PDA

View Full Version : USAE Executive Committee Meeting open to all on the Web.



Snowbird
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:32 PM
It starts at 4:00 PM and I'm sure interested in hearing what the take is on this mess.

I'd like to hear how they are standing at this point, tall and strong or starting to fall on their swords.

Snowbird
Sep. 25, 2002, 12:32 PM
It starts at 4:00 PM and I'm sure interested in hearing what the take is on this mess.

I'd like to hear how they are standing at this point, tall and strong or starting to fall on their swords.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:08 PM
There is now discussion regarding 8/15 meeting minutes. Eric objected. David O'C says that they are accurate.

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:10 PM
Strauss and Leone vote against accepting minutes of 8/15

Minutes of 8/27 (?) approved

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:12 PM
Resolution to congratulate WEG participants

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:15 PM
and to owners, breeders and connections of the horses at the WEG

Armand wants to make it clear that USAEq was not responsible for any of the success ....

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:16 PM
oooohhh Armand Leone -- tacky tacky --

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:16 PM
Go David!

and Linda Allen as well.

Armand just said he MEANT the offense.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:16 PM
David O'C is rebutting - David is such a fine diplomat

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:17 PM
did you hear that! Linda said she took offense and Armand says "offense MEANT"

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:18 PM
Was that Armand Leone saying that he wants it made clear in this resolution that USA Eq had NOTHING TO DO WITH the WEG results?!?

What an A******!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:21 PM
Leone and Strauss abstain from voting FOR the resolution to congratulate the WEG participants

Denny pointed out that AHSA had lots to do with the preparation and success of our teams

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:23 PM
Discussion of Aachen winning bid for next WEG as part of Dusseldorf 2012 Olympic bid

Alan says Ky was encouraged to bid again for 2010 WEG

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:23 PM
talking about bidding on WEG for 2010

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:25 PM
Minutia is the Name of the Game

Minutes � 8/27 approval - Issue regarding statement re: statement AB's not running for President next time, nor serving on committees for 6 years. I'm not sure exactly the issue but AB could not comment on the issue as he was not at the meeting (this is the one that neither AB/AL were allowed to attend). Eric (Strauss?) disagreed with minutes as written. David O'Connor, Karen [Hawkins?] and someone else � all who were there � agreed with minutes as written. AB proposed accepting minutes as written with letter from Strauss. AL/ES didn�t approve minutes, rest approved.

I've resolved to recommend Offensensitivity

Resolution re: General congrats of WEG team and all supporters. AL put forth a long discourse on how any implication that this was anything but in spite of the USAEq in general and AB in particular. David O'Connor was very diplomatic, but said that to take this moment to engage in tit-for-tat was offensive to all athletes. Linda Allen agreed that she to was offended (albeit not for the reasons AL was). Sam Barish said this wasn�t about being offended, it was about up or down vote or amending resolution. Carol Lavell noted that the resolution thanked many people including the USET, and as a matter of fact didn�t mention the USAEq. Ultimately the matter was voted on with AL/ES abstaining.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:25 PM
any and all locations in U.S. are invited to submit potential bids for WEG to Fed

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:26 PM
over 82,000 members - an all-time high

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:26 PM
Sorry, still can't get over what Armand Leone just did. I have tried so hard to get on the USET side and he is ruining everything. Please: anyone on here who wants the USET to be NGB, what do you think of what just happened here? Does it change your opinion at all?

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:27 PM
Aachen go to Kentucky in 2010?

In a blissful moment of accord, discussion about Aachen award in 2006 and potential bid for 2010 in KY

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:27 PM
Membership over 82,000 - up 2% from last year

Financial statements audited in Aug by USOC

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:27 PM
I posted this on the other thread first, so I'm a little behind the indignation. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

My God, did you hear Armand Leone whining like a spoiled child about the motion on the resolution to congratulate the athletes who medaled and did so well at the WEG? He demanded that the resolution make clear that USA Eq "had absolutely nothing to do with that result" and everything USA Eq has done this year and this whole fight hindered that effort, and USA Eq didn't give any money and can claim no credit and is only responsible for hurting the sport, and that success was all the USET's doing and so on.

Then David O'Connor rightly said that this was not the place to turn such a resolution into a petty tit-for-tat, it meant to honor the American athletes and should not be made a part of the fight, and he was somewhat offended as an athlete that it was being treated that way. When Linda Allen added that she also found the objection offensive, Leone snaps back with "Offense meant." Now that's such mature behavior. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:30 PM
Keep posting please - I have no sound...

Found the view, but too expensive

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:31 PM
Armand asking about legal expenses


what is the Florida anti-trust suit?

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:31 PM
Legal fees questioned
ytd thru July - normal $415,000 out of over $1M

ytd thru July - NGB $3xx,xxx out of

Armand asking is August included in July numbers

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:33 PM
(with apologies to Pink Floyd)

Which may explain why AB is considered the Great Satan. Sounds like USAEq is still operating in the black.

Major concerns with maintaining favorable budget positoin does hinge on NGB issues.

Paying for My Lawyers Mercedes...

Sam? wants to know YTD legal fees - NGB and total.
July YTD - $415K for normal with annual budget of 1.1M as of 7/31

$375K on NGB with $450K budget as of 7/31

AL asks if this includes all legal fees for all six law firms. Then asks if this includes expenses for August, inlcuding FL antitrust action. It was pointed out that it did not as they were in August. But there were a lot of August actions...

Antitrust? Mileage rule sounds like quite the trust bustable situation...

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:34 PM
SoEasy - - NGB was 375,000

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:34 PM
They're talking about legal fees accrued to date. $450 K against an annual budget of 1.1 mm for "regular" legal expenses, and $375 K against an annual budget of $50 k for NGB expenses, through July 31.

Armand is bitching about them, and taking the opportunity to complain about "the six law firms" that USA Eq has in the NGB fight, and the arbitration, and the injunction action.

He's mistaken in the number of law firms involved, which Balch points out.

He mentions a new antitrust suit recently filed in Florida, which was largely confidential until now since the date for answering it hasn't arrived yet. I don't know if he deliberately decided to out that lawsuit, but it sounded like it to me.

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:36 PM
Leone and Strauss abstain from voting on renewal of standard banking practices

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:36 PM
AL wants to know if "excess lines" rules should be put in the Banking resolution.

Someone points out that these are generally in corporate resolution. AB and attorney point out that the banks require EC approval for excess borrowing.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:38 PM
ahhh - suit re competition dates

JES Properties and Michael Gallagher vs USAE

still in preliminary stages

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:38 PM
Portia - of course it is deliberate!!

And of course they would abstain from voting on standard banking practices - they would like everyone to bank the way the USET does - deficit spending, I think it is called.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Keep reporting and thanks all!

Found the view, but too expensive

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:39 PM
Bill Roos is giving the legal report, including discussing the antitrust suit in Florida, in which the plaintiffs show managers complain about the competition date system (involving H/J shows). (So they planned on making it public today anyway.)

USA Eq is in the process of retaining local counsel, insurance has been notified and we have good coverage.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:39 PM
now on grant applications -- report from committee meeting

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:39 PM
Lawsuit filed in Tampa JES Properties Michael Gallagher v. USAEq and also names certain horse show managers regarding their inability to get certain dates. Case was filed around September 1st, many defendents not even served yet.

Obviously this involves Ye Olde Mileage Rule and the Antitrust implications.

USAEq feels it is defensible.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:40 PM
grants by discipline

Dressage

Sue Blinks awarded $5,000

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:41 PM
Armand questions the purpose of the grant to Sue!

Alan explains ---- Leone abstains because he doesn't think we should reimburse people for lost income

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:42 PM
no applicants in jumping

Natalie someone in eventing

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:42 PM
I think NEED was taken well into consideration in the giving of grants this year! Good thing, IMHO!

Found the view, but too expensive

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:43 PM
Natalie Rooney awarded $2500 grant


Armand seconds !!!

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:43 PM
grant applications sent to everyone on short-list

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:44 PM
Apparently USAEq is providing Sue Blinks a grant ($5000). Motion approved.

AL - what is purpose of grant? (cleaning out her garage I thought). AB explains that she detailed the expenses she incurred in the process of getting to WEG, as well as losses incurred while at WEG. Carol Lavell concurred with this description. AL abstained because he objected to paying people for them taking an all expense trip to WEG to represent their country.

Another grant ($2500) to Three Day alternate (which was not paid for by anyone). In a moment of belated graciousness AL seconded this motion.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:44 PM
Saddleseat application

for world championships - this year in South Africa

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:44 PM
(Just FYI to everybody, the antitrust suit has nothing to do with the NGB dispute. It's somebody upset with the date system.)

Grants are based in part on a need criteria. Approve the grant requests. Sue Blinks applied for one prior to the WEG, want to give her $5000.

Armand asking what the grants are for, and Alan explains that this one for Sue Blinks was in part to pay for WEG expenses that were not reimbursed, made grant application in advance of the WEG.

Armand bitching about the grant, saying he doesn't think that people should be reimbursed for lost income while they were competing on an all expense paid trip. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

$2500. Grant for the eventing alternate also approved. Point in made that the alternates didn't have their expenses reimbursed.

Personal opinion here, but could that man BE any NASTIER if he tried?

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:46 PM
Vaulting $2,500 each person it sounds like

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:49 PM
Approved a saddle seat application, and now we are on to 5 grants for individual vaulters ($2500 each). (approved)

Team vaulting next (check is in the mail) /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Check sent around the time the applications came in - they already received $5000, but can still apply for more funding.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:50 PM
now on FEI calendar approvals

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:51 PM
Lavell asked whether competitions can be added later

answer is there is a late fee from FEI but that yes, they can be added

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:

Armand bitching about the grant, saying he doesn't think that people should be reimbursed for lost income while they were competing.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

OK, I'll give him that. I don't have to blanketly disagree with everything he says. People make a choice to represent the US; maybe we shouldn't compensate them for income loss in addition to paying their way to WEG or whatever. I'm just saying, ok....maybe.

Also, date protection is going to be a problem for USAEQ. That's just the way feeling has been growing against it.

However, there is NOTHING professional about his mannerisms at all. He comes across as nasty and petty and vindictive and unsavory. Is that what he was going for? Why? I'm really disappointed for USET. How on earth can we have such a small-minded, small-hearted person represent Equestrian to the World????

Sad.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:51 PM
Linda Allen now bringing up FEI jumper date that is open

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:53 PM
FEI Calendar - we can consider additional dates after October 1 deadline but must pay late fee.

Discussion on calender re:East coast jumping event - another event is interested in applying now that they know there is a vacancy. Being handled by active riders committee (did I hear that right).

Naturally ES/AL abstain. All were surprised...

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:54 PM
Leone OBJECTING to Pan Am Games selection criteria

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:54 PM
International approvals

FEI competition calendar - approved (Allen and Hawkins move and second) Strauss and Leone abstain

Chef for Young Jumper team -

Dressage NAYRC criteria accepted

Strauss and Leone abstain from everything

Pan Am Games criteria -
Leone says it is flauting USOC

(the man was just RUDE to Karen again ..)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:55 PM
Leone notes his fiduciary duty to USAE

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:57 PM
Lavell - long standing member of uset dressage selection committee - says that USAE procedure agrees with what has been done in past in conjunction with uset -

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:58 PM
Leone says not appropriate

(I believe) Strauss says voting on them contravenes desires of USOC

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:58 PM
AL/ES are abstaining from NAYRC dressage requirements.

On other selection criteria (Pan American criteria)...

Now AL is stating that the USAEq is flouting USOC's position, and as his fiduciary duty as member of the Exec Committee must not approve any selection criteria.

AB said that as far as following the status quo, the USAEq is the NGB. Carol Lavell said as a long standing member of the USET Dressage Selection team, this is the status quo. AL said he has made his feelings clear and they must vote their feelings. Two no votes, no abstentions, criteria approved.

Looks like we are back to abstentions now that we have left that sticky Pan American subject...

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:59 PM
Moving on to international approvals. Consideration of FEI competition calendar. Discussion of change to the World Cup calendar, since one of the events on the East Coast has cancelled, so they may come up with an alternative. Calendar approved.

The USET dynamic duo (Leone and Straus) once abstain from virtually everything.

Criteria for selection for participation in Young Jumper Championship at Lanaken approved.

NA Young Riders selection criteria approved.

Pan Am Games dressage selection criteria discussed.

Armand complains that the entire discussion of approval criteria is against the clear directive and mandate of the USOC pursuant to Marty Mankameyers letter to maintain status quo and keep USET involved, and it puts the organization in danger, and he's going to vote no.

Carol Lavell says that this selection procedure is done by the same people as the USET committees and they are the same thing, they are done by the committees and approved first by USET and then by USA Eq, which is the way it has always been done. The selection procedures aren't the selection procedures until the Federation approves them.

Leone still objects. He thinks there's nothing for the USA Eq to do once USET has approved them. Straus joins in voting no.

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:59 PM
Selection criteria approved over OBJECTIONS of Strauss and Leone

(they say the USET already made these the criteria, so no need for USAEq approval!!)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 01:59 PM
Lee Scott(?) reporting on driving criteria

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:00 PM
of course, Karen O. pointed out that criteria are never final until USAE approves

TrakHack
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:01 PM
Thanks for the running commentary; I don't have sound either!

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:01 PM
Strauss says uset already passed criteria - that Manyamaker's letter says uset should be setting

that athletes will be upset/confused if USAE passes these

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:02 PM
Strauss says USET already put out Pairs criteria that are different and USAEq shouldn't do this

Armand counters that Driving is FEI and not Olympic sport

Strauss and Leone oppose

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:02 PM
how does Portia type so damn fast!!!????!??

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:03 PM
The lawsuit pending in Tampa is an anti trust suit against USAE, and some show managers regarding the mileage rule.

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:03 PM
Other selection criteria for various international competitions approved. Discussing pairs driving criteria now, and process of how they came to be as they now stand. Some disagreement with USET apparently.

(Lee Scott who is talking now is a lawyer in Roos' firm who helps him with the USA Eq work)

Straus says the USET has already passed driving criteria pursuant to the Mankameyer status quo letter and these are different and if we put them out it will cause confusion for athletes.

Balch says this is an example of the problems arising from the divided governance model the USET proposes, but they are going to let the USET have its input as always.

The Bobsey twins vote no.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:03 PM
unnecessary interference with uset per Strauss(?)

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:04 PM
Pony driving criteria pass

Strauss says they were responsive ...

Alan says FEI rescheduled, and USET didn't want to do this

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:04 PM
Mankmyer, that is...

Driving requirements for Pairs driving already passed by USET, Strauss points out that two sets of requirements are confusing.

AB points out that this is the difficulty of having two ruling bodies, but committee feels this action is appropriate, especially since this is not an Olympic discipline. Will send criteria to the USET for review.

The ususal suspects opposed...

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:05 PM
jumpers did not qualify for Olympics at WEG

need top 2 at Pan Am to do so

Kinsella
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:05 PM
I am SO not wearing a work hat right now...

I am appalled at the tone of AL and ES. If I was in the least bit remotely inclined to give them any benefit of any doubt I have been thoroughly disabused of that notion! What a couple of spolied little babies they sound like!

******************************
Is it time to go home yet?

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:05 PM
a top two placing at the Pan Ams to qualify for the next Olympics

Armand says most riders have not seen procedures for PanAm

Linda says this allows up to 2 subjective selections NO open rider meetings on East Coast but was one on West Coast Linda recommends wider circulation and approval

Strauss and Leone vote NO

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:08 PM
Alan asked Armand whether jumper criteria had been publicised/published on uset website, etc

Armand states that they were waiting on WEG

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:08 PM
Before AB even started he stipulated that AB/ES opposition shall be recorded.

US needs to place 1st/2nd in Pan Am to qualify for Olympics (and some other stuff I missed). Approved.

Discussion about qualification procedures - has USET put on website yet? AL says they were distributed to active riders but not on website yet. Linda Allen said procedures very similar to WEG procedures.

LA approves in this form but wants to see wider circulation. AB agrees.

The usual suspects opposed.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:10 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:

Armand complains that the entire discussion of approval criteria is against the clear directive and mandate of the USOC pursuant to Marty Mankameyers letter to maintain status quo and keep USET involved, <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's so stupid. USET is involved, Leone & Strauss are THERE, aren't they? These are USET selection criteria, aren't they? How can they possibly think anyone will believe their crap?? They are making no sense.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:10 PM
Leone now sounds tired in his abstention

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:10 PM
Vaulting - AL and ES want to object to criteria here too ..... but USET has never done Vaulting
so one wonders how the status quo is that they do it

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:11 PM
Discussion of pony drivers selection critera and more complaining from Straus about how approving such criteria interferes with the USET authority, the Mankameyer letter, etc.

Balch says to save time can we just record that Leone's and Straus' objections apply to the rest of these criteria also.

Pan Am jumping criteria. US team needs to place in the top 2 at the Pan Am Games to qualify for Olympics, since they didn't qualify through the WEG. There had been two alternative sets of criteria previously approved by USET based on whether the US team qualified for the O's through the WEG or not.

Linda says these criteria were prepared by the jumping and riders committees and are very similar to those for the WEG this year which were popular with the riders. Linda would like these criteria to be more widely circulated, which USA Eq will do.

Heckle and Jekyl vote no.

Vaulting selection criteria. Straus again objects to USA Eq adopting criteria, and Balch explains that the USET has never issued selection criteria for vaulting, so this is the status quo. Leone goes on the Mankameyer letter claiming it gives USET authority over international disciplines, and Balch says anybody who wants to see the Mankameyer letter and Finklestein's response can see them on the website.

NHS Jumping criteria approved.

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:11 PM
Should be consulted for their thoughts (letter is on the website)...

And on the the NHS Jumper qualifying criteria...

Approved, seconded, passes with the usual abstentions

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:13 PM
now dedication of rulebook

then NGB fight

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:15 PM
The TEAM may not be qualified, but PETER can go as an INDIVIDUAL!!!

Even though, in the Press Conference after the WEG Team event, Frank Chapot was reported as saying that it was too bad "our two best riders had bad days..."

Boy, that is really supportive of the one who DID make it, isn't it?? Of course, he now lives and rides in Europe...

Found the view, but too expensive

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:15 PM
Denny says David was 10 last time Eventing won the World Championship Gold

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:15 PM
dedicating to Victor and to gold medal eventing and reining teams

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:15 PM
Application of an Arab horse org to become an affiliate of USA Eq, approved.

Interscholastic Equestrian Association approved as a new affiliate, but can't figure out whether it should be in the national or an edcuational category. Going to ask them which they prefer.

Dedication of the Rulebook for next year. Lost many icons of the sport this year. Going to dedicate it to Victor H-V and to the Gold Medal Eventing and Reining teams from WEG.

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:17 PM
Rule book dedication.

Sport lost a lot of heroes this year, and rulebook routinely dedicated to someone (except when was dedicated to 74 world championship team - DO'C points out wasn't won again until today. Denny points out he was 10th /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif ).

Was considering dedicating to Victor, but wants to expand to include two gold medal teams.

Linda wants to make sure they don't dedicate to the "memory" of the gold medal teams... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:17 PM
Wait a minute. Portia, how can the Mankamyer letter be used when Mankamyer says 'in light of the USOC adopting the hearing panel's recommendation' and now the USOC says it wants to rescind same? What'd I miss?

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:17 PM
and now the fun starts!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:17 PM
Denny cracks me up!!!

Found the view, but too expensive

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:18 PM
ooo - good point AnneFS - gotta point that out to AL and ES, eh?

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:18 PM
David was 10 years old, Denny was on the Team ....

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:20 PM
Litigation in Aid of Arbitration filed in federal court Friday (last)

then call came from USOC about their recommendation to withdraw and recind Panel report

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:21 PM
USOC said that USAE should have known!!

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:21 PM
USOC said they sent to David O'C - he's never gotten it

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:23 PM
USAE amended it's motion in Federal court

they will be back in front of Federal Judge tomorrow

Roos corrected - it is Injunction in Aid of Arbitration

pwynnnorman
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:23 PM
I missed that. What did O'Connor NOT receive? What document was that?

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:24 PM
Update on litigation with USET/USOC.

AB gives very abbreviated history of an issue that rivals War and Peace for sheer length. AB clarifies that "we" is not a single individual without elaborate, painstaking involvement and approval by the officers.

Gave very serious consideration to the action taken last Friday against the USOC. USAE was quite surprised to find out from USOC that the hearing panel wanted to withdraw and rescind the resolution and recommendations to the USOC committee. USOC said USAEq should have known about it, said DO'C had received this information via fax. D'OC had not received this information. USOC has failed to provide any confirmation that such information was provided.

Even fools know the value of FedX

A possible result of this action would be to further deny the sport its rights to arbitration. After lengthy discussion it was agreed to amend the action against the USOC to inlcude this latest. Will be heard tomorrow.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:24 PM
NGB litigation status.

Balch -- everyone should look at the governance pages on the website where all the docs are posted as soon as they can be.

Demand for arb has been made after efforts to get USET to continue mediation not successful. Lots of things happening since then leading up to proposed USOC Membership and Credentials Committee meeting set for Saturday in Colorado Springs. However, we -- Balch emphasizes its the whole Exec Comm and others involved -- believe that is not appropriate and violates the law to go forward with the compliance review in derogation of the arbitration. Thought long and hard before filing federal court action.

Surprised and disappointed and taken aback by call from USOC general counsel on Friday after suit was filed that the USOC has started circulating the resolution to withdraw the final order last Wednesday, with no notification at all to USA Eq. USOC insisted that USA Eq should have known about it because David O'Connor, the USOC board member for equestrian, had been sent a copy of it. Except David never did recieve a copy of it. Asked USOC for a confirmation that David had received it, and USOC has not provided such confirmation. As a party to the dispute, USA Eq believes it should have been timely notified of the resolution.

Entered into long series of consultations with attorneys and officers over the weekend to evaluate what it means. It is very clear to them that in teh attempt of the USOC hearing panel and board to unwind what it has done would serve to further deny USA Eq its rights to pursue the arbitration and have the issues decided there. So on Monday they amended their petition to add this development, and the injunction motion will be heard tomorrow at 4:00 pm in Federal District Court in Lexington.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:27 PM
AL (referring to AB): ...taking this organization down the road to destruction....spinning out of control....imperiled future......cannot support those types of acusations against USOC....

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:27 PM
What part of 'we' means the whole Board does AL NOT GET??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

pwynnnorman
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:27 PM
Sheesh, what do you suppose Leone thinks he's accomplishing with these tirades? Enough already! We HEARD you (including the past ten times).

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:28 PM
AL (referring to AB): ...I think you have sealed your fate...

akrogirl
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:29 PM
I sure hope so in AL's case! He is absolutely pathetic.

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:29 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by pwynnnorman:
I missed that. What did O'Connor NOT receive? What document was that?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

D O'C never received notice that the USOC was rescinding its adoption of the Hearing Panel recommendation, the thing saying that USET & USA Eq had to work together or else a vacancy, the thing that prompted USA Eq to seek arbitration. USOC says O'Connor should have received a notice that USOC wanted to act as though they never accepted that resolution.

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:29 PM
Amendment was simply to put before the Federal Judge copies of the USOC resolution and USAEq arguments as to how that affects the original motion.

AL finds it unfair to slander the USOC without them not being here to defend themselves. AL accuses AB of accusing the USOC of conspiracy, unethical behavior, and so on. Accuses AB of taking the USAEq of taking the USAEq down the road to destruction, and he vehemently opposes any actions.

AB states USET started this action (and goes on a bit).

AL said he expects this to be AB's response, and expects him to continue in his desperate actions.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:30 PM
For those who hadn't heard, the USOC sent out a "memo" asking its Board members to vote to Rescind the Hearing Panel decision that was "accepted" by mail vote in July.

There are a lot of implications in this action. The fact that David was not notified is striking.

Evidently, the USET was also not notified.

Very very messy.

Found the view, but too expensive

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:30 PM
You mean his (ABs) sainthood for not responding in kind??? That fate is sealed?

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:31 PM
Poor Dr. Leone. He's losing it. I bet he loses more backers every time there's any kind of a meeting.

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:32 PM
Roos explains that the amendment was to put before the judge the new development since the suit was filed last Friday of the USOC issuing this proposed resolution.

Armand says it was unfair to characterize the USOC position without the USOC being here to respond, he *knows* that Mr. O'Connor was notified along with the rest of the USOC board members and its terribly unfair to imply that

Leone says it's terribly unfair to accuse the USOC of unfair, unethical, and improper actions, as USA Eq has done in its legal filings and correspondence. At some point reasonable people will see that they are striking out and making a vicious attack on the USOC and put USA Eq at peril by doing so. Armand does not in any way support those kinds of actions to attack the USOC.

Balch reminds people that USET started this when it filed its challenge, and told everybody that it would be over by April 2001, and all USA Eq is doing is defending itself and its historic position as the National Federation and NGB, and what else did they expect them to do, not defend themselves?

Leone objects to Balch's "revisionist history" but says he certainly expects them to do what they have done which is to go all out in a desperate attempt to [do something I couldn't hear].

That seems to be the end of that discussion.

Missed part of the next discussion that has something to do with John Quirk and the jumper committee and some problem there.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:32 PM
Lavell bringing up need for record in meetings, proceedings, etc

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:34 PM
Terribly catty of me, I know, but I keep getting a vision of Dr. Leone sitting on a witness stand, rolling marbles in his hand, ranting on about the conspiracy against him, saying "it was the strawberries, the strawberries ..."

akrogirl
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:35 PM
ROTFLMAO /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:35 PM
OK, I took a small break so I missed most of this part...

There is a fundamental disagreement on the FEI requirement for Conflict of Interest.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:35 PM
Karen O - asks what USAE is going to do re eventing in Olympics

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:35 PM
Karen raises issue of IOC position on Eventing

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:37 PM
AB says he discussed with Dona Pilar

that she said only eventing threatened - he told her that if one discipline threatened then all equestrian threatened

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:40 PM
Karen had the same thoughts re all equestrian

Karen wants all eventer - worldwide - to come up with a stance

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:41 PM
IOC decision on eventing...

AB states eventing committee or exec committee needs to be able to speak with authority.

AB spoke with Dona re the equestrian events are in danger in the Olympics. She corrected that it was only eventing tha twas in danger. AB said that no, if one was in danger ALL were in danger. He believes that the FEI has not looked at this fully. They faced this issue back in 1980, but it would be kidding ourselves if we thought the climate hadn't changed. Must look to eventing community to see if compromise was the order. Perhaps a CIC level in the Olympics with a strong course in the WEG? But in any case he could not speak without guidance from the eventing committee.

Asked K'OC for her thoughts as time was the decision.

Thinks this is a multi-level attack on equestrianism worldwide, and it is eventers first, then on down the list. Thinks eventers have to have a worldwide approach to address solution before questions asked of the IOC.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:42 PM
Lori says USOC has been in touch with all threatened sports

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:43 PM
Equestrian cannot expect much support from the USOC to keep equestrian events in the Olympics.

It sounds like Equestrian is really close to being kicked out, and it sounds like USA EQ has no plan to deal with this!

Dr. Leone says USET is working on a plan. Wants to keep Eventing; if we lose Eventing, wants to add another eq. discipline so there are still 3 eq. disciplines in the Olympics.

AB says can't we work together on this issue?

Man, USET & USAEq HAVE to work together on this. USET supporters: INSIST that everyone help together on this. Both sides can shelve the acrimony on the NGB issue and fight together to keep eq.

OK, I said all that, but while I was typing Alan Balch really said the same thing.

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:49 PM
Denny - is the primary problem expense or injury?

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:50 PM
Armand said that was chicken or egg - money goes into preparation to promote safety

Alan says primary expense is land

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:52 PM
OK, Armand says the course design for WEG brought bushes to Spain and how dumb was that for running up costs?

He's right on that one.

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:52 PM
I don't think AL's USET plan was too clear - he doesn't even know who the contact has been at USOC

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:52 PM
USOC isn't going to provide suport in this issue, all looking to the FEI...

Oops turns out the FEI doesn't seem to be including any event folks in this battle to retain eventing. Turns out there are no eventers on the FEI exec committee.

There is some representation on FEI exec committee at group level. Need update from FEI on this issue.

AB asks AL what is USET doing. They are preparing something with USOC to present to IOC and FEI. First goal is to keep eventing in, if not possible to replace with other equestrian discipline.

AB asks AL if the USAEq could help - AL actually gives a pretty polite thanks but no thanks.

D'OC asks what USET is doing with the USOC and how much commitment the USOC has. AL not fully informed, doesn't know who they are working with (Bonnie someone is handling it). Admits that he is not sure how much committment the USOC has to eventing (but we all knew they had none - points for them even trying).

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:54 PM
Crowd stats:

REMEMBER, equestrian tickets were LIMITED at the Atlanta games. More people would've come, so AB is quoting how many people come but if told that isn't enough we have to say it would've been more but tickets were limited.

Someone is saying that Eventing has been told by the Olympics that they must clean up their sport because there will be no sport that kills its athletes allowed in the Olympics.

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:55 PM
From what I've read here, it is more the expense of land use than just land - building a course that is never used again, nor used for anything else. One of the successes in LA 84 was the building of the course and a golf course simultaneously.... Eventing course designers are talking a lot about the expense of building, and organizers are looking for ways to alleviate this problem.

Found the view, but too expensive

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:55 PM
Karen -- if necessary make CIC format in eventing for Olympics

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:56 PM
Long discussion about keeping Eventing in the Olympics and what needs to be done. The USOC apparently is not very interested in promoting eventing and keeping it in the Olympics, according to what David has been told by the USOC people he's talked to.

Balch finally asks Leone where the USET stands on it, and he says that "the USET is working with the USOC" to prepare something to submit to the USOC and IOC to support eventing, and they have a 3 alternative plan, keep eventing as it is, change eventing, or replace eventing with some other FEI discipline.

The news that "the USET has been working with the USOC" is news to everybody else on the call apparently. Balch suggests that despite the acrimony of the current dispute, isn't this something they could all work together on, since it is important to the sport. Leone doesn't sound too enthusiastic. He doesn't know who the contact person at the USOC is, that Bonnie's job. Lori will contact Bonnie and try to find out and see if we can work together on it.

Karen and David say that the US eventin community believes it is very very important to keep eventing in the Olympics, and if it is necessary to go to a CIC format to do that, they think keeping the sport in some format is better than not at all.

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:56 PM
Looks like CIC is the way to go in order to keep eventing in the Olympics and people will accept that.

{I want to hear discussion about qualifications for other horses & riders from other countries, not the big guns, to compete - isn't that where most of the accidents were??}

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:57 PM
I think Armand is missing the possibility that some day a jumper horse or rider will die in the Olympic arena. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

SGray
Sep. 25, 2002, 02:57 PM
David said biggest difference would be loss of steeplechase phase

DMK
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:02 PM
KO'C points out that the nations defending the "old style" eventing are those with a racing background.

Denny talks about possible split in the sport with a WB oriented CIC event with a few other events geared towards the more traditional style TB event.

D'OC points out that this is one of the only Olympic events that qualify at a lower level than they compete at at the Olympics.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:03 PM
AB offers help of USAEq and facilities to put together a unified plan to go forward ...

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:04 PM
Meeting adjourns at 6PM

Weatherford
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:09 PM
Thanks everyone!!

Your coverage was GREAT!!

Found the view, but too expensive

MHM
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:10 PM
All the typing and reporting is greatly appreciated!!

As for the content... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Anne FS
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:12 PM
AB alluded to things being looked at differently in Europe. I know from other lists and things I read that AR is very big in Europe and Eventing is frowned upon by showjumpers and other riders as well as by many non-horse people. This gives background as to why FEI doesn't have any eventers on this committee. Europe looks at use of animals very differently these days...I get a sense that many European riders would be glad to sacrifice eventers & then say, hey, we got rid of that sport where the horses and people get killed. Equestrian's okay now.

Bank on it - that's what we'll hear.

canyonoak
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:22 PM
I am so saddened by this meeting.

USET is willing to chuck eventing and 'replace with another discipline'..?

Gosh--that wouldnt happen to be Reining, would it?

Even knowing of the acrimony that has developed; even understanding that public grandstanding and character defamation and general lack of manners is all 'part of the game'...I know I am not the only one sickened by what has happened/is happening.

What do I now hope?

I hope that USAEq has some heavy patrons hanging tough, tough enough to hire the heaviest legal hitters, and take this to the arbitration that is unavoidably necessary.

My gosh.

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:22 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Dr. Leone says USET is working on a plan. Wants to keep Eventing; if we lose Eventing, wants to add another eq. discipline so there are still 3 eq. disciplines in the Olympics.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I can only imagine the sport they'd be looking to substitute is Reining. I really can't see that the IOC is going to be keen on that ... not enough international participation, yet.

Driving is even more expensive, endurance has even more problems than eventing, but not as much spectator appeal... maybe they'd also try vaulting, but I don't see any patronage for vaulting at USET.

If they are really thinking that substituting another sport is a viable strategy, I am dismayed.

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:26 PM
I must compliment Alan on his incredibly thick skin. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 03:33 PM
If eventing were/could be replaced at the Olympics, it would almost have to be with reining. It's the only other discipline, along with Dressage and SJ, that takes place in a single ring. No land use or course building issues.

Snowbird
Sep. 25, 2002, 04:40 PM
was the excessive calm with which AB dealt with Al and his petty tantrums.

I was astonished that someone who is supposed to be so well educated and so well informed could be so juvenile in nit picking about who was going to get the credit for the two Gold Medal Teams instead of just being thrilled that we had two Gold Medal Teams. No wonder in Europe they think of us as ugly Americans. I think the Teams deserve all the credit, I didn't see AL's little heinie out there. The last time it was didn't all the ribbons get yanked. So is he President of the USET as an American or an Australian?

I also approve of the grants, real people with real jobs and responsibility need financial assistence, but then it has been made very clear that Dr.Leone thinks the Olympics are reserved for the very rich and famous and certainly a free ticket is adequate for them, as long as it includes all the necessary posh elements and staff to care for them. Especially when they have tax sheltered their money on the other end. That way it isn't really their money anymore it's our money they're getting, our taxes that we paid.

DUH! well I know we're doing something about the eventing problem because Bonnie Jenkins told me so, I think I forgot to find who she talked to about it though.

(my personal interpretion: not verbatim just my impression of the disinterest in Eventing; What the heck! as long there are jumpers who cares what else they do? There's only one equestrian discipline that counts anyway)

There you go, they're going to drop Eventing because those damn bushes cost so much. By the way did anyone ever think about leasing the land instead of buying it?

[This message was edited by Snowbird on Sep. 25, 2002 at 07:52 PM.]

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 04:54 PM
Well, Snowbird, he did provide me with a new signature. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Offense MEANT!" Armand Leone, Jr. to David O'Connor and Linda Allen, Sept. 25, 2002

Snowbird
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:00 PM
This is who wants to be our fearless leader in the Olympics for Equestrian of the free world. "OFFENSE INTENDED AND GRANTED".

1. Well, Eventing could be affordable without those bushes.

2. I'll ask Bonnie to see what I think

On the working together he was so evasive I can't even find a punch line.

By the way that law suit from Florida was mentioned in the HDV article and that issue was already in the mail, my post mark September 16, 2002. Do you suppose there was just a touch of insider information there?

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:04 PM
would you please enlighten Pwynn about the HODV so that she knows when she talks to PP friends?

gee ... the people involved have not yet received service of the Suit, and HODV is publishing ????

2Dogs
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:18 PM
If this were the real world, that frigging CEO (AL) would be out of here!!!! Having bankrupted the company, he is now acting invincible. Sound familiar????

JulieMontgomery
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:23 PM
Maybe next time someone can keep reminding us of when these "listen in" are going to happen?

My brain is like a sieve, and I need constant reminders......

akrogirl
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:26 PM
As someone relatively new to the politics of the sport, I tried to keep an open mind during the first two meetings I listened to on line. All I can say is that, imho, AB has been polite to a fault, and a perfect gentleman. There is no way I would have been able to keep my temper under such extenuating circumstances. As for AL - it is hard to find words adequate to describe his total pettiness. Any doubts I might have had about which organization to support were all too rapidly dispelled.

SoEasy
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:27 PM
2Dogs ... USET bankrupt? Really? you think? not according to the Santa Claus accounting system!

Julie ... we missed you ... but pretty good on the fly summary on this thread ! Enjoy the read

ohnowwhat
Sep. 25, 2002, 05:55 PM
More than likely, the Bonnie in question is Bonnie Jenkins.

A/K/A Jane Clark, Jr.

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 06:07 PM
Personally, I'm certain that the success of the US Riders is due to the controversy over governance. Keep this up another two years and we're sure to win 3 Gold Medals!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Or wait. Maybe it was because the porta-potties and food arrangements were so inconvenient! The US Riders with the Iron Constitutions defeat the bourgeois Europeans!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Maybe it was because of each day's siesta. Our riders go best in the evening!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

poltroon
Sep. 25, 2002, 06:08 PM
I'm sorry... how is Bonnie Jenkins related to Jane Clark? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Portia
Sep. 25, 2002, 06:15 PM
Bonnie Jenkins worked for Jane Clark before JC became president of AHSA. When JC became AHSA president, Bonnie Jenkins came to work for her there. When JC was term-limited out as president of AHSA and went to the USET, Bonnie Jenkins went with her there.

"Offense MEANT!" Armand Leone, Jr. to David O'Connor and Linda Allen, Sept. 25, 2002

2Dogs
Sep. 25, 2002, 06:29 PM
Ahhh, the Enron accounting system, eh? Or is it more like Adelphia? Tyco? Global Crossing?
Thank you all for the blow by blow recording.

Snowbird
Sep. 25, 2002, 07:56 PM
I almost did that this week, my Quickbooks put $20,000 extra in my accounts and I was so happy, I paid all my bills with cash to spare and then the bank started sending those little notices.

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:08 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by DMK:

D'OC points out that this is one of the only Olympic events that qualify at a lower level than they compete at at the Olympics.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That ought to be stopped right there. What a bad plan, with disasterous results.

Are we working to change that?

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:12 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by canyonoak:
USET is willing to chuck eventing and 'replace with another discipline'..?

Gosh--that wouldnt happen to be Reining, would it?
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

canyonoak, that jumped right out at me, too. AL was quite blase about losing eventing and replacing it with something else. It occurred to me as he spoke that for AL an added benefit to this happening would be it punishes David O'Connor. David is so prominent and so well-liked and goes his own way--you can just tell AL hates it. I truly felt AL would not be sad at all to see eventing disappear, and I'm afraid may even be quietly helping that to happen.

Thoughts, anyone?

SoEasy
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:16 AM
The Eventers seem harder to buy and control than Jumpers/Dressagers/Reiners ....

I have now listened to several meetings, and I am amazed at the number of times that AL has 'dissed' David and Karen O'Connor, and anyone else who won't toe the line (say Linda Allen). At this point I expect the unbearable rudeness towards Alan/theevilsatanwhoisdestroyingthesport ... /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 05:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:

So I can only imagine the sport they'd be looking to substitute is Reining. I really can't see that the IOC is going to be keen on that ... not enough international participation, yet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

poltroon, reining is really growing. Reining competitions really are in many countries now and are close already to having enough international competition.

Six countries are already consistently participating. Check out this website: http://www.nrha.com
On the left-hand side, click on Media & News. You can see how active reining is getting globally. Especially check out an article near the bottom: "Constantini talks Internationally." These folks are on their way. Personally, I welcome reining to the international stage, although I want to ADD it to what we have, not subtract anything else.

In addition, AQHA is enormous and willing to put up money. Reining is crowd pleasing and has the bucks. It is a logical choice. Of course I'd want to see it added so there's 4 eq. competitions, but I'd bet good money there's a strong movement afoot to replace eventing with reining.

I think other disciplines, especially eventing, need to help reining and in turn seek their help in staying on board.

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Sep. 26, 2002 at 08:28 AM.]

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Sep. 26, 2002 at 08:29 AM.]

AM
Sep. 26, 2002, 06:48 AM
Am I right in thinking that the money equestrian organizations receive from the USOC depends on how many medals and what color are won by equestrian teams at the Olympics and maybe WEG and Pan AM games? If so, it seems to me the eventers have done more to provide that money than the show jumpers have for several years.

The comment about importing English bushes for the cross country course was attributed to the FEI president in one report I read. I did look at the course in Spain and tried to think if there was a way to cut down on the cost. The most elaborate fence complexes were also used by the drivers so the entire expense should not be attributed to eventing. I have no way of knowing whether driving used what eventing had already designed or eventing used what driving had already designed. There has been a new move in eventing to provide some alternate fences, ie two number 7 fences that are similar but not quite the same to allow riders to chose. That ups the expense of building more fences and I'm not sure they are any safer. Some WEG fences were themed and highly decorated but others were fairly plain rails just set in a particular spot in the course. I thought the Euro fence used a lot of wasted wood (and time for the course builder to build it) but it was the exception.

buryinghill1
Sep. 26, 2002, 07:02 AM
[]

[This message was edited by yd on Sep. 26, 2002 at 12:01 PM.]

Portia
Sep. 26, 2002, 07:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by AM:
Am I right in thinking that the money equestrian organizations receive from the USOC depends on how many medals and what color are won by equestrian teams at the Olympics and maybe WEG and Pan AM games? If so, it seems to me the eventers have done more to provide that money than the show jumpers have for several years.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, you are right.

A good portion of the money from the USOC that the USET has received since the last Olympics is directly attributable to the O'Connors' success, individually and on teams, and -- pure speculation here -- my guess is that AL finds that a particularly hard bone to swallow.

"Offense MEANT!" Armand Leone, Jr. to David O'Connor and Linda Allen, Sept. 25, 2002

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 08:07 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by yd:
Reining is CHEAP....
Few in reining give a red rats ass about the NGB /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif NRHA is enough to join!......
Reining doesn't take a $100K horse and a trainer....
Ain't never seen one DIE while spinning and sliding!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't think it was cheap, though

I think the fact that reining doesn't give a hoot about the NGB issue is highly in their favor as far as USET is concerned; AL & USET think they'll just 'take uset's word for it' on NGB stuff.

I thought Western competitive horses were extremely expensive.

The no-dying thing is going to be the lever used to get them in and eventing out. Eventing qualifying at lower levels than competing at is, I can't say this harshly enough, an ENORMOUS MISTAKE.

canyonoak
Sep. 26, 2002, 08:39 AM
<< Reining competitions really are in many countries now and are close already to having enough international competition. >>

absolutely. just check german tack stores for the Western sections.


<<Reining is [joe public] audience friendly>>

yup.

<<Reining is FUN
Reining is CHEAP>>

Fun-sure. Cheap? Compared to what?

<<Few in reining give a red rats ass about the NGB /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif NRHA is enough to join!>>

Yup--this definitely endears them to USET.


<<Reining doesn't take a $100K horse and a trainer>>


wow. dont tell that to the trainers around here...the BABIES can cost in 5 and 6 figures.



<<Ain't never seen one DIE while spinning and sliding!>>

Nope. Just seen their hocks blown and their minds blown and their backs blown and their tendons blown and ....

<<TRY IT! YOU'LL LIKE IT!>>

I like Reining. I like nearly anything to do with horses in sport.

I do not want to see Reining replace Eventing , even though the writing is on the wall.

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:04 AM
I asked this on p. 5 but I'm asking again:

Wait a minute.

Portia, how can the Mankamyer letter be used as reason for not accepting the selection criteria when Mankamyer says 'in light of the USOC adopting the Hearing Panel's recommendation' and now the USOC says it wants to rescind same as though it never happened? What'd I miss?

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:26 AM
I think uset wants to play as if the notorious Operating Agreement is still in effect

you know, the one that is being used as proof of delegation of authority

so then, keep the 'status quo' from the "operating agreement era' wherein the uset handles international matters so that the uset can say "see we handle international matters"

Portia
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:49 AM
Sorry I missed that the first time Anne. And it is a very, very good question.

Now that the USOC is trying to abandon the hearing panel report, the questions about the legitimacy of Mankameyer's proclamation of what is required to "maintain the status quo" are only magnified.

As set out in Ira Finkelstein's Sept. 3 response letter, there is a significant dispute about what the true "status quo" is, and USA Eq strongly disagrees that what Mankameyer's letter said reflected the "status quo." For example, Mankameyer's letter said that the parties must maintain the status quo including having USET run its grievance procedures. Except USET has never had any grievance procedures in place; grievances are all handled by USA Eq, and always have been. And regarding the distribution of USOC funds, the status quo is that the money is paid by USOC to USA Eq and then distributed to USET, under some very specific procedures. Mankameyer's letter said the USOC would give the money directly to USET. Ms. Mankameyer's letter in fact changed the status quo.

The big issue is that the USOC blames USA Eq for delegating responsibility to USET and says that's why USA Eq is not in compliance with the Sports Act, but then trys to prevent USA Eq from correcting that situation by demanding it "maintain the status quo." The only way USA Eq can get out from under the "delegation" rap is to take back responsibility for everything, but Mankameyer's letter tries to say they can't. Catch-22, anyone?

And, while the letter ordered USA Eq not to interfere with the USET's status quo" activities, it didn't put that same restriction on the USET. The USET is going around trying mightily to line up the international affiliates and set up drugs and meds programs, grass roots programs, competition organization and scheduling -- all things that in the status quo are and have been exclusively performed by USA Eq. So, supposedly USA Eq has to maintain the status quo, while USET can do whatever it wants to interfere with USA Eq's activities.

In February 2001, Armand Leone, Jr. stood in the Membership and Credentials meeting in San Antonio and repeatedly said that the AHSA's plans for fund raising, organizing, training, and fielding teams were "all smoke and mirrors" (that's a direct quote). A great deal has happened since then to disprove this allegation, and the USET knows it and it scares them. Now, in September 2002, AHSA/USA Eq has put all of its international and fundraising programs firmly in place and is more than ready to proceed with them. For USA Eq to do that would prove that the USET no longer has any significant role to play, which is the last thing the USET wants to have happen. Since the only even colorable authority they have for demanding to remain at the forefront of our international competition is the Mankameyer letter, they are going to cling to it with all their might.

Of course, in the words of Dennis Miller, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong.

"Offense MEANT!" Armand Leone, Jr. to David O'Connor and Linda Allen, Sept. 25, 2002

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:56 AM
hey - does anyone know if that meeting was taped?

lauriep
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And, while the letter ordered USA Eq not to interfere with the USET's status quo" activities, it didn't put that same restriction on the USET. The USET is going around trying mightily to line up the international affiliates and set up drugs and meds programs, grass roots programs, competition organization and scheduling -- all things that in the status quo are and have been exclusively performed by USA Eq. So, supposedly USA Eq has to maintain the status quo, while USET can do whatever it wants to interfere with USA Eq's activities.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IF(big if)they are the chosen ones, would you rather they have NOTHING in place to assume NGB responsibilities? I think it is a GOOD thing that they are attempting to secure a groundwork of some sort, rather than have nothing.

Also, it tells me, and should show everyone who has decried their secretiveness, that they DO have a plan of action. Why would we expect them not to?

Also not sure how this is actively interfering with the AHSA's ability to operate.

Laurie

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:09 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Portia:
Sorry I missed that the first time Anne. And it is a very, very good question.
[QUOTE]

Yay for me! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif Finally asked a good one.

[QUOTE]
For example, Mankameyer's letter said that the parties must maintain the status quo including having USET run its grievance procedures. Except USET has never had any grievance procedures in place; grievances are all handled by USA Eq, and always have been. And regarding the distribution of USOC funds, the status quo is that the money is paid by USOC to USA Eq and then distributed to USET, under some very specific procedures. Mankameyer's letter said the USOC would give the money directly to USET. Ms. Mankameyer's letter in fact changed the status quo.
[QUOTE]

And didn't USA Eq immediately point that out to USOC? If not, why not, fer cryin' out loud?

jr
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:11 AM
Lauriep,

Perhaps I'm naive, but to the extent that USA Eq already has capabilities in some of these arenas, I would hope USET would be working ways to leverage, not duplicate or replace.

I think the grass roots have spoken volumes - Equestrian is under attack, and we need a coordinated consolidated approach, not different guerrilla camps duplicating efforts, thereby wasting resources.

There appears to be plenty of blame to go around on how we got here, but a look at what is happening now convinces me that the USET does not want to be part of a team solution.

After listening to A. Leone in the meeting yesterday, USET will not see a dime from me.

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:12 AM
oh yes Anne, the Fed. has pointed out (now whether the USOC folks read what was sent to them is a whole 'nother question - see last letter from Rawls to Satrom)

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by jr:

After listening to A. Leone in the meeting yesterday, USET will not see a dime from me.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What about if a $250 or whatever annual contribution got you a vote? Many of us could join and vote the so-and-so's out. We could put the US back in USET. That could be our slogan.

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Portia:
.... The USET is going around trying mightily to line up the international affiliates and set up drugs and meds programs, grass roots programs, competition organization and scheduling -- all things that in the status quo are and have been exclusively performed by USA Eq. ....._<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All of which should make for an even more interesting financial statement.

jr
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:17 AM
Anne FS,

Your right. In that case, where do I send my check?

SoEasy
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:20 AM
Do they have them? I know they won't show them to anyone ...

and to whomever asked = the NJ lawsuit said that it was not legal for the USET to set a price for membership and another for membership+the right to vote - at least without telling people upfront. I was under the impression that all members are now voting members ... but that could have changed again recently.

USET has posted a (IMHO limited and biased) set of documents on their website, which does (or did yesterday) include their latest/current set of Bylaws.

Portia
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:27 AM
Lauriep, I agree with you that if there is to be no consolidation, one org has to be prepared to deal with everything. It would be fine for the USET to try to put all those grass roots, administrative, organizational, grievance and discipline, rulemaking and enforcement, licensing of officials, D&M, etc., programs in place -- BUT the Mankameyer letter supposedly ordered the parties to maintain the status quo, and the status quo goes both ways.

What USA Eq complained about was that the Mankameyer letter (in addition to mistating the status quo) ordered USA Eq not to interfere with any of the existing USET international programs, but did not place any such restrictions on the USET interfering with USA Eq's programs.

In effect, that USOC directive would leave the USET free to try (difficult though it would be to achieve) to set itself up as the only organization capable of doing everything the NGB is required to do, while preventing the current NGB from correcting the alleged delegation of responsibilities for which it is being condemned.

If the USET thinks it can set up all those programs that the NGB must have in place but that the USET has ignored throughout its history -- and even at the USOC Hearing said it would leave to USA Eq to perform at all but the highest international levels -- then USA Eq should be free to continue with all of its programs for fielding, funding, training, and organization of teams for international competition. But as soon as USA Eq notified the FEI that that's exactly what it intended to do, USET screamed blue murder to the USOC about interference from USA Eq.

Fair is fair. Either both orgs have to be free to correct any deficiencies or delegations, or both have to leave the other's balliwick alone.

"Offense MEANT!" Armand Leone, Jr. to David O'Connor and Linda Allen, Sept. 25, 2002

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoEasy:
I was under the impression that all members are now voting members ... but that could have changed again recently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we confirm this? What constitutes membership? I thought it used to be a $100 membership entitled you to vote & then USET changed that as obviously the riff-raff was voting.

Coreene
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:30 AM
Put it on Law & Order! Roll out Vincent d'Onofrio! Smack Napo-leone for his rudeness!

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:35 AM
"Napo-leone"!!!! Coreene, that's great!!!!! LOL!!!

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:37 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SoEasy:
I was under the impression that all members are now voting members ... but that could have changed again recently.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can we confirm this? What constitutes membership? I thought it used to be a $100 membership entitled you to vote & then USET changed that as obviously the riff-raff was voting.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

took a quick look at the by-laws on the uset site - found "Each voting member as determined by the Board of Trustees shall have one (1) vote. -- so I guess you'd have to ask the Board of Trustees who gets to vote

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:38 AM
I did not hear AL regarding the resolution about WEG so...but I did listen to the rest of the meeting.

As far as AL questions, retorts, etc., I did not find his tone condescending, it merely sounded like AL's voice sounds every day. He apparently was not blessed with the smooth voice of AB nor the longer fuse.

At this point, AB and USAE fully expect USET/AL/ES to abstain or vote nay on every motion concerning the battle. Where's the surprise in that?

I totally agree with AL that Sue Blinks should not be reimbursed for lost revenue/income while representing the USA on an all expenses paid trip to WEG. If the precedent is set, which it now is, why should everyone else, in every one of the seven disciplines taking time away from their business to represent the USA not be reimbursed for lost income, which is nothing more than an estimate at best, anyway.

Although AL was harsh, USAE/AB has accused USOC through letters, demands for arbitration, innuendos everything AL verbalized.


If the truth were known, I'd bet most "insiders" would be satisfied if the whole matter went away, and returned to pre Operating Agreement status somehow circumventing Ted Stevens with AHSA doing what it has always done and USET doing what it has always done.

Unfortunately for now, this is all out war. The line is clearly drawn in the sand.

SoEasy
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:42 AM
link to the old thread from when the Court in NJ ruled ...
Court Ruling (http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=691099205&f=1970907951&m=4253049562)

From the USET bylaws as posted today:

MEMBERSHIP
A. Membership in the Corporation shall be open to:
(1) any individual who is an athlete, coach, trainer, manager, administrator or official active in equestrian sports;
(2) any organization that conducts equestrian competitions or other programs or events in the equestrian sport in an FEI recognized discipline on the national level;
(3) such other individuals or organizations who have an interest in equestrian sports;
and who subscribe to the purposes of the Corporation, as such purposes are set forth in the Certificate of Incorporation and By-Laws of the Corporation, who make a yearly contribution in support of such purposes, and who conform to the code of conduct and similar rules that may be adopted by the Corporation from time to time. The Board of Trustees or the Executive Committee may, from time to time, establish various classes of membership based on the amount of contributions made to the Corporation or on other criteria designated by the Board of Trustees, and the Board of Trustees or the Executive Committee may limit the voting rights of any one or more of such classes of membership.

SGray
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:43 AM
I'd want to ask a member of the committee that reviewed the grant applications what they based their recommendation on before making any comment on those (was AL on that committee?)

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:47 AM
Okay, I called USET. I asked the person who answered the phone my question and she put me through to Bonnie Jenkins, who was very nice to me and gave me the impression of trying to be very helpful. I haven't had a USET membership in years, and when I had, it was just a $35 one and I can't recall at all if there was anything ever said about voting.

She said that as of right now 'any membership contribution' entitles you to a vote. I said, even $50? She said Yes.

{{NOTE: I know there's a cut-off date; I couldn't send them $100 tonight and vote next week, but if I join now I can vote next year PROVIDED USET doesn't change this rule. If I had joined last December for 2002 and paid my $35 membership I could vote now}}

HOWEVER, there is a meeting next week and that rule may either stay the same or be changed, according to Ms. Jenkins. So me, I'm going to wait until after next week's meeting, then I'll join USET if the cost isn't prohibitive. I'll join USA Eq, too. I want them both to know I support BOTH organizations and want this issue resolved and my money is a symbol of my belief that both USET and USA Eq can and should be responsive to the needs of the horses first, and after that we as horsepeople will sort this out.

[This message was edited by Anne FS on Sep. 26, 2002 at 02:06 PM.]

SoEasy
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:52 AM
Which means they are perfectly free to change the Membership classes to include a Voting Class which requires a contribution of at least $1M/yr, and then they can run the Corporation exactly the way those 2 people would like (always given that they actually GAVE the money, instead of only PLEDGING the money)

I didn't used to be this cynical /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

vineyridge
Sep. 26, 2002, 10:54 AM
Don't forget that the American delegate to the FEI for reining is JFC.

So you get rid of the eventers (Denny and the O'Connors) and replace them with a sport directly under JFC's satrapy.

Snowbird
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:04 AM
They didn't want any oversight into their activities. I think USAE would have been derelict in their reponsibilities if they had obliged.

Yes! the solution is for USET to come back into the fold and be what it has always been a Committee of the USAE that specializes in the International Riders.

They are not interested in the rest and the USAE could simply have made the modifications necessary to fully comply with the Ted Stevens act if the USET had not demanded total independence.

I'm sorry but I listened to the whole thing and I felt that AL was unnecesarily rude to David O'Connor who has given this country so much bounce for the bucks. I think he showed a lack of tolerance for any opinion but his own and no respect for the fact that although they don't want Alan Balch to even attend their meetings they are still welcome to ours and have enough time to propagate their own perspectives. While they insist on their ridiculous Non-Disclossure pact with their board our meetings are web broadcast.

I don't know about you but for my part any group who thinks they are so smart they don't need anyone's opinion and only their money I find offensive. The fact that this is just the way AL is always doesn't change anything or excuse it.

Anne FS
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:08 AM
Who's JFC?

I thought one of the big reining people who used to be at USET when reining was first brought in is no longer there--can't remember the name.

Coreene
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:08 AM
Yes, DEFINITELY time for L&O.

poltroon
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:13 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by poltroon:

So I can only imagine the sport they'd be looking to substitute is Reining. I really can't see that the IOC is going to be keen on that ... not enough international participation, yet.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

poltroon, reining is really growing. Reining competitions really are in many countries now and are close already to having enough international competition.

Six countries are already consistently participating. Check out this website: http://www.nrha.com
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh, Anne, don't get me wrong - I love reining and am thrilled to see it going international. But I don't think it's big enough yet to be considered for the Bejing roster. I think in 2012, especially if an American city is named, there's potential for it as a demonstration sport.

AM
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:18 AM
Who used the term "all expense paid trip to WEG"? Does that cover the time and expense for those last qualifying competitions and training sessions in Germany for the dressage team and in England for the eventers? I'd sure like to see a comparison of what the USET provided and what each American competitor needed to add to that just to participate.

vineyridge
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:33 AM
JFC = Jane Forbes Clark

She gave up her offices with USET in the past year, but is the reining delegate to the FEI.

It should be on their website.

agedbayhunter
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anne FS:
Who's JFC?

I thought one of the big reining people who used to be at USET when reining was first brought in is no longer there--can't remember the name.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Jane Forbes Clark.

The former USET person who's involved with reining is Robert Standish, USET executive director until early this year, now a fundraising consultant for the Reining Horse Sports Foundation.

JulieMontgomery
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:34 AM
No, no, no! (Stomping foot!)

Send him over to my house for an unspecified time period....

jr
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:37 AM
JulieMontgomery,

You take McCoy, I'll take D'Onofrio! He'll be released when all this is settled....could be awhile.

MAD
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:54 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>posted by jr:
I'll take D'Onofrio! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, jr, Coreene (she LOFFS him) has first dibs.

All I know is, L&O would have cleaned this up in an hour - with commercial breaks.

DMK
Sep. 26, 2002, 11:57 AM
Julie, jr... You don't want to start up with us L&O Ho's (aka DMK, Merry and Coreene and a few others) about those particular individuals.

Could make this whole USET/USAEq thing look like a bloodless skirmish in the face of the Civil War... /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 26, 2002, 12:02 PM
Snowie, whatever. We're never remotely close on our opinions so I'll save my breath, I mean fingers.

I said "all expense paid." That means transportation to and from WEG and all expenses while competing. If the training session in Germany was optional, USET should not have paid for it nor should the membership, for the reason stated.

Riders are responsible for funding their trips to trials. Aside, the members of the discipline committees are the persons responsible for recommending the qualifying criteria. If the Dressage and Eventing Committees voted to have their final qualifications outside of the US, that is their choice.

Don't forget Peter Wylde stated somewhere it cost him dearly to come to the US for the Show Jumping trials. That was his choice, his gamble. It would seem to me to be the same for all other disciplines.

In my view, that grant, awarded because it replaces "lost income" opens up a huge can of worms.

[This message was edited by Ruby G. Weber on Sep. 26, 2002 at 03:17 PM.]

JulieMontgomery
Sep. 26, 2002, 12:08 PM
He'll do in a pinch.

For the last 20 years, I have been unsuccessful in snagging THE love of my life, Robert DeNiro.

I still want him, even though I doubt that he (as a New Yawker) has ever been near a horse... LOL.

(I know RD is an old man now, but I'm no spring chicken, so don't criticize....)

poltroon
Sep. 26, 2002, 01:56 PM
I think the issue of grants is an interesting discussion, so I'm going to break it off into a new thread.

Mariequi
Sep. 26, 2002, 07:48 PM
RD's been mine since The Deerhunter. But I've liked Briscoe since he was Jennifer Gray's Daddy in Dirty Dancing. Jack is actually too good for me!

canyonoak
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:47 PM
Oh please...we could all give as much money to USET as we like--they are not going to let any of us vote.

For heaven's sake--they threw off their stupid Board some of the biggest contributors---people who 'did not stand with them in outlook'--people like Dr. Salick, whose big mistake was that he offered to underwrite all costs for AL and AB meeting somewhere and trying to talk/settle everything.

Even as savvy a businessman as Dr. Salick did not realize the idiocy, the blindness, the sheer overwhelming hysteria that had started to settle in at USET and has now fomented into the seething ,burbling, redundant and rather putrid mess that includes USOC.

Of course, I am sure he realized all this and more soon after being removed from the hallowed Board.

I know the Dalai Lama has suggested Compassion as the best way to get through this world.

Im gonna have to make an exception when it comes to current USET practice and theory.

canyonoak
Sep. 26, 2002, 09:49 PM
And lest anyone think I am starting to take all this too seriously...

am just getting in a last few comments before the BB closes for the weekend.

Cant wait to see the BB light up on Monday!

cheers

Mariequi
Sep. 27, 2002, 04:24 AM
You're not taking it too seriously. You're taking it just right!

pwynnnorman
Sep. 27, 2002, 04:55 AM
The following is a story pitch. It is NOT the actual story. What I'm trying to do is get the press to pick up the USOC/USET/USAeq story. Please recognize that what I've written is an angle or approach which you may not AGREE with (I don't necessarily agree with it, especially the wording of it, myself), but also recognize that I'm not writing for knowledgeable, involved horse people, OK? I'm writing to try to involve the uninvolved. (Also note that the formatting in this post is not representative of a final draft.)

Where I need your help is in identifying the VERY BEST X, Y and Z to insure that this pitch will encourage a reporter to question what is going on.


Background: The USOC

Mandated by federal legislation and supported by federal taxes, the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) oversees US participation in Olympic sports. Federal legislation also mandates that each Olympic sport must have its own national governing body. Through its recognition, oversight and financial support, the USOC determines what organization is a sport's national governing body.

* There can be a lot of conflict in the governance of Olympic sports.
* There can be a lot money at stake in the governance of Olympic sports.
* There is a lot of story potential in recent USOC decisions about the governance of Olympic sports.

Equestrian: More Scandal at the USOC?

In only one Olympic sport can the athletes' "equipment" be sold for millions of dollars afterwards: equestrian. Moreover, in no other Olympic sport have the fortunes of this country's wealthiest families and businessmen been used to determine who gets to compete for and cash in on Olympic gold.

So what does the USOC do when a group of revolutionaries challenge the elites to open up equestrian sports' governance, opportunities and rewards?

* It does X.
* It does Y.
* It does Z.

Why? To expose the answer, follow the money.

[This message was edited by pwynnnorman on Sep. 27, 2002 at 08:08 AM.]

[This message was edited by pwynnnorman on Sep. 27, 2002 at 08:29 AM.]

vineyridge
Sep. 27, 2002, 07:08 AM
I'm thinking about your ABC

But I would change one part to "in no other sport is the value of the athletes' equipment enhanced by millions of dollars just by participation in international competition."

Yachting, I think, is a very expensive sport.

pwynnnorman
Sep. 27, 2002, 07:22 AM
Is it?

(I'm trying to focus solely on the Olympic angle here.)

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

Ruby G. Weber
Sep. 27, 2002, 07:39 AM
that for the last ten or twelve years, the selection process for Show Jumping has been 100% objective for Pan Ams, Olympics and World Games.

May I also point out something else which comes to mind regarding the potential value of equestrian "equipment" after success on the International front.? The Wheaties Box. Many Olympic athletes have capitolized on their Olympic success in one way or another.

buryinghill1
Sep. 27, 2002, 07:52 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vineyridge:
Yachting, I think, is a very expensive sport.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Not necessarily!! Sailing is cheeep!!!!!!
The simplest is the "Dinghy." At the Olympic Games, the Finn ( a dinghy) is used only in men's events. The 470 is a men's and women's event, the Laser and 49er's are open events. All may be carried by a couple of strong adults.
The Soling and Star classes are both "keel" boats. Keel boats have a ballasted fin fixed below the hull (keel) and the Soling has a spinnaker. Both are trailerable.
The only catamaran event at the Olympic Games is the Tornado, which is an "open" event.
The 12-meters, known to the public as "The America's Cup yachts" do not compete in Olympic or international events. Just in their own trials and final event.

Most (90%) of the medalists I've met from sailing are not people of wealth. Their childhoods were spent near the waterfront and when not locked in some schoolroom, they "sailed anything." Like a kid who mucks stalls to earn riding lessons, these sailors didn't come from the country-club set.

[This message was edited by yd on Sep. 27, 2002 at 11:08 AM.]

Coreene
Sep. 27, 2002, 09:44 AM
Is when when have yet to figure out how to program the VCR - this is a big problem on Wednesday's at 10 PM, when you wanna watch L&O and Presidio Med, and they are on at the same time (gotta get a gander at Merry's Oded, ya know). Then again, night before last I managed to watch the final episode of Big Brother and Presidio Med at the same time as the season opener of The West Wing, just by bopping back and forth and taking advantage of commercial breaks.

Too bad that, before the whole USET AHSA USOC thing started, no one shouted FAIR WARNING because we were all gonna have to bend over.

Anne FS
Sep. 27, 2002, 09:48 AM
So, with Jane Clark delegate for reining to the FEI, NO WONDER USET is being cavalier about keeping eventing: no matter, if we lose eventing we'll replace it with another sport so there'll still be 3 eq. events.

Does anyone else think that USET is probably TRYING to replace eventing with reining? O'Connor out, Clark in?

pwynnnorman
Sep. 27, 2002, 09:50 AM
I need those X, Y and Zs, please! I'd really appreciate it.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com

Snowbird
Sep. 27, 2002, 09:55 AM
The Internet through search engines is replete with
pages of violations of power that haave pre-occupied the Senate with serious concerns over the Olympic competitions and what they cost the taxpaayer and how much of that money goes into personal benefits.

The other place is the Library of Congress the official record of the Congress indicates law suits and abuses including current law suits against the USOC by athletes who alledge they have been misused by the system.

Many of the sports have brought claims against them for intervention instead of supervision.

Equestrian is just the current one in a long line of charges against the USOC which was established by President Ford in a Presidential Commission he established.

You will find a lot of buzz words and similarities in these disputes to which you can include this industry. The AHC has published stats as to the value of this industry to the US Gross Domestic Product and how many voters there are that care about horses.

Ted Stevens would be available for an interview since he's still a Senator. Point out that while the USAE could not agree to equal split of 50/50 there was any attempt by them to negotiate maybe a 70/30 split which could have worked because the USOC seemed to assure them they had the edge with them and the USOC had the last word.

So, how much did the principals of the USET donate to the USOC fund.

buryinghill1
Sep. 27, 2002, 10:49 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Snowbird:

So, how much did the principals of the USET donate to the USOC fund.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

A lot.
I have a list here. You should see the money given from "other" sports.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

DMK
Sep. 27, 2002, 10:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> So what does the USOC do when a group of revolutionaries challenge the elites to open up equestrian sports' governance, opportunities and rewards?

* It does X.
* It does Y.
* It does Z.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think part of the problem is the opening paragraph. Based on what I know, it isn't quite accurate. To the best of my knowledge this is mostly about who is MORE qualified to best represent olympic athletes AND provide governance of the sport along with grass roots connections. I don't think the USAEq is trying to change anything essential to the USOC creed (for lack of a better description), it's just that the USAEq feels that barring a merger on their terms, they are the best qualified. Naturally the USET feels the same.

What is going on at the USOC seems to be one of the following set of circumstances:

1. An interpretation of their procedures that escapes the USAEq legal team's comprehension skills.

2. Some good old boy behind the scenes collaboration between the USOC and USET.

3. A bunch of people at the USOC who are not entirely skilled in following their own procedures, and really weren't paying a lot of attention to the matter at hand until they realized it could bite them in the butt, and now find it prudent to apply serious padding to said butt.

(I placed my bets on #3 - I never was much of fan on conspiracies, and I think the legal team is a wee bit sharper than an average tack, but you just never know...)

So to me setting up the USAEq as tilting at the USOC windmill isn't quite what is happening.

"I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thomas Alva Edison (1847-1931)

pwynnnorman
Sep. 27, 2002, 02:07 PM
That's why I felt the need to include the background stuff. What I'm trying to do (to make the story interesting enough) is present an elite vs. everyman conflict with USOC as the biased arbiter.

But clearly, it's not working. Oh, well. Forget it. I'll just proceed as I promised and do what I can.

Sportponies Unlimited
Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
http://www.sportponiesunlimited.com