wake up and smell the coffee.

Yes, the USET is lucky enough to have major contributors who make up the shortfall each year. But its lifeblood is the little person becoming a member and/or contributing $$.

[Portia]

This is such a complex subject, I think it is hard for people who go about their everyday lives to see how it may affect them or their horses directly. So, perhaps it is not lack of interest in the situation so much as lack of understanding or the unfortunate feeling that "there's nothing I can do about it anyway."

I think there is something people can do about it. If the USOC heard the stories like Beezer's and Merry's, I have to think that would have an impact on their consideration of which group would be best for the long term interests of international equestrian competition in the US.

Beezer, would you please e-mail me? I'd very much appreciate it. jprice@fulbright.com or jprice11@houston.rr.com Thanks.

[Heather]

Snowbird, I think there is another option/situation that you may not be considering--at least from my perspective.

I have followed these discussions with interest, and even posted my views on occaision. However, I have not been involved in e-mailing the various groups or attending meetings, etc, for the following reasons:

1--I event. I have never had nor will ever have any interest in competing in h/j. Many of the situations discussed by your group focus on h/j, and not only do I not feel qualified to comment because I don't "do" that sport, but the few times I have the overwhelming sentiment is that if I don't "do" the A h/j then I can't possibly understand. So why would I bother? I have no defense to the claim that I don't understand the h/j sport and politics--because I don't and don't really care to.

2--I am not a member of the AHSA and/or USET. As an eventer I only have to join the AHSA when I ride at preliminary and above and with greenies in the barn that won't be happeneing again for sometime. I stopped sending the USET money ("joining")when a friend of mine was treated very shabbily by them. Now, their actions DO matter and affect me, and if there was a way to send my thoughts directly to the USOC I would, but since I am not a memeber of either org. my "clout" as it were with both organizations is severely limited.

I guess this makes me seem apathetic in many ways, but I can live with that. I try to focus on things that I can have a voice about--so I have worked with/through the USCTA when I have a conern or issue. So I know that I am not a total couch slug waiting for someone else to fix stuff.

Sorry if this rambles, I blew my back out yesterday and I'm on Codeine /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[wtywmn4]

PamM your idea is great, cept for one small item. They already stated they pull out their checkbooks when the end of the year rolls around. So will our non-renewal make a big difference? I would hope it would, but me thinks not.

Heather, sorry to hear about your back. Hope you're feeling better soon. Everyone's point of view, whether they are a member or not is IMPORTANT. This is one of the biggest arguments. Just because someone is not a current member, doesn't mean that their ideas are any less worth while. So keep them coming.

[poltroon]

I haven't sent any email. I care, but I'm not really sure I have all the facts, nor am I sure how I can do anything that would have a positive effect. As far as I can tell, the AHSA appears to be more "with the right spirit" than the USET, and clearly, the USOC will insist that the merger action happen eventually in some fashion or another.

I would love to hear more directly from some of the participants... Did Jimmy Wofford (or anyone) ever answer Portia's questions?

[Snowbird]

Have you checked with the USCTA? You may be a member of the AHSA and not even know it! Many of these periferal associations pay the AHSA a fee so that their members are really part of the AHSA.

That could be the big difference, your association may be paying the AHSA and the NHJC is getting paid by the AHSA!

[Portia]

I just checked the Ultimate Dressage board and there's no answers yet. I think the moderator there said he hoped to talk to Mr. Wofford this week. It occurred to me, though, that even though Mr. Wofford is on the USET board of trustees, he was appointed by the AHSA to the SPI group. So the USET may not have explained to him all the details of their proposal.

[Heather]

I don't believe I would be speaking out of turn to state that I know for a fact that Mr. Wofford is in favor of a unified organization, with the AHSA and USET sharing top duties--IOW, the AHSA plan.

[Portia]

Absolutely, Heather. Mr. Wofford presented the AHSA plan at the International Open Forum at the annual meeting and was firmly behind it. I had never seen or heard him in person before, and was really impressed. He was well-spoken and diplomatic, and able to have a sense of humour about a relatively tense situation.

My concern is with whether the USET is sharing relevant information with the supporters of the AHSA plan. Just as the AHSA bylaws require that USET reps be on the AHSA board of directors, the USET bylaws require that at least two trustees have to be from the AHSA. Mr. Wofford is one of those trustees. (The other is Alan Balch). However, given the open hostility a certain USET officer and key person behind the USET plan exhibited in public, I fear that the people on the USET board of trustees who support the AHSA plan may be shut out of relevant information about the USET to which they are entitled as trustees. So that's why I wondered whether Mr. Wofford would be able to answer my questions, which are directed towards how the USET proposes its plan to work.

[poltroon]

Snowbird, USCTA members are not automatically members of the AHSA. (As an active competitor in dressage, eventing, and h/j, it terrifies me how many membership cards I have!) Trust me, they make you fork out an extra $40. (I do think we got the sweetest deal on the discipline fees, though!)

I thought about this some more, and I realized that I just cannot comprehend the USET's position. Giving the USET NGB status doesn't solve the USOC problem as far as I can see. If they think they're going to take over AHSA functions, I laugh. So, as far as I can see, they're simply insane. I find that sending letters to insane people is a waste of my time. :^)

And sadly, I wish that instead of spending all this money on legal fees to fight with the AHSA, that they would instead work on supporting our competitors. It's tragic that the Powers-That-Be haven't come up with American buyers for key medal winning dressage horses (Peron in '96 and Etienne in '00) to keep them in the US. Come to think of it, the $$ spent on legal bills would probably be enough to buy Etienne...http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

If anyone can enlighten me as to how the USET is not insane, I'd love to hear it.

[Bethe Mounce]

It's a big confusing mess isn't it? I am an AHSA and USET member and while I prefer a merger of the 2 associations personally, I have strived to be fair and impartial to both sides.

USET functions as a fund raising group that provides dollars for training, competition etc for international level riders, plus I believe they set the standard of riding that we should aspire to be. Just my humble opinion on that comment.

AHSA has performed a myriad of tasks for all the disciplines; they do not focus on just one or the other. I prefer AHSA's book keeping methods to USET's right now.

After having thought about what all I have read and what all has been said via the net, I have now decided to remain as neutral as I possibly can until I have all the facts which I may or may not ever get! I believe the USOC will make the decision for us. I feel strongly that we must continue to solicit both AHSA and USET for more information so as to reduce gossip and rumors. (I still like the merger plan!) /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

I sure would like to see Mr. Balch and Mr. Standish sit down over coffee and Texas kolaches (heck, I'll send them) by themselves and hash this out. Too many personalities and conflicts of interest exist right now for the correct decision to be made.

In time, I believe more info will be posted forth with on both websites. I firmly believe in going to the membership of each association to ask their opinions/comments. All of us have much to offer both associations as we all come from so many different walks of life.

Whatever happens, is going to affect us all.....I sure hope they "go do the right thing."

[wtywmn4]

Bethe I think everyone here is unanimous that we want them to do the right thing. Two people sitting down, probably would make more head way than the current fracas thats been going on.

[Snowbird]

I think that if we had a clue what exactly was the reason for the USET being such a hold-out we would have a better idea of the size of the problem.

Is it just personality clashes? Is it accountability? Is it putting the assets all in one pot?

What is the new factor in the stew? Up to about 5 years ago everyone seemed pretty happy doing what they all wanted to do.

[SGray]

From what little I know of these folks - many of them are very rich and/or very powerful - either way I think very used to calling the shots. I think it's a control thing.


BOARD OF TRUSTEES
United States Equestrian Team, Inc.


William C. Steinkraus* -- Chairman of the Board Emeritus
Finn M.W. Caspersen* -- Chairman and President
Armand Leone* -- Vice Chairman
Dorothy A. Matz* -- Senior Vice President
Brownlee O. Currey, Jr.* -- Senior Vice President
Alan F. Balch* -- Vice Pesident
Don Burt*-- Vice President/Reining
C. Michael Huber* -- Vice President/Eventing
George H. Morris* -- Vice President/Show Jumping
Margaret S. Price* -- Vice President/Endurance
Jessica Ransehousen* -- Vice President/Dressage
John Wetzel* -- Vice President/Driving
Eric L. Straus* -- Board's Secretary
Richard H. Brown* -- Treasurer
John H. Fritz -- Assistant Secretary


Ronnie Beard
Washington D. Bishop
Frank D. Chapot
Henry L. Collins III
Frank Constantini
Cora Cushny
Robert Dover*
R. Bruce Duchossois
Randy Eiland
James H. Fairclough
Bertram R. Firestone
Jerry Gillespie, DVM
Natasha Grigg
Loris Henry
Leslie Burr Howard
C. Michael Huber*
Valerie J. Kanavy
Chris Kappler
Anne Kursinski
Dr. Armand Leone, Sr.
Herbert A. Lurie
Jacqueline B. Mars*
Mary Anne McPhail
Ellin Dixon Miller
Eugene R. Mische
David J. O'Connor
James F. O'Rourke, III
Louis Piancone
Wendy Raether
Dr. Bernard Salick
Guenter Seidel
Lisa Singer
Betsy Steiner*
Wyatt A. Stewart, III
Karen Stives*
Eric Straus
Mary L. Tiscornia
James Wofford*
Howard B. Simpson
Frank V. Lloyd*

* indicates member of the Executive Committee

Honorary Life Trustees

Maj. Gen. Jonathan R. Burton
Russell B. Clark
F. Eugene Dixon, Jr.
Montgomery Ross Fisher
John H. Fritz
Patricia D. Gilbert
Helen Jones Gordon
Helen K. Groves
Samuel Hoar
Mrs. Gilbert W. Humphrey
Richard McDevitt
Vincent B. Murphy, Jr.
Mrs. Nathaniel Pulsifer
George T. Scharffenberger
Frances B. Steinwedell
Walter L. Straus


National Advisory Council

Joyce Martin Hampton
Elizabeth Busch Burke
Sharon Chesson
Carol Coleman
Mara Depuy
Jeffrey Devlin
Derek Di Grazia
Dr. Brendan W. Furlong
Harry Gill
Murray H. Goodman
Lendon F. Gray
Anne Gribbons
Michele M. Grubb
Alexander M. Guest
Anthony F. Hitchcock
George W. Hoffman
Shana B. Johnstone
Jan Neuharth Keusch
Leonard A. King, Jr.
Robert M. Kommerstad
Michael R. Zucchini
Paul J. Long
Dan W. Lufkin
Mary Alice Malone
Dr. Richard D. Mitchell
Stagg Newman
Richard C.V.Nicoll
Michael O. Page
Robin Parsky
Madeleine Paulson
Mason Phelps
Deirdre H. Pirie
James C. Richards
Judy H. Richter
Stephen Rojek
Col. John W. Russell
Mrs. J. William Scher
Allan E. Shore, Jr.
Howard B. Simpson
Dr. Kim W. Sloan
Carol H. Thompson
Richard H. Thompson
Pascal F. Tone
Mark Weissbecker
Esther R. Wright
Joe Zada

[Portia]

Snowbird, I have the same questions. But one thing we can surmise from the records is that until several years ago the same people essentially ran both organizations and they were run much the same way. Now they are quite different.

The AHSA officers changed, and the organization modernized and changed its ways. It now runs within budget and does not depend on the generosity of two or three primary benefactors, and so is not beholden to any small group of individuals.

So, starting several years ago, there were two different groups of people running the two organizations, and they had different ideas of what is the best way of achieving success for the future of equestrian sports.

Add to that the requirements of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act, which was adopted in the late 1980's (I think - I'll have to go back and check exactly when it became effective) and imposed the "no delegation of core functions" requirement on NGB for each Olympic sport. The arrangement between the AHSA and the USET that had worked for so many years (USET raised money and organized the teams, AHSA did everything else) violated that prohibition against delegation, even though the USET was acting under the direction of the AHSA and later pursuant to operating agreements between them.

So, with the divergence in managements and the requirements of the law, tensions arose between the two organizations.

I suspect there are complex issues of personality clashes, power drives, and personal business dealings that also underlie the USET refusal to join with the AHSA. One part of it might also involve the fact that the AHSA is the body responsible for enforcing the rules, conducting hearings, and imposing disciplinary actions, which may not always go along with the wishes of some of those in the USET -- but that is purely speculation on my part.

[wtywmn4]

Portia, as always you are very astute!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif That all seems to be a major factor in the negotiations.

[SGray]

includes both patrons and patronized

[Bethe Mounce]

Snowbird wrote:
Is it just personality clashes? Is it accountability? Is it putting the assets all in one pot?

I believe you hit the nail on the head! I believe the confusion lies in all 3 of your questions.

[Snowbird]

So then can we ascertain at what point exactly it was that the difference of opinions started? I note that on an earlier post Alan Blach is a Vice-President.

Many of the people involved serve dual roles. So can we figure when this schism started? What was the primary motivation?

An Olympic Team is more important than the people involved, it offers a "dream" to thousands of youngsters. Is there some way to cross over this difference of opinion? If we could isolate the initial differences that separated the USET from the main stream perhaps we could all help.

[Merry]

Go to Horsecity.com and look on their opening page "General News". Scroll down and there's a list of articles. Click the one about "NGB Controversy" or something like that.

[Portia]

That is a good article, with some good information and comments from lots of people. Here's the direct link, hopefully:

http://www.horsecity.com/stories/020201/jum_NGB_ABM.shtml

[SGray]

That article makes speculation made here sound pretty accurate.

[Portia]

OK, this is mean and petty of me. I admit it, openly, proudly. But given all the discussion above, I can't resist doing it anyway /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

So play along with me folks, and answer the question: "What's Wrong With This Picture?" /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[USET Press Release, Jan. 24, 2001)

USET ANNOUNCES ITS ANNUAL GOLF BENEFIT TO BE HELD AT THE NEW HAMILTON FARM GOLF CLUB

The United States Equestrian Team (USET) is proud to announce the date and location of its second golf tournament benefiting the USET. The tournament will be held on Monday, June 18th at the Hamilton Farm Golf Course in Gladstone, NJ.

2001 is the inaugural golf season for the private club which is located on the same property as the USET. The two eighteen-hole golf courses, the Highlands and the Hickory, have been designed by the architectural team of Dr. Michael Hurdzan and Dana Fry who are both astute students of the masters of classical golf architecture. Some of their designs include Naples National in Naples, Florida, considered among the "top 100" according to Golf Digest, and Widow's Walk in Scituate, Massachusetts that received the Environmental Leaders in Golf Award 1997. A current project is the new course at the Philadelphia Cricket Club in Flourtown, Pennsylvania.

Play will be conducted on the par-72 Highlands Golf Course which measures 7,117 yards from the back tees with a course rating of 74.2 and a slope of 138.

Registration will begin at 11:00am, at which time the practice range and putting green will be available for warm-up. Lunch is included prior to a shotgun start at 1:00pm. There will be cocktails and hors d'oeuvres at the Mansion followed by dinner and awards at the Club House.

All players will receive green fees, range balls, caddie/cart, lunch and refreshments on course, cocktails, dinner and a "favors" package. In addition there will be several golf packages available.

USET Executive Director Robert C. Standish states that, "This exciting benefit promises to be a resounding fundraising and promotional success."

Reservations are limited so please sign up as soon as possible. For further information please contact Liz McConville at (908) 234-1251.

USET GOLF BENEFIT OPPORTUNITIES

The cost for all players includes green fees, carts, caddies, balls, shirts, glasses, lunch, cocktails and dinner

Individual: $1,000 - includes Green Fees, Carts/Caddie, Balls, Favors, All food, drinks and dinner
Foursome: $4,000 - Same as above
Foursome plus one Hole: - $ 6,000
2 Foursomes plus two holes - $10,000

To sponsor holes:

One Hole: $2,500 - includes sponsor name on individual hole plus listing in Program and invitation to dinner
Holes 1 thru 8: $5,000 - includes sponsor name on holes 1 thru 8 plus listing in Program and invitation to dinner
Holes 9 thru 18: $5,000 - Same as above

To sponsor prizes:

$3,000 - includes listing in Program, 2 invitations to dinner and name on each Certificate

All sponsors will receive recognition during the event and in all publicity associated with the benefit. All donations over $400.00 per person are tax deductible.

[DMK]

If they get all 18 holes sponsored at top price AND 1,910 participants, they can make up their $2,000,000 shortfall!!!!!!!

See, I too can be evil and wicked, but I bet y'all knew that /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[Sleepy]

And yes, DMK, you are being evil.

Having said that, though, if I wanted a way to make money for a charity, I would have a golf tournament. And yes, I do play, but that is beside the point. It is relatively easy to get sponsors and a tried and true way to raise big bucks. And it takes a heck of a lot less people to run it than a horse show, is over faster, etc. Only expenses are the food and greens fee. You can generally get the prizes, goody bags, etc. donated and can run a raffle (for donated items) in conjunction.

This one seems a really high entry fee though. Usual fee is around 100-250, depending on the greens fee for the course involved. And as a point of reference, only 72 people will get to play from a shotgun start. To get me to pay $1000, I would expect David O'Connor to caddy for me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[DMK]

Maybe Jimmy Fairclough's 4 in hand team can pull the golf cart?

[SGray]

note that the active rider arguing for USET is one of the single largest recipients of their largesse in the last couple of decades - well, I wouldn't want to kill a golden(egg) goose either

[SGray]

Dear ____,

Thank you for your response and interest in the governance proposal we plan
to present to the USOC.

It's clear from the notes we are receiving that several of the issues
surrounding the proposal to combine the strengths of AHSA and USET have
struck a strong chord.

Some of you feel that the sport suffers from having responsibilities spread
among too many organizations:

"We in this country need one Federation of Equestrian Sport...we have too
many governing bodies, with too many administrations and their costs. It is
time to unify under a Federation for Equestrian Sport, USA."

"I think it is important to have a STRONG unifying government across
discipline and across breed organizations. It keeps us all in touch and
each group's feet on the ground."

We share this concern. What we envision is a unified sport from the
grassroots to the elite. With its 26 breeds and disciplines, approximately
2,600 competitions and more than 70,000 members, the AHSA endorses unifying
- and providing support for - the entire equestrian sport at every level. We
envision that the transformed National Governing Body will sustain
competitive excellence through an ongoing commitment to grassroots riders
who aspire to achieve Olympic distinction and will maintain a focus and
level of support enabling today's elite, international athletes to
successfully compete.

Others responded that there is an imbalance in representation of the sport's
various groups:

"We are all lovers of the equine and therefore should have equal voice and
representation..."

"EVERYONE must be represented in the sport...from us little chicks to the
big roosters."

The NGB of equestrian sport should be inclusive -- representing and
supporting the total sport. AHSA strongly believes that the governance of
the equestrian sport should reflect a true democratic spirit. It should be
dedicated to maintaining an open membership and expanding the opportunities
for competition at all levels.

"I wish there was a way to find harmony between the two organizations so
that the interest of the sport could remain paramount."

We couldn't agree more. We've always felt that all riders and drivers will
benefit from a unity of spirit and cooperation between the two
organizations. We ardently hope that the USET will accept the offer made in
our proposal to continue to apply their expertise, knowledge and skills from
within the new NGB. That would be the best possible outcome.
Some of you said that you're tired of hearing about the topic. We don't
blame you! Honestly, we'd rather be riding, competing, or supporting those
who do. But it's also obvious from your responses that you care deeply
about the type of organization that oversees equestrian sport. We hope to
have this all resolved soon and are doing our best not to let it distract us
from what we all need to be doing - promoting equestrian sport on behalf of
those who love horses!

For those of you asking what you can do to help, we are still interested in
hearing your thoughts and perspectives on this issue. Please send us your
comments via e-mail, and clearly indicate that you will allow us to include
your comments in our submission to the USOC. Allowing the USOC to hear
directly from you, our members, is the strongest evidence we can supply of
our sincere interest in representing horse-lovers across the country.

Thank you again for your thoughtful comments and suggestions. Keep them
coming!

The Officers of the American Horse Shows Association


---- so everyone - write and tell them what you think!

[wtywmn4]

Sounds to me like they are hosting a fund driver for one of the parties. Didn't they hear that the votes are in and a new president elected? Sorry, now that was m&p.

Exactly, how many people do you think will take part in this golf tournament? And, what will happen if they don't meet the quota? Do we hear Woodbern's favorite word, AUDIT?

Sgray, thank you for printing your letter. One would hope this is a giant step forward.

[Portia]

I love a good round of golf. Give me David O'Connor on my scramble team, and I might even pay a couple hundred bucks for it, for a good cause.

But this, at $1000 per person, on an exclusive private course that used to be Hamilton Farms, with the questions being raised about the status of the remaining property the USET uses...

[Snowbird]

They may need to do a bunch of days since their zoning says they cannot ever have more than 180 people at one time on the place.

They will need either 3 days or to add to the ticket by about $1700 a head to make a half million and that's a minimum fund raiser the way they need to spend money.

On the other hand if a horse gets loose by accident on that spectacular golf course BOY! what a price tag to repair the damage from those iron shoes. I mean could you blame a horse looking out his window and seeing all that beautiful green grass?

And, what about those very elegant golfers if a horse comes galloping up to them during the game.
Horses are territorial and they've had the run of the property for a long time, hard for them to forget.

[wtywmn4]

Well, at $1000 per, I don't think your average horse person is likely to sign up in the near future. Isn't this exactly what we have been concerned with? This seems to back the perception that the USET has lost touch with the general membership. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Portia]

Well, wty, for me it did harken back to thoughts of the Alison Firestone begging for money fundraising letter from last year. Talk about out of touch....

P.S. That's not in any way a slam against Ms. Firestone, who is probably a fine person. It's a slam against the people who couldn't see that sending out a letter begging for donations signed by someone who even a casual observer of the horse world knows is from a very wealthy family and can afford the best of everything might not be the best way to convince regular people to hand over their hard-earned cash.

[Snowbird]

I think this Release speaks for itself. We certainly can tell who cares about the rest of us.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>American Horse Shows Association (AHSA) Officers today issued the following statement:


February 8, 2001


To the Equestrian Community:

The United States Olympic Committee (USOC) decision regarding the status of our National Governing Body (NGB) will
undoubtedly have a significant impact on the future of the equestrian sport. Following the Strategic Planning Initiative (SPI)
between representatives of the AHSA and the United States Equestrian Team (USET), we continued drawing upon the insights
and ideas of our membership to prepare our proposal for consideration by the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee
on February 24, 2001.

The past two weeks, the AHSA conducted conversations with many of you - across 26 breeds and disciplines - so that we
could include your crucial thoughts in this proposal.
Our thanks to the National Western Council, National Hunter/Jumper Council and Zone Committees, the AHSA Athletes
Advisory Committee, and our new International and National Affiliates Council for their input, as well as to the many individual
participants in the sport who have offered their opinions. Throughout the process, we will continue to engage our members in
these conversations, informing them of the latest developments and addressing their concerns.

We are working to enhance our proposal, supporting a consolidation of the strengths of the AHSA and USET while assuring
fair competition, upholding the health and
well-being of horses, and providing a focus on excellence at each competitive level.
The goal of the proposal is a unified NGB for all of the equestrian sport, nurturing grassroots and development riders without
losing any focus on elite, athletic competitive excellence. If the USET will collaborate with us, it could transition easily into the
high performance division that operates under the supervision of the unified NGB�s board.

To fulfill USOC�s mandate for the sport, the AHSA proposal will address and resolve those areas of compliance that have
arisen and touch on how the organization has functioned responsibly and effectively for decades as the NGB, since well before
that term came into the law in 1978.

We have also received a number of media inquiries over the past several days.
One inquiry had some particularly compelling questions of which we would like to share a few � along with our responses:

1. What caused the USOC to review the relationship of the USET and AHSA as spelled out in the AHSA/USET
Operating Agreement?

The USOC is continually evaluating the compliance of National Governing Bodies with the USOC's
requirements. Prior to 1997, they indicated that they had some questions about how equestrian sport's
compliance was evolving, particularly on the question of whether the NGB, the AHSA, improperly "delegated
matters central to the governance of the sport" to the USET. The AHSA/USET Operating Agreement, fostered
by the USOC and overseen by it during 1997, resolved the questions in an operational way, you might say, for
the period up to the Sydney Olympic Games. But the "delegation question," if anything, was made more
apparent by that very Agreement.


2. Why has an arrangement that basically served the equestrian community for more than two decades only come into
question in the last two years?

For many, many reasons, the historical relationship between the AHSA and USET, evolving for 50 years, has
always been an anomaly in the Olympic Movement. We're the only sport with a horse involved, for starters. The
USOC has been concerned about this relationship, and as described above, the development of the Operating
Agreement heightened their interest in it, we believe.

3. If a single NGB is in the best interest of the sport, one would suppose this has always been the case. Therefore, why
has the USET grown as a separate organization?

The USET has grown as a separate organization, in our opinion, as all horse organizations have grown just
about across the board. When there is synergy among horsemen, the rising tide floats all boats a little higher.
The AHSA has helped the USET grow, and the USET has helped the AHSA grow. The basic difference between
the two philosophies, as of now, is that the AHSA believes it should share the top of the international pyramid
with the USET, and keep the sport together in a synergistic fashion. The USET seems to want to cut off the top
of the pyramid, and have all the other sport organizations report to it, in effect reversing the historic roles of
the AHSA and USET. If what the AHSA does now is "improper delegation" to the USET, then we don't see how
reversing that does anything except make the "improper delegation" work in reverse. We ought to be together,
we think.

4. In Alan Balch�s letter of February 1, he argues that the decision of the USOC as to NGB status will potentially affect
riders at all levels, including the grassroots level. How?

All riders at all levels are affected by this, potentially or indirectly, because we want to provide a clear path
from the grass roots to the Olympic Games. Every rider in any ring in any breed or in any discipline, should be
able to aspire to compete in the Olympics if he or she wants to. They shouldn't have to look at this as an
organizational hodge-podge, and think, well, that can't be ME like David O'Connor galloping around the
Olympic stadium with the American flag. Horsemanship knows no boundaries, and while only 3 equestrian
disciplines are in the Olympics, once you learn to ride a horse, you should see how to get there if you want to.
Further, if one accepts that reasoning, all the synergies we enjoy as people who love horses could come
together for much better marketing and the resulting corporate sponsorship opportunities, with all that implies
for the long-term growth and financial success of the sport as a whole.

We are working to ensure that this proposal reflects our strong heritage of fostering international competitive excellence and our
commitment to open, democratic governance of equestrian sport. Again, we welcome your ideas as we continue to enhance the
AHSA proposal in preparation for our February 24, 2001 meeting with the USOC.

Sincerely,


The Officers of the American Horse Shows Association<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[Snowbird]

The AHSA sure talks the talk, and it sounds like a good plan. The only real question is why doesn't the USET agree with what sounds like logic? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Weatherford]

by Denny Emerson and George Morris in the Feb 2 issue of the COTH.

They both are adressing similar problems with totally different solutions. I believe (and have written an op-ed to that effect which I will reprint here later) that the two commentaries epitomize the differences in the approaches to the problems facing our industry.

Guess which person seeks the solution from the bottom up?

I no longer event, but, in many ways, I do think Eventers rule. Or at least they should.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Snowbird]

I hope you bring back some of the great jumping ponies.

You got it! I'm afraid the hunter jumper people are in the pits. I agree that we will have to look to the eventers and the western folks to save us from extinction.

When you think about, even the USET needs the western folks to save them!

[Portia]

I read those commentaries, Weatherford, and had exactly the same thoughts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[SGray]

see http://www.ultimatedressage.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/004399.html

Interview between Mark Susol and Wofford is forthcoming.

Quote from MS (posted 2/12 at 9:53 pm on the above listed board) "ok equestrian fans, I just spent 1.5 hours on the phone with Mr Wofford regarding the AHSA-USET-USOC national governing body issue. I will need a couple days to get the transcript prepared and have his approval. It was a very informative interview I must say."

[Portia]

Thanks for the information, S. I'll really be looking forward to his comments. Thanks to Mark Susol for the efforts. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I understand the AHSA report on its plan is due to the USOC on the 15th, and the USOC Credentials Committee meeting is in San Antonio on Feb. 24th, where they will meet with the AHSA and USET reps to address the NGB compliance issue. I don't know if the USOC will make some kind of "instant decision" at the meeting, or will take the issue under advisement and then issue a report/decision of some kind at a later date, but either way we should get some solid news within the next two weeks or so.

[Snowbird]

Any indication from Wofford as to how he thinks the USOC will handle the situation?

Two weeks can be very short unless you're hanging.

[SGray]

I just hope that he types fast

[Snowbird]

I heard on the news that the FCC is investigating Lucent for bad accounting practices. If they were going to write off two extravagant golf courses and an elegant Club House I guess that wouldn't be good accounting.

[Weatherford]

BUT what happened to the promised "easement"?? Word is from someone VERY close to the situation (not involved in horses), that it will NEVER happen.

After all, Lucent does want to sell the property, and having the easement hanging over their heads might not be particularly encouraging to buyers.

And the barns were NEVER signed over to the USET (as promised), so there is a good chance they will not have a home soon.

And the AHSA has been accused of SPIN??! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

No comparison IMHO.

[Snowbird]

It was illogical if Beneficial never deeded the property that any new owner would give away rights to land worth almost $2 million dollars voluntarily.

They wouldn't need the open space Green Acres easement with a golf course. And, they would need the acreage to be permitted to develop enough of the property to make it a viable investment.

Obviously, we have been told an untruth about the USET property and stability. It's just been a lot of talk to get us not to have hysterics over the loss of the Team Headquarters for New Jersey.

I was sure when they announced the paper work was not signed yet, that it wouldn't have to be accepted by a new buyer who purchased the property without any restrictions and liens.

My guess is that the USET has permission to use the site until and when...It's really too bad because I am sure that with the support of the State we could have protected the headquarters if we had known the truth. I'll bet the neighbors are in a big bru-ha! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Snowbird]

It's been so quiet and the papers would have been filed yesterday. It's not like this sport to be able to keep a secret. I wondered if anyone had seen the proposal of the USET?

I wondered if they could in that proposal justify the various conflicts which would be inevitable when a show is sanctioned for all levels of competition.

[Portia]

I haven't seen anything Snowbird, and just checked the AHSA web site. But I imagine they will post something soon. I suspect it's the calm before the storm, as both sides are busy getting ready for the real fight.

[SGray]

I say we all pitch in for a hotel room for Jennifer next weekend and send her to find out what's going on ;-}

[Portia]

Thanks, S. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif But hopefully we can count on John Strassburger and some of the other equine press to be there to tell us what happens, in addition to whatever the parties' themselves release.

[wtywmn4]

Let's send Portia!! She could be our representative...Her reports of the convention are insightful and direct.

[SGray]

I'm pretty sure that there is a consensus here that you show more of the above than most of the professional that have reported on this.

[Snowbird]

I admire so much the special talent of being able to reduce complicated ideas to simple concise and clear phrases. We are most fortunate to have Portia give us her insight but let's not put her in a box where she might not feel comfortable.

However, if the opportunity was convenient, count me in because I would love to hear a resume of that meeting through the experience and knowledge of Portia.

[Portia]

I'm blushing. The legal community will never believe that there is a group of people out there -- deluded though they may be -- who actually think a lawyer is less biased and more fair than a journalist. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I'd really like to go, but I have yet another brief due soon, so no weekends in San Antonio for me. (Though I do have a very nice old boyfriend in that area. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) I think we can trust the reporters to do a good job and keep us informed. They've done several good articles so far, as we've seen.

I can't say I'm unbiased anymore. I started out that way, as you and most of us grass roots folks did. But now I'm solidly behind the AHSA. It's an educated bias, though.

By the way, did you all see Di's (Weatherford's) letter in the Feb. 2 COTH issue along with mine on this issue? They're posted on line now. I thought her's was very good.

[Weatherford]

But, since they pulled it from my post, I do wish I had been able to look at it in print and edit it. It did not flow and the thoughts were discombobulated. Oh well - wait til next week's!

By the way, the reason the proposal from the AHSA is not posted anywhere is that it is over 300 pages, plus exhibits. It was delivered on time, and I think the team is probably catching upo on their sleep.

This was a MAJOR undertaking for Allan Balch and his team which included Linda Allen, Jimmy Wofford, Kate Jackson, David O'Connor & others, including the staff members who had to tyoe, edit and make copies.) All of whom, by the way, deserve a million THANK YOU's!

It is not over, yet. Evidently some members of the USET groups met privately/secretly with USOC members, which to me sounds underhanded and smacks of collusion and purchasing votes. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

We shall see.

[Snowbird]

Say it isn't so!
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is not over, yet. Evidently some members of the USET groups met privately/secretly with USOC members, which to me sounds underhanded and
smacks of collusion and purchasing votes.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Isn't it bad enough that they have misrepresented the status of their headquarters and finances?

Isn't it bad enough that they have exposed their proclivity for "elitism"?

Isn't it bad enough that they have bought their places on the "Team", OUR TEAM?

But will they also drag the USOC into another scandal like the one for the winter Olympics in Utah?

Will they wind up proving that the Olympics can be bought if you can afford the price?

What a far cry from the essence of the mission of the Olympics as a test of the best in "amateur" athletes.

And what a disappointment for every aspiring young equestrian if this is true.

[Lord Helpus]

a couple of weeks ago. I responded by returning it with a cover note telling them that they would get no money from me until they stopped acting like a horse's patootie on this merger issue.

Yesterday I got a letter from Robert C. Standish (a great, great grandson of Miles, no doubt) in which he wrote:

We appreciate your concern regarding the relationship between the USET and the AHSA. Please be assured that we, too, are anxious to move forward and put ALL of our efforts into providing for our atheletes and our sport.

Thank you for your comments.

Sincerely,
Robert C. Standish
Executive Director

Now, folks, this letter came on heavy stock paper with a 3 color logo. Someone had to type in my name and address (I am assuming the letter is straight off the old word processor) and Mr. RCS had to hand sign it. Then a stamp (of approx $.33 - $.34 --I have lost count-- ) was attached and a mailman delivered it to my mailbox.

WHY???? It says NOTHING!!! It is GARBAGE!!!!! Its very presence and language and non-speak offends me more than being ignored would have.

Do these people think that I now feel better about the USET?? That perhaps I will send them a check for $10,000?

Methinks they have been sniffing the hoof dressing a little too long.

[Portia]

I love it, PamM! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif That's the best one I've heard in a long time.

Well, at least somebody looked at your note, apparently, even if the response is complete BS. I didn't send my membership renewal solicitation back because I assumed it would just go to the fund raising agency they use and no one at the USET would actually see it. But now I'm going to send it, and the notice of my quarterly payment due on the pledge to the endowment fund, back to the USET with a similar note.

On the "secret" contacts between the USET and USOC, I had heard from various people at the annual meeting about the USET having private contacts with the USOC in the past that they won't tell the AHSA about. It's very disturbing to me, but I didn't want to discuss it since I have no personal knowledge about it. But it is a serious issue and I guess it should be discussed. If the information is wrong and the USET wants to deny it and tell us what's really going on, then they are I'm sure very welcome to do so.

For example, last I heard (at least a month ago) the USET and USOC had yet to provide a copy of the original letter from DD Matz (then the USET president) to the USOC several years ago that started the whole active controversy. As I recall from the COTH reporting back then, DD Matz sent a letter to the USOC apparently suggesting that the USET should be named the NGB. Except no one really knows what it said except the USET and at least some people at the USOC. You'd think they could at least give a copy of it to the party that was the subject of the apparent complaint, but I've been told the USET claims it can't give the AHSA a copy because it was a "private letter" from DD Matz, not one from the USET itself. Right. Sure.

I'm very much hoping that the USOC representatives on the credentials committee are fair and honest individuals who evalutate each party's presentations objectively and on their merits. I do have faith in the arbitration process if it goes to that point.

[Snowbird]

I just got a packet from California with Financial Reports and since we've never been given one in Zone 2 I had no comparisons.

I will scan and post all these so that those of you who are knowledgeable can help us come to some conclusions.

After looking at the different figures being given out depending on the association that gets a copy they have some real discrepancies in the Hunter Council and Zone 10.

It made me wonder if anyone has ever seen any financial reports from the USET.

I would love to see exactly who donated the $2 million they were short, and I'd love to know WHY they were so short of funds? /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[wtywmn4]

Will love to read those Snowbird. Thank you for doing that... /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Portia]

Disappointing news on the news coverage of the USOC meeting Saturday in San Antonio. I e-mailed both John Strassburger and Nancy Jaffer, and neither of them will be there. For the COTH, it is not cost-effective to travel all the way to San Antonio for a meeting that will last about 3 hours to see the presentation of plans that they have largely seen already. For Nancy, a freelancer, no publication wants to pay her for the trip. They both plan on covering it through extensive post-meeting interviews with the participants.

It's understandable from the business side, but still disappointing. Anybody know any other horse journalists who might be going to attend? I don't know any equestrian journalists in San Antonio or relatively nearby who could go and not have it cost much.

[Portia]

the last I heard (and I apologize, I can't even remember the source now), the USET was about $2 million behind for 2000, and no one had yet made up that deficit. Has anyone heard otherwise?

One thing I would like to know is how much of the USET's finances are hard assets in hand, and how much of them are pledges of donations for the future -- like maybe the pledge of the easement for the use of the Gladstone property. Pledges of charitable donations are not, to my knowledge, legally enforceable debts that could be collected upon, though I could be wrong on that. If the USET is counting pledges as actual assets, that's pretty iffy in my mind.

[wtywmn4]

Those are some very interesting stats for the USET. Two million is nothing to sneeze at. What pray tell, were the expenditures that took it to this rather large number? Inquiring minds want to know. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[Snowbird]

I too learned about the deficit of $2 million, and what I was wondering was how many of the members of the board of the USET actually write checks and how many expect to receive checks?

If we calculate how many can afford to write a substantial check then we can figure out how much it costs to be a board member.

I'm still in shock because I found out today that the Pacific Coast Horse Shows Assn. No doubt a non-profit has a bank balance of $700,000 and they just collect the interest so they don't want to spend it on horse charity.

I'm almost beginning to understand all those people in this sport who only want to worry about what color blouse you wear with rust britches. I am really disturbed by the idea that an association like the USET could possibly wind up as the NGB and with their attitude of not caring about the sport in general, just think what a free run all these self serving philanthropists will give to all those who just want a piece of the golden goose. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I will make a call and find out if our local Horse News is interested in covering the story 1st hand.

[Portia]

Snowbird, on the Pacific Coast thing, I believe it's fairly common for a well-run non-profit to have relatively large sums in the bank as a reserve fund, and to "live off the interest." Someone with more experience with non-profits can explain it better, but it's actually fiscally responsible.

It's the same thing as whenever you hear about an "endowment fund" (such as the USET started a couple of years ago and to which I contributed, until now). What they are doing is building up a subtstantial principle fund, and then going to use the interest on the principle indefinately to fund the program. In an emergency, the principle in the reserve fund (though not, I believe, a designated endowment fund) can be used.

[SGray]

"Armand Leone, who has been instrumental in designing the USET's proposal, indicated that 130 active athletes had voted in favor of the USET proposal. However, after further discussion it became clear that these athletes might not have had all the facts. In fact, Olympic dressage veteran Carol Lavell, who voted in favor of the USET proposal, indicated that she had done so because of the way the vote was worded. She did not realize her vote was being cast for one proposal over the other but rather the concept of unifying the sport under one organization. Carol indicated if she had realized she was voting for the USET and against the AHSA proposal she would not have voted yes, because, like many others, she feels she needs more facts. Lavell along with Dressage Olympic veteran Michael Poulin also shared their concern that they were not given enough notice to be a part of the USET meeting and felt that communication was lacking from the USET to its membership. "Many of us have been left out," added Poulin, "and I don't know why.""

Lavell and Poulin are both intelligent people - anyone have the wording of the vote?

[Portia]

I'm not sure there was any official wording for the vote. From what's been reported and what some of the USET and AHSA people who participated have said, the USET just kind of sprang it on them at the meeting and asked for a vote, unexpectedly.

The other quote I found interesting was that from Sheila Johnson. Obviously a very intelligent woman and a sophisticated business person, and a member of the USET Board of Trustees (and the AHSA Board of Directors.) However, even she said that she felt the USET had not provided enough information and she might have been misled because of it.

There's a good article by David O'Connor on the last page of the new Horse Show where he discusses the SPI a bit. It is well worth reading, and one thing he really emphasizes is that make no mistake, the NGB decision will affect all of us.

What a gentleman he is. Great horseman, great looking, charming as can be, humble, self-effacing, intelligent, and articulate on top of it! Karen is a lucky woman. Not that I'm envious. Nope, not me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by Portia on Feb. 21, 2001 at 11:47 AM.]

[Snowbird]

This controversy will point out where the weeds are!

It's funny isn't it, we all started out without an opinion and they have been exposed. Now, let's hope that there's no hanky panky and the USOC is as clever as we are, only 3 more days. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

[SGray]

NEWS FROM USET REGARDING NGB STATUS

On Thursday, February 22, 2001 at 1:30pm (EST), there will be an open
conference call to the press regarding the status of negotiations between
the USET and AHSA on the National Governing Body status.


All media are invited to participate in the conference call. If you wish to
do so, please use the dial-in number (888) 422-7109, then participant code
918038.

[SGray]

(if it is possible that is) - I'm at work and wouldn't be able to.

[Portia]

Interesting. I guess the USET wants to get a shot in before the USOC Membership & Credentials Committee meeting on Saturday.

It says "media" can participate. I'm guessing that as far as the USET is concerned, that is accredited media and not us members.

Since it's a conference call hopefully the COTH will have someone participate.

[SGray]

What if I'm the newsletter editor for my club - does that constitute "media"?

[woodbern]

the worst that will happen is that you can't get in! (and, I suspect you will not be able to). They will screen this pretty carefully, no doubt.

[SGray]

I received the message that the conference had not yet started....would start in 7 minutes... please try again....

[Glimmerglass]

The call was pre-established for members of the media who are defined as being part of IAEJ or the International Alliance of Equestrian Journalists. A corresponding code went to each and would be required to be submitted to get on.

Aside from the issue of control it also is an issue of cost - for each person calling in (a port in telephony terms) there is a unit cost. Opening the door to the pubic could easily make their conference calling provder rather wealthy.

[SGray]

It's about to start

[stephanie]

i'm listening now....

will post as i hear what they say...

[SGray]

USET Challenges for Official Designation as NGB for Equestrian Sport Viability of Equestrian Athlete Programs at Stake

Gladstone, NJ, February 22, 2001 - Today the United States Equestrian Team
(USET) petitioned the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) to challenge
for official designation as national governing body (NGB) for equestrian
sport.


The decision by the American Horse Show Association (AHSA) to strip the USET
of the authority to continue its efforts for international equestrian
athletes upon the expiration of the Operating Agreement (Sunday, February
25) has forced the USET to file this challenge. Failure to do so would cause
a complete collapse of all USET athlete programs. With the World
Championship selection trials beginning in September, the best interests of
the athletes compel the USET to take this action.


According to USET Chairman and President, Finn M.W. Caspersen, "I have
publicly stated that I have always been reluctant to implement this action
to solve the NGB question. However given the USET Board vote, the recent
circumstances, and after extensive consultation with athletes, trustees, and
legal counsel, it is the only option that will ensure the stability, funding
and infrastructure that is necessary for our athletes and our international
effort now and in the future."


The AHSA submitted a proposal to the USOC's Member and Credentials Committee
stating, "if the USET chooses not to become part of USA Equestrian (AHSA
Merger Proposal), the new NGB, the AHSA is fully prepared, immediately, to
assume all responsibilities for those function currently performed by USET."
The AHSA plans to take over the functions performed by the USET for the past
50 years on February 25, 2001. The AHSA currently does not have programs,
infrastructure or personnel in place to provide the necessary support
athletes require.


The AHSA is not in compliance with the Ted Stevens Olympic and Amateur
Sports Act and USOC bylaws. The AHSA is the currently titled NGB while the
USET is the organization responsible for and practiced in administering the
athlete programs for team selection, training, development and support.


Both organizations will be meeting this Saturday before the USOC Membership
and Credentials Committee on February 24, 2001 in San Antonio, Texas. The
current operating agreement will expire the next day and the ability to
timely petition the USOC for a change of NGB status will expire in October
2001.


The United States Equestrian Team is a non-profit organization that selects,
trains, equips and finances equestrians of the highest possible standard to
represent our country in major international competition, including the
Olympic Games and the World Championships. To accomplish this the USET seeks
out and nurtures the development of talented athletes - riders, drivers and
horses - and provides the support and guidance they need to help them attain
their fullest potential. For more information on the USET, please call (908)
234-1251, or visit USET ONLINE at www.uset.org. (http://www.uset.org.)

[SGray]

He is asking good questions

[woodbern]

Just wondering. Her reports for Horse of the Delaware Valley are so blatantly biased in favor of the USET.

Will be amusing to hear her "take" on today's teleconference.

[SGray]

I heard JS and KyraBeth Houston - missed some of the other names

[ohnowwhat]

KK, et al. Any of them in on it?

[SGray]

Hope we get a comprehensive report from someone!

[woodbern]

Whether they are factual or unbiased is another issue entirely. LOL

Thanks SGray, for checking in! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[Anne FS]

One of the questions asked was if membership fees would change once this designation is made. Armand (I think it was he)said the if the USET became NGB, changes would be "minimal but not much" and it was all spelled out in their proposal, but if AHSA became NGB: "If AHSA takes it on, they have a $6-8 million deficit to make up." and that dues would therefore have to change, i.e. go up.

[Glimmerglass]

I know other posters were on the call, but for the benefit (?) of others here is the bottom line from a conference call attendee:

"USET disappears as of Sunday if USOC doesn't grant USET some extension until the matter is decided. USOC has 180 days to decide the NGB issue give or take."

[SGray]

AnneFS

RE: "If AHSA takes it on, they have a $6-8 million deficit to make up." and that dues would therefore have to change, i.e. go up. - did anyone ask where that deficit # comes from? Is that the total that the USET raises each year? Do they think that no one will ever contribute to teams again?

[Portia]

Where the hell Armand Leone gets the idea that the AHSA has a deficit, or would have a deficit by assuming the USET functions, I don't know.

It is the USET who would have to start paying for all the things the AHSA now does -- training and licensing of officials, disciplinary hearings and enforcement, equine drug testing. All of those essential functions cost a great deal of money.

The USET idea is that is can somehow be the NGB and avoid incurring those costs by delegating those responsbiilities to its new underling, the AHSA. However, I've yet to hear a rational explanation (or any explanation for that matter)of how that set-up would not violate the same anti-delegation provisions of the Amateur Sports Act that the arrangement between the AHSA and USET currently violates.

And there is no question of whether the AHSA will become the NGB, it isthe NGB. It is the USET which is challenging that status, something it has planned on doing for at least the last 3 years, not something it has been forced to do because of the AHSA refusing to extend the Operating Agreement. The reason for the Operating Agreement in the first place was because the USET was complaining about NGB status and the Operating Agreement was a compromise!

[Portia]

I called the USOC and got the information on when and where the meeting is on Saturday in San Antonio. It is open to the public, not just the media. I'd like to attend but as of now I have another committment.

The USOC Membership and Credentials Committee meeting to discuss the equestrian NGB issue will take place at 10:00 am, Saturday, February 24, at the Plaza San Antonio Hotel, 555 S. Alamo Street, San Antonio, TX (210) 229-1000.

[SGray]

JS asked about the history of the conflict between AHSA and USET - Leone starts with (and I paraphrase) Originally the US Calvary handled the teams for international competition....

To my mind he seemed to imply that the AHSA was given NGB status by default - that they couldn't handle fielding teams - that a splinter group formed the USET to come to the rescue....

[SGray]

KyraBeth was on the call - perhaps she will put something out there that will further enlighten

[Portia]

That reminds me of a question I've had for awhile.

Armand Leone is now the Vice-Chairman of the USET, another Leone is an athlete representative, and the third brother is an active athlete on the team.

But wasn't it the Leone family that sued the USET a few years ago to force the objective selection of the show jumping team, when Mark or Peter (can't remember which) didn't make the Olympic team? They joined in the suit by Dehbie Dolan against the Team. Then, as I recall, didn't they lead the (failed) proxy fight to try to take over the USET in the wake of that lawsuit?

So how did they move from suing the USET to becoming key decision makers in the organization? What changed? I'm not implying anything wrong in it, and it probably doesn't mean anything, I'm just curious about how such a change in positions takes place in a relatively short time. Anybody know?

[Glimmerglass]

SGray, yes Ky was on the call and I expect DUL to have something on that site. However, as you would assume, it is more from the implications on the USDF as per say.

[This message was edited by Glimmerglass on Feb. 22, 2001 at 03:35 PM.]

[Dru]

I just got the following news release, sent to their Board of Directors, Athlete Leadership, Nat'l and Int'l Equestrian Sport Affiliate Council, and Equestrian Media:

You are invited to a special meeting of the AHSA Exectuvie Committee this afternoon at 5:15EST.
Call In 800 791-2345

Passcode 41640#

This is a meeting of the AHSA Executive Committee, therefore only members of the Committee may participate and vote, however, everyone is welcome to attend. At the close of the meeting the floor will be opened for questions.

Because this call will involve a large number of callers you may eliminate background noise by pressing *1 to mute your phone. You must remember to press *1 again when you wish to speak.

I will be commuting at 5:15, but I hope one of you will check in and report back ! It sounds as though anyone with the passcode can listen.

[woodbern]

At AHSA conventions the general membership is not allowed to sit in on the actual Board meeting..... just some preliminary stuff.

Why would they allow this meeting to be "open" via teleconference?

Does anyone know this for a fact?

[SGray]

It should be interesting. I wonder if they will do a point by point refutation (I think I made that word up) of the USET's call or just have a Q&A session.

[Portia]

Woodbern, at the Annual Meeting, the final Board Meeting is open to the public! Snowbird and I were there this year, and Snowbird spoke to the board at the meeting about her rule change proposals. Any one attending had the right to speak.

I think their reason for opening this afternoon's meeting up is because of the importance of the topic to the membership and the equestrian community, and the AHSA's desire to let people hear for themselves what is going on as much as possible.

[woodbern]

at the Convention. They do allow us into the final meeting after all has been argued about/thrashed out. They try to present a unified front and make nice.

All the "good stuff" and heavy debate goes on prior to that, in the meatier board meetings! Those are not open.

For some time I was on several committees, but finally tired of going all over the country to the conventions just to hear my two committees converse for a sum total of, hmmmmm, three hours! Might have felt differently if I could have sat in on board meetings.....

Glad this phone conference is open, although only the Lord knows where I will be at 5:15! LOL
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[Glimmerglass]

a number of contracts with the USET will cease. Case in point, Mark Phillips has an agreeement with the USET for his leadership role with the Eventing Team. That would be terminated on Sunday Feb 25th should the USET not receive some form of intervention.

Food for thought.

[wtywmn4]

Thank you all for posting this info. Hopefully we can get thru and listen in to the tele-conferencing. It will be interesting to hear peoples take on this.

[SGray]

would it not be true that if the uset had agreed to the AHSA's proposal then the contracts would not be in jeopardy? (If they had then the USET would still be extant - as a division.)

[Glimmerglass]

SGray, from a legal perspective I do believe you are correct. However, with the issue now at hand with the USET not agreeing to such a "deal" where does that leave Sandy Pflueger, Mark Phillips, Klaus Balkenhol, etc. ?

Please note I am not mentioning any of this to stir up the pot as it were, but rather trying to ensure that everyone knows that other aspects are impacted.

[SGray]

Unless they have a previous desire to get out of their contract - don't you think that they would negociate if necessary?

[Portia]

Thanks for the information Glimmerglass. S, you're right they are honorable people, and they only recently signed their agreements, as did David O'Connor last week. They must certainly have been aware of the situation and the pending expiration of the operating agreement and its possible consequences. Reasonably, there must be something in their contracts dealing with this contingency.

[cmf]

AHSA Issues Statement Responding to USET Challenge for NGB Status

On behalf of the officers of the American Horse Shows Association, Inc.
(AHSA), Alan F. Balch, President, issued the following statement:

"We are very disappointed in the United States Equestrian Team's (USET)
challenge to our historic status as National Governing Body (NGB), which was
filed today with the United States Olympic Committee (USOC).

"The tone and approach the USET has taken in announcing this challenge is
also disappointing. The AHSA has always welcomed, and will continue to
welcome, the support of all of its affiliates, including the USET, in their
many important efforts on behalf of our international equestrian athletes.

"I have called the AHSA Executive Committee into special session this
afternoon, so we can consider the financing and budgeting which will be
necessary given the USET's challenge today. We look forward to sharing our
ideas with the USOC Membership and Credentials Committee this weekend, and I
am certain that all of the rights and opportunities of our equestrian
athletes will continue to be fully funded and protected without
interruption."

[SGray]

Going by the two calls - I know which way I'd vote!

[woodbern]

Interesting that Armand Leone and Eric Straus had very little to say. They were given a myriad of opportunities to do so.

[wtywmn4]

No question there! Interestingly, many people listened to the call.

[poltroon]

Any interesting info, or is it all in the AHSA statement made before the meeting? How do they plan to fund former-USET tasks in the short term, and do they have any idea why the USET thinks that their delegating to the AHSA would be in compliance?

[woodbern]

I would like to see the point previously raised by Glimmerglass (loss of contracts) officially addressed by the appropriate person in the USET hierarchy.

During the conference call this afternoon, Alan Balch stated that the AHSA does not know that these contractual alliances (Mark Phillips, etc) would be in jeopardy, as the AHSA has not seen any contractual documents. He was clear to say that the AHSA does not know that they will.... and the AHSA does not say that they will not.

Hello..... USET reps out there? Care to comment on the finer points of your various agreements with these famous folks? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

[Portia]

Arrgghhh! I'm so sorry I missed the call. Work interfered, then I had to rush out to my lesson so I couldn't beg for details immediately.

So, details please. S.Gray? wtywmn? woodbern? Somebody?

[Snowbird]

I don't see there is a problem, I have no doubt that the AHSA will make good use of whatever staff requires a contract. And, those who are a duplication will be looking for jobs.

I don't see any choice, we want and need an Olympic team and the USET has decided to be a private club. I have no doubt they will all be eligible for whatever trials are established to qualify for the team.

The Leones did sue and they in that fashion weaseled their way onto the team. Personally, I've known them since they were little boys and they are used to having their own way. I think it is unfair for Armand to show as an amateur with his background and riding his brothers horses. That is an example of how they treat the establishment, and those from the bedrock of this sport.

What a pity, but I must agree with all of you that Alan Balch has made the right moves and the AHSA has the stability to cope. I wouldn't mind a fee for the USET nearly as much as I mind what I've seen from California for the WCE.

I wish I had known about the teleconferences I surely would have tuned in, but then all my chores would be standing abandoned and my kids would all be mad at me.

[Weatherford]

Gee, here I am in another side of the world, where a similar reorganization is happening without a quarter of the battles. I simply do not understand the Team's press release: the challenge was �necessary� because the AHSA had stated that they were going to take over the team and prevent any international participation (or words to that effect)??

That is certainly not how I read the AHSA�s proposal.

My interpretation is that the AHSA proposal was asking the team to continue to be responsible for the international/high performance division. They would do this by by being part of a transition group who would write the new corporate documents and constituting the initial board and officers for the new NGB. The ttransition group was proposed to include 10 people from both the AHSA and the USET (each naming 5 individuals of their choosing), and then these 10 people choose 5 more individuals. These 15 people would be responsible for assuring an equitable transition scenario. This is the proposal that is characterized as an attempt to take over all functions of the USET and put them out of business??

It is my understanding that the end the Operating. Agreement is a necessary prerequisite to the AHSA being able to defend itself against the USET challenge, since the only areas of compliance that can be questioned are those that come under the OA!

Here again, this does not add up: The Team doesn't want the OA; they say it puts us out of compliance. YET, they won't allow it to be terminated -- can someone explain that?

The OA is a contract, and when it reaches the expiration date agreed to by both parties, it expires. How can one party extend a contract between 2? We simply go back to the way it was for 46 years. Except that the President no longer appoint themself to key positions or writes agreements without Board and Executive Committee consent, as the two USET Presidents under the OA have done.

If the USET �goes out of business�, it will only be because they CHOOSE to refuse to spend money on athletes' participation unless the AHSA agrees to hand the NGB title, and control of any aspects of the sport they want, over to USET leadership. If the USET holds the international participation as hostage in this deal, I am sure the AHSA Executive Committee would work out a budget to assure the 2001 programs planned by the USET will happen regardless of USET $$$. In as much as the AHSA people seem to be a far sighted group, they have probably already done this. And I would bet will do it without a $2mm deficit.

On the contracts, I have heard that David O'Connor has assured the AHSA that there is nothing in his contract about the O.A.. I interpret that as those holding USET contracts would only be threatened by the USET saying they won't honor them unless they become the NGB. Or more perversely, the USET holds these people to the letter of their contracts and does not allow them to move over to work for the new NGB if/when they lose. :frown:

Oh, yeah, did the easement happen?

/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

[woodbern]

Well said, Weatherford. You distilled it down to the essence, and with admirable precision!

Bravo!

[wtywmn4]

Hopefully Portia, this has been posted on the AHSA site. But, they went over the time frame in which the decision would be handled. Asked about the deficit of the USET, of which neither Armand nor Eric would comment on. Alan also wanted the athelete's to know that they would be protected & funded. Bill Rouse, council to the AHSA was on the line as well. In essence what Weatherford posted seemed to be the jeist. It was a chance for the USET to respond, but they would not. Alan said he thought there were about 100 listening in on this call. They also had the "Media" on as well and they could question after the meeting. Will be interested to read some of the news accounts of this conference. Personally, I felt this was a wonderful idea. Allowing members to see how the AHSA can work for them.

[Lord Helpus]

I admit, I have hopped in and out of this thread sporadically, so my question may have been answered...

But, my question is this: Has anyone asked the "active riders" who signed the petition WHY they feel that the USET's position is the better one?

So far I have seen virtually NO REASON to prefer the USET's position over the AHSA's. But some people obviously do. I would be interested in hearing their arguments (as opposed to the lame statements and lengthy silences from Armand Leone.)

Or to phrase it another way: Is there any reason, other than "politics", that these 100+ riders signed the petition?

[wtywmn4]

That's one question we may never hear an answer to. We've heard hints that those parties are worried about losing sponsorship. It would be nice if someone would speak to that.

[SGray]

USET call

vote of USET board was 21-4-4 (for-against-abstain)

Leone complained that uset had nominated to represent US equestrians to (oops didn't write that down) 1) Finn Casperson 2)Eric Strauss 3) Robert Dover - that AHSA had refused to confirm.

When asked whether the organizations that represent the international disciplines (USDF, USCTA, etc) supported the USET position Leone said that they were remaining neutral as they would have to work with whichever group prevailed but that none had voice objections to the uset plan

AHSA call


Had sent to executive board a proposed budget that took into account getting nothing from USET, having to hire people to fill international and fundraising positions, etc. Exec board voted - Leone and Strauss abstained.

They will spend 8 million in 4 years for the international area - front loaded expenditures due to hiring, etc.

Balch was asked how the AHSAs plan compared to the USETs expenditures - his response was the he had no way to compare as he had not been able to get the figures from the USET (I think that it was Leone that asked this)>

Attorney Bill ____ (sorry, missed his last name) read a resolution that would allow AHSA to defend itself against the challenge to its NGB status. Tom Struzzeri asked to have clarified that AHSA would only defend in lawsuits and not bring them itself. He was reassured that this was the case. Vote taked: Leone and Strauss voted against.

After the exec board meeting was adjourned they stayed on the line to answer questions from others.

At this point I was interrupted and missed the Q&A session.

[This message was edited by SGray on Feb. 23, 2001 at 10:42 AM.]

[SGray]

Dear Ms.Gray,

Thank you for taking the time to listen in, and to comment as you have. Your
commitment to the sport is very important. Everyone who loves horses, as we
do, needs to be involved in this matter as much as possible. One of the
important things to remember is that we do not seek to inhibit or prevent the
USET from performing any of its historic functions. But those functions must
be performed within the framework the law provides, and preferably as part of
a consolidated NGB which would include everyone.

Thank you again.

Alan

[Erin]

Hey, I may have missed it somewhere along the line... but did Jimmy Wofford's comments ever get posted on the Ultimate Dressage board?

[SGray]

"No..i have been swamped with many deadlines at day job & "night job" and just can't find the free time to write up our conversation inbetween..I have notes from phone conversation, just not the free time, sorry."

but - Wofford was present at the executive committee conference call - he corrected a date given in the resolution (for sure I heard: Balch, Leone, Strauss, Struzzieri, Wofford and Bill Pennington - I'm pretty sure that I heard David O'Connor and Linda Allen).

[woodbern]

but an even bigger part of why the athletes sign these things is that many of them either don't know what all the ramifications are, or don't understand it! Option three? They don't want to understand it or even get involved.

This is not meant to be an insult to our athletes, but in many cases they are experts at what they do as their career - but ONLY at what they do.

They are stars as young riders, stars after their junior years, reasonably proficient at starting their own fledgling business. As time goes by, they are able to either establish syndicates for high-ticket horses or run large lesson barns and compete on an international level - or maybe a combination of all of the above - but that is primarily it.

The horse business, due to the nature of the commodity involved, is very specialized. It isn't like running IBM or even the local branch bank or whatever. It is often said that a CEO who can run IBM can usually hop over and become CEO of Ford Motors, for example... and to a large degree that's true. A decent CEO is a decent CEO at that level. One bank branch manager is pretty much like another. But this "sameness" is not necessarily so in the horse industry.

The majority of our athletes have never been involved in "big business", they do not sit on the boards of large corporations or public non-profit institutions. (And let me say this clearly and unapologetically - sitting on the board of the AHSA and especially on the board of the USET is not like "real life boards. So the athletes who sit on those boards are still unprepared for "real life" board issues.)

The business experience of our athletes is not extensive, and most of them don't want to be bogged down in all those facts and figures. They just want to do what they do best... ride and compete and win and - yes - make lots of money either in competition or by wheeling an dealing.

As has been mentioned before, David O'Connor is a wonderful example of a star athlete who HAS taken the time to understand the facts, and who is not afraid to speak out. "Yes, yes, of course he can speak out", people say, "He's at the top of his form, a medal winner, etc. etc.". But David could have opted to stick his head in the sand and NOT speak out. He could have brushed it aside. He's not the only one who has taken an interest in the pithy issues, but he does stand out because he has expressed his opinions in such a lucid and cogent way.

I am not supportive of the USET plan. And there are things I don't like regarding the AHSA plan, but my support lies with the AHSA plan. There is no comparison to me in the way in which both plans have been presented.

I listened in on the conference call yesterday.... the difference in how the call was handled by Alan Balch as compared to how the minute responses from both Mr. Leone and Mr. Straus was staggering. Either Mr(s). Leone and Straus didn't know why they were dissenting or had some esoteric reason why they were dissenting.... because they certainly did not elaborate in any fashion. The brevity of their answers was noted by all, and I personally got a chuckle at how negative, churlish and sullen their few syllables came across. They were given every opportunity to fully participate, but chose not to be to any large degree. Operative words: They CHOSE not to!

Money - and more importantly - the APPROPRIATE use of large sums of money for these top-level athletes is what much of this furor is about!

Inherent in the appropriate use of these funds is having the appropriate oversight of said funds. Why is the USET so concerned about AHSA oversight? If the USET is so top-flight at managing all of this and takes such diligent fiscal care of these monies, why wouldn't they welcome the AHSA oversight - and better yet - use it as an opportunity to impress the AHSA (as the NGB) at how well they can handle this responsibility?

Sorry for the digression..... Anyway, the athletes must cease this "I don't want to get involved with all that..." mentality. Too much of "all that" is all about them! Their ostrich act grows old.....

(Disclaimer: I hereby attest that I am fully aware that my opinion is worth less that the price of a cup of green tea.....LOL) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

[This message was edited by woodbern on Feb. 23, 2001 at 11:10 AM.]

[Portia]

Yep, I can't take the idea that I could attend this meeting tomorrow reasonably easily, with a 2 1/2 hour drive to San Antonio, and not do it.

So, I've decided to reschedule the kids' appointments with the equine chiro/massage therapist, and I'm going to the USOC Meeting tomorrow. I'll try to take good notes!