PDA

View Full Version : Jane Clark`s role??



rebecca
Jul. 14, 2002, 03:04 PM
There`s been a lot of talk that Jane Clark is behind the big split between USET and AHSA. Why would she hurt either organization? Wasn`t she pres. of AHSA, and now v.p. of USET? It doesn`t seem like it makes any sense to blame her. Or am I missing something?

rebecca
Jul. 14, 2002, 03:04 PM
There`s been a lot of talk that Jane Clark is behind the big split between USET and AHSA. Why would she hurt either organization? Wasn`t she pres. of AHSA, and now v.p. of USET? It doesn`t seem like it makes any sense to blame her. Or am I missing something?

SoEasy
Jul. 14, 2002, 03:18 PM
$$$$$$$

and


power

Caruso
Jul. 14, 2002, 03:35 PM
Jane Clark has been funding international horses and riders for a number of year. She personally bailed out the AHSA during her term (limited to two terms, as per the constitution), and has been bailing out the USET since.

Her loyalties confuse me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

As part of the USAEg Board packets - which I am pretty sure were posted on the web site - under agenda item 10.?? and with a couple of pages of "timeline" - was included the letter that started this whole thing with the USOC.

Also, were the minutes from '91 and '95 - that is during JANE's term, NOT Alan Balch's, with the resolutions the (then) AHSA board passed making it VERY clear that they were IN CHARGE of everything that the Team did via a committee of the officers with Jane as Chair. A a couple of athletes were only added in '95 to bring it into USOC compliance.

Jane had been the most vehement detractor of the USET while she was AHSA President, including making sure that the USET personnel never had permission to so much as telephone the FEI or the USOC directly.

HOWEVER, immediately after AB was elected as her successor she sent the letter to Bill Hybl (the now fired USOC President) that got them fired up to "investigate" the relationship between the two organizations -- leading to the Operating Agreement, and eventually the challenge.

I find it VERY strange that she had been a "benefactress" to balance the AHSA financials, to the tune of approx $300-350K per year, during the last years of her reign (and not, from what we can find, not a patron of the Team's during that period) then she immediately transferred her support to the USET in a big way when she left

Those letters have been kept confidential up until this point, and I am appalled by them. WAAYYY too late to make this information public, literally years after the fact.

This fight is all about money and power and it is a battle led from behind the scenes by one person or perhaps two. I find that distasteful, even while I appreciate her support of Equestrian sports. Even Alan Balch gives her great credit for following through in the Insurance fraud scandal and sticking to her guns in the fights against Lindemann, Ward, Valiere, etc.

That's all from me - back to lurking...
/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Portia
Jul. 15, 2002, 08:35 AM
Ms. Clark used to be an officer and director of the USET, but she resigned those positions last year (or maybe in 2000?). From everything I have learned about the NGB dispute and the USET, however, she remains one of the largest of the big money USET donors, and is a central and decisive power behind the scenes at the USET.

[This message was edited by Portia on Jul. 17, 2002 at 03:10 PM.]

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 15, 2002, 09:12 AM
Ms. Clark has, through her generosity and love of horses and the sport, sponsored several rider and drivers who have become successful at the international level. It is quite possible these riders/drivers would not have achieved the success they have without her.

After all, you are only as good as your automobile.

SGray
Jul. 15, 2002, 10:39 AM
from http://www.equestrian.org/equestriangovernance/PDF/A.pdf

(then) AHSA Board meeting 1/20/91 (I'm assuming that this would be the second year that Jane was president?)

proposal put forth by Kevin Freeman

...........(several 'whereas').. Now, therefore, it is hereby
Resolved, that effective immediately and until further action by this Board the officiers of the AHSA (President, Vice President, Secretary, Assistant Secretary, Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer) shall serve as a Committee of the Board of Directors for the purpose of designating teams and individuals to represent the United States in future Olympic games, Pan American games and other international athletic competitions, and for the purposes of approving selection criteria and supervising the selection procedures formulated and proposed by the USET Executive Committee to that end; and it is further
Resolved, that at any meeting of such Committee the presence of at least four of said officers shall constitute a quorum; and it is further
Resolved, that the President of the AHSA shall serve as Chariman of said Committee.

-------- correct me if I am wrong - but I read that resolution to say that the (then) AHSA President (then Jane Clark) and 3 others (from among the officers) could pick the Teams.

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 15, 2002, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by SGray:
..... and for the purposes of approving selection criteria and supervising the selection procedures formulated and proposed by the USET Executive Committee
-------- correct me if I am wrong - but I read that resolution to say that the (then) AHSA President (then Jane Clark) and 3 others (from among the officers) could pick the Teams.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't read it that way.

If memory serves me, there were objective selection trials for Pan Ams, World Games and Olympics all through the 90's.

buryinghill1
Jul. 15, 2002, 12:39 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:

If memory serves me, there were objective selection trials for Pan Ams, World Games and Olympics all through the 90's.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good memory. Remember when Gem Twist got tossed at Devon? Third refusal at the liverpool? '92.

SGray
Jul. 15, 2002, 12:52 PM
operative word "could" (as opposed to "did")

poltroon
Jul. 15, 2002, 01:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>shall serve as a Committee of the Board of Directors for the purpose of designating teams and individuals to represent the United States in future Olympic games, Pan American games and other international athletic competitions, and for the purposes of approving selection criteria and supervising the selection procedures formulated and proposed by the USET Executive Committee to that end;<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think this is just boilerplate for saying that the AHSA technically approves the selection procedures (regardless of what individuals/committees/orgs actually write/suggest them) which is necessary for AHSA to be (a) the NGB and (b) the body who defends those procedures and the subsequent selections against legal challenge.

I don't (and didn't) see it as a power grab, just a recognition of the changing legal climate of that time with regard to team selections.

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 15, 2002, 01:36 PM
Yes, YD. I was trying to recall the year, but the incident and the location was within reach. I further recall, that particular selection trial was held under the lights. In hindsight, I bet the organizers would do that over again.

Of course, we all know the Bon Nuit's could display a streak of a different color.

Lo and behold, it has only taken 10 yrs. to come back around to some subjectivity in the selection process, brought about, in part, by the above mentioned incident.

Weatherford
Jul. 15, 2002, 02:10 PM
I have mixed feelings about the subjectivity/objectivity problem - mostly because I agree that one of the greatest jumpers this country has ever produced did not get to go to the Olympics because of a refusal under the LIGHTS (which they didn't have at the Olympics) at Devon. I still think objectivity is essential - we have entirely too many horses and riders to run selections as we once did. It seems like the selection committee has finally come to a great compromise - one with which the riders all agree. SO, let's hope it works!

On the other subject, however, I am puzzled by this "oversight" committee created by JC as AHSA President (in 1991). It appears this formalized the AHSA's oversight (as NGB) of the USET. The committee didn't "pick" teams, but the naming of teams/individuals wasn't official until they approved or �rubber-stamped� it. (Their quote, not mine.)

But, then WHY, did this �oversight�, created by Jane as AHSA President become such a problem for the USET, SO QUICKLY (she had been President of the USET for less than 3 months - during which time virtually no athletes were competing internationally)??

How did such large "problems" arise for the Team in dealing with the AHSA during that SHORT time frame, that DD Matz and Jane simply HAD TO visit and write the (now fired due to the Salt Lake scandals) President of the USOC to bring these problems to his attention and get things changed asap. Hence, creating the infamous �operating agreement�.

As many of our posters have written, things HAD been working before that � although changes were necessary and inevitable given the lawsuits against the team � from Kerry Milliken to Debbie Dolan to the Leone brothers.

I think the whole thing has been a waste of time effort energy and money. The NGB shouldn't have to spend millions to protect itself. Nor should an organization with historical monetary problems spend millions to be what it cannot be - without violating the same rules it is accusing the other side of violating.

All the documents relating to this are available (scanned copies of the actual documents in pdf format), except for the letters written by DD and Jane as Officers of the USET to the USOC. Those, which SHOULD be available to the USET Board members, if not the entire Equestrian world, have been "lost", if I am not mistaken.

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

poltroon
Jul. 15, 2002, 03:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
I have mixed feelings about the subjectivity/objectivity problem - mostly because I agree that one of the greatest jumpers this country has ever produced did not get to go to the Olympics because of a refusal under the LIGHTS (which they didn't have at the Olympics) at Devon. I still think objectivity is essential - we have entirely too many horses and riders to run selections as we once did. It seems like the selection committee has finally come to a great compromise - one with which the riders all agree. SO, let's hope it works!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Another good example would be for the '96 Eventing team, where Bruce Davidson had a nasty fall from Heyday at a mandatory outing, and so Eagle Lion did not get to run. Because of the way the selection process was written, Bruce and Heyday were eligible for the team, but Eagle Lion (his better horse) was not.

Snowbird
Jul. 15, 2002, 03:52 PM
Look this is an inevitable difference of opinion based on the way we've always one it to the evolution of this sport from a personal hobby into an industry.

As President of the then AHSA Ms.Clark as President had the right opinions for the best interests of her days in office.

When she was no longer in that position she objected to the very same oversight she had imposed. The AHSA is those days operated the same way as the USET does. Whenever she wanted something, she didn't need the approval of anyone because she just paid for it herself.

Alan Balch is vilified because he has no conflict of interest. He runs no shows, he has no horses and he isn't dependent on anyone from the industry for income. He is in consumate CEO with no conflict of interests and he is his own person.

That is a ssituation that the old guard cannot comprehend, I am certain for many years this association functioned based on who you knew and who you knew better.

So, so we want the new look, officers and directors with no axe to grind, no bonus to earn and no one who has to be pleased?

The only way that happens is if we have a new sport with a new attitude and the money comes in because the advertising is worth the investment.

canyonoak
Jul. 15, 2002, 04:00 PM
<<The only way that happens is if we have a new sport with a new attitude and the money comes in because the advertising is worth the investment.>>



Wow.

Just thought this was worth stating/seeing.

Again.

The crux of the matter.

The heart of the problem.

The source of the problem.

The real solution.

OK...exhausted from metaphorizing...

<G>

SGray
Jul. 16, 2002, 07:24 AM
Indeed, when Coca Cola, Nike, Frito Lay, etc realize that, yes, there are rich folks who spend untold $s showing every weekend

but - the majority of horse owners/lovers work to support ourselves and our horses, earn above average salaries, juggle our available free time in order to ride/train/show,...... I believe that we are a larger and potentially a more lucrative market than, say, the NASCAR (or is it NASCR?) fans

We spend, we have 'brand' loyalty (that has SO many meanings in the horse world), we are, really, a great 'market' --- and that is what JIm Host has been hired for - to make the companies aware of that fact - aware of how many horse owners/lovers are out there.........

the Clarks, Caspersons, Haas, Firestones, etc, while prominent, are a fractional minority of US

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 08:41 AM
We're not the marketplace. It's when the big companies find out they can sell their product to the public because they brought them our sport.

Our failing is that we are too self oriented. Yes! in the past we were expected to support our sponsors who really were just donors.

The NEW vision is that our product "horses" will sell their products, cereal, cars etc. because people feel that those products are what we eat, wear and use, and, our "stars" need to play to the audience and not themselves or even us.

Remember Jack Armstrong "All-American boy"?

SGray
Jul. 16, 2002, 09:01 AM
Jim Host stated that his research showed (forgive me if I am a bit off on these figures as I didn't go back to look it up) that 1/3 of the households in the US had some type of interest in horse sports --- so we are the market

at the same time - I agree with you that if advertisers found a way to demonstrate the athleticism required in our sports - then "O'Connor" or "McDonald" or "Kanavy" or ... might be a household name

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 09:50 AM
Yes! and to have our stars part of the generic world so that they can be on a Wheaties box is our mission.

I think we are fortunate to be here at the crux of the millennium when changes are being made and we can help form them.

vineyridge
Jul. 16, 2002, 10:05 AM
Our sport now includes a couple of "Western" disciplines, which should broaden the appeal.

Musical Kur has the potential to be the figure skating of the horse disciplines. Remember when the figures used to count for 1/2 of the score? But they were not good for TV, and after Trixie Schuba (?) won the world's championship just on her figures, but free skated a child's program, and the whole sport was rocked? Ever since, they've been reducing the importance of figures.

If Dressage comes down in the public mind to the Musical Kur, then people who have bad trips in that phase will not be able to win. The rules will be changed. Ulla and Rusty won't be World Champions.
Be careful that wanting more public excitement doesn't change the sport beyond all recognition, unless, of course, that's what we want.

Watching regular dressage is as interesting as watching the figures in figure skating. Watching equitation, hunter and low jumper rounds with sixty horses is DEADLY. It's gotten to the point that show managers make their money off the competitors, not off selling entertainment to the general public.

Polo, anyone?

[This message was edited by vineyridge on Jul. 16, 2002 at 04:44 PM.]

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 10:20 AM
Musical Kur would be as fantastic as the free style skating competition.

"Beyond Recognition"? Is skating beyond recognition?
or Golf and tennis for that matter? No it is different, it is understandable, it is a crowd pleaser with fan clubs and crowds of people.

Horse Show Managers depend on the exhibitors to pay the premium costs for the facilties in which they want to compete.

Who should pay for these beautiful places that you enjoy? If we are the world than we have to pay.

Shows have been reduced to paying their bills with tons of the little competitors who don't yet know how to ride, and horses that are not yet performers.

Those huge classes pay the bills with the income from the 70/100 losers in each class. How long can a sport survive if only 1% are winners and everyone else pays the bills?

AM
Jul. 16, 2002, 11:27 AM
I didn't think Kerry Milliken sued the USET. I believe she requested arbitration but stopped there and did not sue. Her case was much like Bruce Davidson's in 1996. She fell and broke her leg during cross country on her first horse so she didn't complete the designated event with either horse.

Weatherford
Jul. 16, 2002, 01:42 PM
Try getting a DQ at ANY level to even CONSIDER taking the KUR out of the standard ARENA!!!

I've been lobbying for that for YEARS (no kidding - at least 15 - probably closer to 20) and I have gotten no where! Granted, I am NOT a Dressage person, per se, but I do enjoy watching!

Absolutely MUST happen - but the riders and trainers are totally FREAKED by the idea.

Idjeets!

Think how much HAPPIER the HORSES would be, too!!!

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

SGray
Jul. 16, 2002, 02:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
Try getting a DQ at ANY level to even CONSIDER taking the KUR out of the standard ARENA!!!

..........
Absolutely MUST happen - but the riders and trainers are totally FREAKED by the idea.

Idjeets!

_ <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The arena might not have to be 20m x 60 m but there must be a 'standard' size in order for the ride to be designed. You need to know how many strides it will take your horse to get from this spot in the arena to that spot in the arena so that you can choreograph and fit with the music. That's when you get a really good kur - when you can match your horses movements, changes of gait, etc TO the changes in the music.
If you want to, say, canter half-pass across the arena and pirouette halfway across (with a change in the music during the pirouette) then you've got to know how many strides that it will take your horse to get there - thus, you have to know how large the arena will be.

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 04:26 PM
Ice Arenas have the same criteria, footing equal to how hard and smooth the ice is, but with enough texture for the blade to get a hold.

But, yes it would be exactly the equal and is a must for the future. Maybe we could compare the dancer pairs to hunters. It always seemed to me that a beautiful hunter trip was a lot like a waltz.

Maybe hunters should be a take your own line, where they each choose a course that best suits the way their horse goes. Commentators could say the same thing well she chose the easy option now if the other rider looks just as good with the harder options they will get a 10.

Weatherford
Jul. 16, 2002, 07:00 PM
And certainly not all ice arenas are the same size!!

That is often a problem for skaters, especially in figuring out when and where to jump - and you know what???

They deal with it!!!

That is the stupidest excuse I hear and it is one I hear all the time. WHERE IS THE ART, if you cannot create and ride a ride that works whereever you are???

Entries have to be in so early for Dressage shows, it would be easy to say, the main arena is 100 x 200. In a few years, everyone will know all the arenas and know what works.

I believe very strongly that this HAS TO HAPPEN to make Dressage the spectator sport that it COULD and SHOULD be!!

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

vineyridge
Jul. 16, 2002, 08:13 PM
Do you suppose it's mere coincidence that Miss Clark's initials are the SAME as James Fenimore Cooper's?

How about having qualifying heats for hunters and jumpers, and letting the top 1 or two in each heat go on to finals? Bring back the jumping pairs and the Corinthian classes. Have costume classes over fences for little kids. Make shows fun. Heck, we can't even get horse sports on the sports page of a newspaper unless it's a triple crown race.

Heats to finals are how it's done in running; and I think that may be how they do it in some of the grand prix jumping classes. Have the prelims in the day in the side rings, and the finals under lights (or not) and in center court.

People will sit and watch 15 or so riders over fences before the eyes start to glaze. We need exciting classes to mix in with the deadly dull ones. Driving, in hand, hunt teams...

I remember when most shows were multi-breed and multi-discipline, and a handy hunter class would be followed by fine harness horses, then by an English pleasure class and a saddle seat equitation. The high point of the evening was a jumper knock down and out class.

People were in the seats for that, and it wasn't just parents of the riders. Charities actually made money off admissions.

I agree with the former Emmett that what we need is butts on bleachers.

Snowbird
Jul. 16, 2002, 10:00 PM
Exactly, and that's what on the drawing board of the USAE FINALLY. If we all start thinking inclusion and we start thinking showmanship and we help with the plans "They will come".

The Breed groups will be right up there with the rest of us and no one will be left out. I have been watching the enormous hours that dog shows get and our shows would be much more exciting with a lot of crowd appeal.

I love the way the saddle horses need the crowd to cheer to get those knees up and those gaits floating.

Horse shows have to change, there needs to be a real ladder up pruning the horses so that the very best get to the top.

From this BB we can write up a plan that would work for all of us and send it to the planning committee.

Weatherford
Jul. 17, 2002, 12:12 AM
In Europe at the FEI levels they both limit the number of horses per rider per class and have "qualifiers" and non-qualifiers.

At Dublin they have a "qualifier" GP and a non-qualifier GP - usually the non on Sat (called the "mini=prix" /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif ) and the GP on Sunday. Both limited number of horses.

Dublin fills the stadium every day, plus even has 3 or 4 deep STANDING to watch the three yr olds free jump! You mut qualify to show at Dublin in all classes.

Aachen had a total of 350,000 spectators!!! YIKES!!! WE should have that. Of course, their NGB - which you must join to show at all any breed, any discipline - has over a million members!

Someday!

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

bonfire
Jul. 17, 2002, 03:52 AM
As long as J.C`s itinerary is to get rid of A. Balch as USAEq Pres., there will never be an agreed upon settlement. Do you think all those USET folks she financially supports would go against her and kill the golden goose???
Right from the moment A.B. WAS NOMINATED. she has conducted a behind the scenes campaign to oust him.That fact is the real hidden agenda behind this entire debacle. REMEMBER---"FOLLOW THE MONEY"

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:12 AM
You better all get over this attack on Jane Clark and her ilk. The FACT is that without these people with very deep pockets, we wouldn't have any kind of a team, funded by anyone, NGB or otherwise. Jane Clark goes, we lose Leslie. Harry Gill goes, we lose McLain. Need I go on?

The ingratitude on this BB towards these people deeply offends me. They do nothing but POUR money into this sport and yet they are portrayed as villains.

Did none of you read, or take to heart, Denny's article? Who do you think he is talking about?

Regardless of the outcome of this mess, and I personally think it would be easier to change the damn Ted Stevens Act then resolve the current dispute, we are ALWAYS going to need these people very badly, and anything other than gratitude that they have chosen our sport is asinine.

Laurie

Michelle Mc
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:

The ingratitude on this BB towards these people deeply offends me. They do nothing but POUR money into this sport and yet they are portrayed as villains.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Amen.
My husband I gave gave over $100K in 2001 to showjumping competitions. Some of the comments I've read about "the likes of me" make me want to give more to ANY other sport.

haligator
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:33 AM
<<Jane Clark goes, we lose Leslie. Harry Gill goes, we lose McLain. Need I go on?>>

Do you really believe this? Do you truly believe that Leslie and McLain aren't talented enough to ride other horses and still be successful?

While I acknowledge the money that both Ms. Clark and Mr. Gill have put into the sport is important, I think you are way off base when you infer two of our top riders would just disappear if not for the monetary support from their owners. Heck, you could put McLain on a 15 hand Saddlebred who had never jumped and McLain would still beat half the class!

Semper Eadem,
Hallie McEvoy
Racing Dreams, LLC

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:36 AM
but certainly lose the mounts they have now, just before the WEG. Do YOU have any idea how long it takes to find another wealthy owner who can/will work with you, then find the horses, get them to the international level and then get them competitive there?

Certainly, this would happen eventually, but it sure would take them away from the upcoming goal for both of them.

Laurie

DMK
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:44 AM
I have to agree with Michelle and Laurie...

It's the process, not the person. Even if the person is the antichrist themselves, they can only be that way if the process let them.

If you don't like the fact that someone can give a lot of money, support horses, possibly appear to control things (or not - I don't really know), then it's the process that is the issue. Not the person who chooses to give money out of total altruism, an expectation of power, or more likely the very human desire to do both.

And as she steps further on her bandwagon of people vs. process, the issue of people taking it so personally that AL sat in that meeting (gasp) at the same time a lawsuit was being filed...

Big Deal. This IS business, and we are all about making this industry more business-like, right? AB and the officers made a business decision to let the USET pay dues late, and they also made the business decision to run a little bit of high drama on the issue. Both were good tactical moves IMO. AL should have known it and seen it coming - he let himself be set up for it. Ditto for the USET's countersuit. AL had a very clear stated goal going into that meeting: AB needs to resign. When it did not happen, he had a tactical move in his back pocket. Again, this is just business. It isn't about personal betrayal or dubious ethical conduct. Just business.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

buryinghill2
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:00 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
but certainly lose the mounts they have now, just before the WEG. Do YOU have any idea how long it takes to find another wealthy owner who can/will work with you, then find the horses, get them to the international level and then get them competitive there?

Certainly, this would happen eventually, but it sure would take them away from the upcoming goal for both of them.


Laurie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I'm not sure it would happen again eventually. The support that Jane has maintained for Leslie is unequaled, and would be impossible to duplicate. Jane has been providing horses for Leslie for more than twenty years! She has always been there, always understanding that the nature of Grand Prix show jumping is ebb and flow. Riders have a few hot years, then a few of developement of horses, then hopefully a few more good years. It always runs hot and cold and Jane has never abandoned ship, never bought into the the "trainer of the month" mentality that seems to be so common.
At the very beginning, Leslie had a wonderful owner in Ed Andrews, who refused to take her off a great horse, in spite of her inexperience, and in spite of her pleading with him to give the ride to Rodney, because she felt the horse was being wasted on her. Would Leslie have had the same success without Edwin Andrews and Jane Clark? Probably. But I disagree with the poster that said that Mclain could win on any horse, and I'm sure Mclain would disagree as well. Our great riders are only as good as the horses they are provided with. The contributions of an owner like Jane cannot be measured.

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:08 AM
Just because people have "deep pockets" is not a reason to ignore behaviour that may be selfish, overbearing and self-serving.

And don't fire back and demand to know what I am saying. I am saying what I am saying and what I am saying is simple. Not business-minded perhaps, to suit many of you.

There is nothing more unattractive than a person of means using money to beat others into submission or make the rules in accordance to their own particular design. And yes, I know it happens every hour of every day. I am not a babe in the woods about all of these machinations.

Please note that I have not singled anyone out, but if the shoes fit certain individuals, then they can damn well wear them. Rest assured that they are not the only ones.....

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:10 AM
Beautifully said, and you know Jane much better than anyone else here.

I would add the Butlers and Conrad/Joe, to the same type of owner, with the same results.

And DMK, excellent points!

Laurie

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:12 AM
you may be assigning motives where they really aren't.

Laurie

canyonoak
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:16 AM
Rich owners have always been the backbone and foundation and trimmings of international horse sport.

That is no different in Europe, where someone like Madeline Winter-Schulze sponsors Ludger Beerbaum and now, Isabelle Werth, as well as having input into teams,etc etc.


THAT is hardly the problem.

The problem in the USA is that a FEW owners want to make specific frog ponds their very own...

That cannot happen in Europe because the REAL money is coming from corporate sponsorship.

We HAVE to do something here to attract corporate,outside money, a la the other sports.

Television; 'team' concepts in hitherto individual sports (jumping, dressage,etc); riders used as clothing models and Tiger Woods-like status...etc etc.

There is always power and power.

Saying that a few rich owners have supplied horses and will take their marbles and leave if they dont get their way...is damning the future of horse sport.

I applaud and honor the owners who, out of love for the sport, decide to help the sport's success by choosing to back riders with suitable equine partners,etc.

Usually, there is some personal component ion this. It always used to be love for the horses and the sport.

THAT is what is changing, now that horse sport has entered the 'real world' of Money and Power.

THAT is why we are having this entire dispute.

THAT is why I keep posting..because I truly believe U.S. horse sport is going through one of the bigger changes of its existence,and i hope to see it develop into a version I like and admire.

Antibiotics are good. Too little, and the disease gets a new foothold--and becomes resistant.

Too much, and the entire organism often suffers,as the beneficial flora and fauna gets killed off with the bad.

The principle of moderation has to hold in the 'organism' of horse sport as elsewhere...

cheers,

Glimmerglass
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by vineyridge:
Do you suppose it's mere coincidence that Miss Clark's initials are the SAME as James Fenimore Cooper's? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

seemingly off topic bute ..

Jane is actually Jane Forbes Clark II, her late mother being a noted horsewoman herself, so it would be just a coincidence. Side note, the family does own most of the property today that James owned including the ground where his family seat, Otsego Hall, stood.

I think its amazing that so many people on one hand couldn't slobber enough over other patrons (inc. one who uses an honorary title inappropriately) while Jane gets slammed. If only people know the real her and could see the larger picture.

wtywmn4
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:42 AM
Could not agree more Glimmerglass!

Why would anyone want to be a sponsor in this sport when in a split second, they get slammed?? Not only did Ms. Clark sponsor Leslie, she has helped in Driving and Dressage. Areas in which we were very much lacking. Quality horses, plus $$$'s does not always equal wins. But when people sponsor horses/riders/drivers they need to be treated slightly better than has been done.

Everyone bemoans the fact sponsors can't be found, or are rare. Oh gee, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out. Why would you put up money to be belittled? There is a great deal that is not public. Maybe some day history will prove out, that the people so many point fingers at are not the real bad guys.

ohnowwhat
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
(inc. one who uses an honorary title inappropriately)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:55 AM
Glimmerglass, LaurieP, Abby and DMK.

I can add little more for the above mentioned have said it all.

However, I will repeat, McLain, Leslie, Rodney, Margie and the rest of the elite riders in any discipline are only as good as their automobiles! (BTW, it was a famous rider who coined that phrase.)

buryinghill1
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:16 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
(BTW, it was a famous rider who coined that phrase.)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also heard at the ring "...you ain't nothing without good help..."

Aaron Vale 1999

Heather
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:27 AM
Sorry, for me, I'd rather spend the next three quadrenniums with nary a medal than give up on the idea that talent and honor are less important than money and influence.

I'm just one person, and this is only my opinion, but I'd have a lot more respect for a team that finished 8th in the WEG's or Olympics on the merits of their skills, training, and horsemanship, than a team of rich kids and sponsored princesses who were hand picked as being "the right sort" who won the gold. (Yes, this language is harsh, but it's meant to point out the perception of the general public--we have no underdog stories in our sport, and this is HURTING us in the PR department).

I'm probably naive, and we're probably too far gone to go back to my ideal, but I resent being told I should be "greatful" to big money owners/sponsors. Why? Because they've ensured that talent and skill are no longer enough to get to the top? Because they use their money and power to orchestrate thing behind the scenes? I mean having big money owners in the sport doesn't do antyhing for me--tha adult amateur. It's nice our teams can do well, but at the end of the day what does it do for me? My fees are still going up, my horses are still my repsonsibility, and the fact that our teams is made of millions of $$ only serves to further indoctrinate that this is a sport of the rich--which actually makes my life HARDER when I'm out in the world representing myself as a horsperson.

I think Leslie is a lovely rider, and the loyalty of Jane Clark to her is nice, but for me, on a daily basis, so what? It does nothing for me.

What I see when I look at this situation is one organization (USA Eq) trying to make my life and that of my horses, better, easier, and more of a whole picture. I see another organization (USET) who would happily throw me to the wolves because I'm not really the right sort of person for their schemes and plans. After all, I never even made it to the NAYRC--therefore i don't even qualify as "the grass roots".

It seems to me that if someone is an owner, they should be that either because (a) they are trying to make money off the horses (yes, this is pretty unlikely), or (b) because they love being involved in the sport and love owning a nice horse. Owning horses to create power and force allegiances is not an honorable reason to do so.

wtywmn4
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:33 AM
Ah but Heather, money does equal power. Whether in this sport or others, sad but true.

You wrote that for you, the sponsorship of Leslie doesn't do much. But thats the point, if there is to be sponsorship, it won't be all incompassing.

Heather
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:41 AM
true wty, but at least I feel that with broader based sponsorship as is being pursued by AB and Host and USA Eq, there MIGHT be some sort of trickle down to my level. With such narrow sponsorship, there is NO chance.

I guess it's a matter of having some hope, versus no hope.

DMK
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:
(Yes, this language is harsh, but it's meant to point out the perception of the general public--we have no underdog stories in our sport, and this is HURTING us in the PR department).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Totally off topic, but we have LOTS of underdog stories in our sport, we just don't have the PR department to spread the word. I know that 4 of the 5 jumper riders in the last olympics (Margie, Todd, Laura and Nona) crawled up that ladder on their own, and did not have personal wealth or any serious backers until well after their talent was established. Ditto for Aaron too. Maybe Lauren too, I just don't know enough about her.

OK, maybe it isn't quite the same "underdog story" when they are at the top of their game and at the Olympics, But it would have been an interesting story to talk to all those riders about HOW they are succesful in a sport that requires money. And I know there is another up and coming rider out there right now who is making a name riding tough horses in the smaller circuits like Aaron did five years ago. Who is he/she? Let's hear about them!!

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:52 AM
is not the reason these people support our riders. If that is what they wanted, there are sure easier and MUCH more visible venues for them to give to. Can you say politics??

I only know Jane slightly and that was a LONG time ago. But I can speak for the owners I do know, the Butlers (deceased) and Harry Gill. HG LOVES to own horses, go to shows, and yes, win. He enjoys the whole horseshow thing. So did the Butlers. That is why they continued to attend shows well into their 80's, when they just as well could have chucked the whole thing.

Why is it that you think today's owners, including JC, are different?

And I don't for ONE INSTANT think that any one of you, if offered the same opportunity, wouldn't JUMP at the chance and never look back. And there isn't a thing wrong with that, either.

It is a rare rider who isn't pursuing goals of some kind, at some level. For some, it is riding internationally. For some, it is going to a local show every weekend. For some, the goals change, up or down. But for those with the highest goal, the Olympics, in mind, who are any of us to deny them the pursuit of, and, hopefully the achievement of, that goal? It doesn't have to affect you personally; it isn't your goal. But why would you not wish them well on that pursuit?

Horse showing at this level is expensive. Period and no alternatives. Even our very best riders simply do not have the financial wherewithal to afford the quality of horse it takes to be competitive. So, the wealthy patrons of the sport are valuable to these riders.

And I DO care if we win medals, preferably gold. This nation is too good at this sport to settle for less.

Laurie

Glimmerglass
Jul. 17, 2002, 08:59 AM
Heather, I don't disagree that by and large most everyone's daily riding and competition is removed from the upper echelons of being a USET member.

However on that particular topic of a WEG or Olympic team I'm really hard pressed to think of anyone who making the team who isn't extremely skilled. Additionally, few are what I'd call wealthy - they make good money but we aren't talking anything better than say a top surgeon could.

Look at the top 10 of the showjumping rankings - I don't see anyone who is a trust fund baby. Margie has made millions in her career as a rider but that money is poured back into riding and princess is the last thing I'd call her. Todd is the same with money invested right back into buying more young horses. Leslie is old friends with Jane but I don't see her traveling to show via a LearJet and limo. etc ..

Those are the people who are going to represent the US in international competition. The people who have the talent and desire to win - not the rider who has everything handed to them because of a name/status.

Portia
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:12 AM
Can someone show me where anything in this thread is an indictment of wealthy people who sponsor riders and horses in general? Someone asked a question: what is Jane Clark's role in the NGB dispute. That question is a legitimate one, if the behind the scenes role of one individual has deeply impacted the conduct of the dispute.

However, that question has nothing to do with Harry Gill or any other wealthy sponsor or donor, and none of the posts questioning Ms. Clark's use of her money and power to directly influence the USET's actions ever suggested it did.

If we are going to reframe the debate from Ms. Clark's specific role in the NGB dispute to the merits of having wealthy sponsors in general, then let's acknowledge that change and not confuse these two very distinct issues.

I don't see where anyone said that wealthy owners and sponsors are bad people or are unappreciated. If anything, we would like to have many more of such sponsors, individual and corporate. Where the role of certain individuals becomes relevant to that issue is whether the current structure of the USET and the concentration of power in a very few individual donors has hindered the expansion of the sponsorship base beyond those few individuals.

[This message was edited by Portia on Jul. 17, 2002 at 03:14 PM.]

Heather
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:16 AM
To clairify: What I have seen when i have been "out in the real world" talking to non-horse people about our sport(s) most average people don't grasp the difference between being a trust fund baby, and having a big name sponsor. Yes, many/most of the current team hopefuls have gotten to tehir station in life by virtue of their skill/hardwork. However, to the average person, even the average horseperson, the fact that they are where they are is due to money (to purchase the fancy horses, to pay for the trips aborad and the show fees, etc) and in their eyes, no matter their history, it DOES NOT make them an underdog.

In the average person's eyes there is a difference between Jill Henneberg making the Olympic team on her $900 OTTB and fighting her way along to that level, and Leslie making the team on some horse that her sponsor bought her for six figures (just kind of makin gup the last part, I know verylittle about Leslie's horses or their realtive prices--just using it as an example). It doesn't matter to them that 20 years ago, Leslie was a kid like Jill, making her way on talent and a prayer--she hasn't been that kid in a very long time.

Does that make more sense?

I guess I feel this way because in my job I deal primarily with the "other" horse people--the backyard horse owner, the occaisional schooling show participant, the kid with a breeding unknown pony in the backyard. These are the people whose "butts should be in the seats" as the saying goes, but they feel very disconnected and unwanted from this upper level process. They don't feel like they can share in the national pride of a medal--they feel like that is a whole 'nother planet from themselves. And yes, I blame the big/old money, boys club atmosphere for that disconnect--not a person in specific, but the atmosphere that has been created. And these are horse-lovers--imagine the disconnect between the general public and where we are coming from.

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:26 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>As long as J.C`s itinerary is to get rid of A. Balch as USAEq Pres., there will never be an
agreed upon settlement. Do you think all those USET folks she financially supports would
go against her and kill the golden goose???
Right from the moment A.B. WAS NOMINATED. she has conducted a behind the scenes
campaign to oust him.That fact is the real hidden agenda behind this entire debacle.
REMEMBER---"FOLLOW THE MONEY"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes, I perceive this as trashing JC. And I'm not sure where the perception that she is the ringleader to ousting AB comes from. Proof? It is my understanding that he is unpopular with a LOT of people on the USET end of things.
Laurie

Peggy
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:29 AM
canyonoak made some very good points

I don't think that having money, wanting good horses that are on the team and serving on a board makes someone a bad person. What I object to is when a person uses a position of power to exert undue and unfair influence or harm others. Doesn't matter whether said person is a CEO, priest, or head of an organization involved in picking international riding teams. And I'm not saying anyone necessarily has done so here--I simply don't know enough about Jane Clark to know what the truth is.

But you definitely need money to compete at this level and at least some of it comes out of the owner's or rider's pocket. A friend told me that she spent something like $15K to go to Festival of Champions (from CA) and a dressage rider pulled $35K out of his own pocket to go to the PanAm games on top of what USET/etc. gave him.

"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton, in a letter to Bishop Mandell Creighton, 1887.

wtywmn4
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:31 AM
Heather education allows them to feel pride in their teams. Letting them know what it took for the Leslie's, Margies to achieve their success. That sponsors didn't make them, they had to prove themselves. Did you as a child understand what it took to be on the team? I sure didn't. Just loved horses and riding, period.

Portia, there are many slams on this thread concerning a few people who currently are USET. Who vested dollars in this sport before any of the NGB was an issue. Many have worked with them, and know that all thats being said is not fair.

Many factions, east & west have become increasingly unhappy with the current leadership of the USAE. It is not just one person who wants him out.

Sparky
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:33 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ohnowwhat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
(inc. one who uses an honorary title inappropriately)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Thank you--thought I was the only one in the universe scratching my head over that one!
/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Portia
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:41 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Lauriep:
Yes, I perceive this as trashing JC. And I'm not sure where the perception that she is the ringleader to ousting AB comes from. Proof? It is my understanding that he is unpopular with a LOT of people on the USET end of things.
Laurie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Laurie, what you quoted is a criticism of Jane Clark, individually, and of her role in the NGB dispute. It does not address wealthy owners and sponsors in general. The point I am trying to make is that they are two different subjects and need to be recognized as such in this discussion.

wty, I never said it was one person who wanted AB out as USA Eq president. I'm well aware it is not. I'm well aware there are many people with USET who would like to see him thrown in a deep well and forgotten forever.

What I object to on this thread is the distorted perception that if one questions the actions of one wealthy sponsor, or two or three, that it is somehow a criticism of all wealthy sponsors. Rich or poor, every person is an individual and should be judged on his or her individual actions.

[This message was edited by Portia on Jul. 17, 2002 at 12:51 PM.]

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:41 AM
if you didn't read these boards and know better, and if you were the type of horse owner that you describe, would you really have any idea where these riders get their horses, or how much $$ is involved? If so, how?

When you watch the competitions on TV, as I assume the backyard kid does, $$ other than the prize money isn't mentioned. Why would the average person think anything other than "Wow, I wish I could ride like that/have a horse like that?"

I'm not sure I can make the assumption that people are disconnected because of this. We simply are not a horse-oriented nation (sport wise). There are just too many other sports out there.

And the millions of NASCAR fans? Do they feel disconnected because they know they can never have the $$ to afford a stock car? No. And why? MArketing. And that is the crux of our problem with lack of spectators. We need a cohesive, superbly managed marketing plan to get our sport into the public eye.

And it will take years.

Laurie

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:44 AM
Then we will have to agree to disagee in this instance. I don't see it that way. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Laurie

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:44 AM
What is the difference between Jeff Gordon, Jeff Bodin, and other NASCAR drivers and our elite riders? Nothing. Until those drivers proved they could get the job done, (no doubt on the bush league circuit)no one was putting them behind the wheel of million dollar race cars. Same with our elite riders.

Returning to the topic at hand, I seriously doubt one person is/was capable of stirring this big a caldron. It would leave little time for anything else.

DMK is spot on again. MOST of our highly visible, highly sucessful riders ARE underdog stories.

Heather
Jul. 17, 2002, 09:53 AM
Laurie, I don't know where, exactly, the perception/disconnect comes from. I just know when I am corresponding with/talking to these people, there is that perception.

I get emails all the time from kids who say, i'd love to ride in the Olympics but I know I never will because I'm not rich. I get emails from adults who say they don't relate to people "whose horse cost more thant my house." These people say they don't go the local hunter/jumper show (or dressage show or event or what have you) because they feel like it's anything that would welcome them or be of interest to them. "It's a totally different world" is what I hear A LOT.

Education will help, sure, but that implies we can get them in the door TO educate. At the moment, I don't see that happening.

What is needed, I think, is to bring the horses back in to focus--in theory (and I'm sad to say I find this debatable from time to time) we are all here because we love horses. We need to get rid of everything that blocks this tennet from reaching "the people."

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 17, 2002, 10:03 AM
Why don't you try to set the record straight with these children of whom you speak? Who knows, you might encourage on of them, providing they have the talent, to be another Katie, Leslie, Todd et al.

Instead of fueling the trust fund/princess fire, why not research the truth about the humble beginnings (for the most part) of our top riders.

Portia
Jul. 17, 2002, 10:05 AM
Ok, Laurie. Agreeing to disagree is good with me. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

On the trust fund princess perception, we've made a lot of missteps in this sport in that regard. Remember the notorious Allison Firestone fundraising letter from a couple of years ago? How could the marketers behind that not see that a letter begging for money signed by a young woman from an extremely wealthy family who has had the best of everything every step of the way in the horse world and can easily afford to tour the world with her horses on her own, however nice and talented she may be, was not be the right spokesperson to ask the general public for donations? That's the kind of disconnect that makes people cringe.

Heather
Jul. 17, 2002, 10:13 AM
Ok, one more and then I'm outta here--I try to avoid these threads because they become a "he said, she said" back and forth thing that sucks me in like a black hole! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

I DO do my good little soldier duty of telling the kids there is a chance, lots of the top names were once kids like you, etc. andything is possible with hard work, etc. I'm nothing if not encouraging and educating, and I'm aware of the history and share it.

But you want to know my dirty little secret? I'm not sure I really believe it any more. Oh, I won't tell the people I talk to that, I'll keep fighting the good fight. But, deep down inside, I fear the days of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are gone. I hope fervently that I'm dead wrong, but I've not seen many positive signs lately.

OK, I'm out.

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 17, 2002, 10:20 AM
Reading this thread is verrrrrry interesting.

People seem to jump to Jane Clark's defense who have no problem with other's trashing Balch for HIS contribution to the sport.

And the other way around.

Each person makes a different kind of contribution to the sport.

Is it not absolutely clear now that the USET made a big mistake by trying to pin all it's troubles on one person? The Clark defenders and the Balch defenders both seem to agree that no one person can be so powerful as to control a whole sport.

So much effort was spent to get Balch that it is now only in response that others look for the origin of that -- and bingo, another name comes up, Clark's.

Just look back at the evidence on this thread -- this whole thing was started by Jane Clark not being able to control who became the next president of AHSA when she didn't want Balch there. Just look at the letters on the USAE website from way back.

Now she controls USET policy through her giant donations and guaranteeing their loans, but she cannot control the law or the sport or Balch, and neither Balch or anyone else can control Clark, or her donations, or anything else she does either.

We hear from Balch all the time. Isn't it strange that we never hear anything from Clark? She's a big wheel in USET and in the FEI, I think. It looks like she resigned from the boards so she could claim not to have an interest, even though she is pouring the money into USET and her paid people, and lots of them are on the USET board to do what she wants them to. They don't dare cross her or else they lose their $$$ support. I wonder how much of the USET big money comes from people other than Clark?

If Portia is right when she said that the arbitration is going to be in public, this should be some show. Can't wait to see THAT evidence!

lauriep
Jul. 17, 2002, 11:17 AM
I'm not sure where your information comes from, but as far as THIS JC defender, I have no quarrels with AB, don't know the man. But several people that I DO know that know him do not think well of him. But that is them, not me. I do know AL personally and for a long time and have never known him to be anything but truthful and as honorable as anyone else.

What I think we should ask is are we certain that everything that the USAEq is putting out there, in the interests of being open and forthright, is actually everything, or just a well-run campaign to build the PERCEPTION that you know everything they do. Not at ALL saying this is the case, but something that I keep in mind while watching the action. I don't think something is necessarily true just because everyone here thinks it is. None of us are true insiders, I don't think.

I also believe that we should stay far away from the personalization that seems to keep coming back, and stick with the issues and facts as much as we know them.

Laurie

poltroon
Jul. 17, 2002, 11:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Heather:

But you want to know my dirty little secret? I'm not sure I really believe it any more. Oh, I won't tell the people I talk to that, I'll keep fighting the good fight. But, deep down inside, I fear the days of pulling yourself up by your bootstraps are gone. I hope fervently that I'm dead wrong, but I've not seen many positive signs lately.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

In the current climate, where it costs so very much money to have a horse at all, where riding opportunities for people who don't own are disappearing at a rapid clip, where you can't even really get experience unless you get to shows in the first place, all the "success stories" are going to be either:
- Kids who come from families with six-figure incomes (who still have to work their tails off to come up with the money to show)
- Kids who are related to horse professionals

I hope Horses In The Hood is able to meet its main goal of a facility in Watts. I think it would be of tremendous benefit to our sport, as well as to the kids.

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 17, 2002, 01:03 PM
LaurieP, I agree that this should not be personalized. I think I have made that point over and over again.

So to be even and close that out, several people that I know also know Jane Clark, and do NOT think highly of her. They don't think highly of Armand Leone, either. You say that the people you know don't think much of Alan Balch. I have a feeling that we can all find a lot of people who don't think much of just about anyone we can name.

The point is that it is meaningless what people think or do not think about others.

What counts is the evidence. What the letters say, what the board resolutions say, who voted for what, out in the open. I think a lot is now out there for us all to see, thanks to the internet, and to USAE for putting it up.

Personally, I tend to lean toward the organization that is disclosing all this material, not the one that clammed up and stopped talking. What do they have to hide?

vineyridge
Jul. 17, 2002, 01:17 PM
I don't know any of the folks, but it's pretty clear that both personalities are polarizers, and they are at opposite poles.

Seems pretty clear that both believe they have the best interests of US horse sports in mind and will fight to the death for their own version. I'm sure that the USET folks believe they are saving what was a successful program from being ravaged by the iconoclasts.

Where are the folks who aren't polarizers? Where are the schmoozers, the massagers, the folks who don't set people's teeth on edge? Maybe purged from the USET, but where are they in USAEq?

I don't have a really clear picture of the goals and objectives of either group--well, both want to win medals regularly in world competition, so I guess that would be the goal of each organization.

I, too, would like to raise the level of discussion from the competing people involved to the competing plans that are proposed.

wtywmn4
Jul. 17, 2002, 02:02 PM
Sorry Portia, my paragraph wasn't alluding to anything you said, concerning east/west etc...Just making a generalized point.

Semantics play such a part in what we see here.

Lauriep says it so well. Lets agree to disagree. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I will say one thing, people whom I have spoken with are very tired of it all. They don't want to hear, or know whats happening. Just want it to go away. Which is in itself, sad. No matter who wins, we've already lost. /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

canyonoak
Jul. 17, 2002, 03:54 PM
<<......
I'm not sure I can make the assumption that people are disconnected because of this. We
And the millions of NASCAR fans? Do they feel disconnected because they know they can never have the $$ to afford a stock car? No. And why? MArketing. And that is the crux of our problem with lack of spectators. We need a cohesive, superbly managed marketing plan to get our sport into the public eye.>>


Which is exactly my point.

MARKETING.

SPONSORSHIP.

MANAGEMENT of the entire world of horse sport as one cohesive, marketable commodity...is the ONLY way horse sport is going to ever become more that a few wealthy owners getting thanked for choosing our sport for their tax write off and warm fuzzy feelings upon winning.

I am not singling out any owner(s) or patron(s) or discipline(s).

(Although you have to admit, JC's new fascination with reining is a bit, ah, out of the blue??? )

In any case...if NASCAR or Rodeo depended on a few welathy owners for everything, they would probably be in the same sorry state of horse sport--and probably were, once upon a time.

It is now time for the next step.

One cohesive industry. Corporate sponsorship. TV. etc etc.

I am old enough to remember when NO ONE wanted to watch two people hit a ball back and forth over a net.

At least not on TV..sponsored hours of TV...

and for so long as horse sport is perceived as a world of a wealthy few supporting a few less wealthy...our horse sport is indeed going to stagnate as a useless pond.

OK..my metaphors are taking over..but you all know what I mean.

We are at a crossroads. I want to go on to a road where there is inclusion, cohesion, mass marketing. More money and power...only some of it, as pointed out, trickling down.

I dont see the problem,frankly.

Rich owners will still get tax writeoffs, support riders of choice, reap the rewards and benefits.

They just wont control the sport.

Hmmmmmmm....

Duffy
Jul. 17, 2002, 03:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by ohnowwhat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
(inc. one who uses an honorary title inappropriately)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I couldn't BELIEVE it when I saw it - and more than once!

"I can justify anything!"

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 17, 2002, 04:08 PM
sans the Vanity Fair slant.

mbp
Jul. 17, 2002, 04:34 PM
A few completely non- Jane Clark observations and opinions.

First:

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> We simply are not a horse-oriented nation (sport wise). <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I would have to disagree - once upon a time stats indicated that horse racing was the #1 spectator sport in the US - times and numbers may have changed, but my gosh - LOTS of people have LOTS of horses - just not as concentrated in the FEI disciplines as some other countries

Second:

Marketing efforts often, IMO, go wrong when the concentration is too much on the riders. Not to say that stories like Michelle Gibson are not deserving of and should receive a huge focus, but what do you think catches the eyes, ears and interests of non-riders? People stories? Maybe a little. Horse stories - oh yeah, you bet, a WHOLE LOT! Give the color commentary not on when this horse was imported and where the rider lives, but on things like - her is Jumpshighalot. He starts everyday at a show with a jelly donut [pics of Jumps with his donut - preferrably being given to him by a cute kid] He is not the only horse here with unique culinary interests - the Calif. horse Jumpswhenhehasto won't take a drink away from home without his Koolaide... etc. - get the drift? A digital screen pic of Jumpsalot eating his donut during his round. A montage of , I think it was Shelly Francis???, the dressage rider whose dogs used to jump on the horses rump and lay down there....

Those are the stories that get non-riders interest and get them hooked. We are so interested in making stars of the top riders that we forget first to make stars of ALL the horse - that's what people want IMO - as someone surrounded through life by non-horsey family and friends.

Final comment then I'll quit. Yes, we need marketing, BUT

more than marketing

we need Infrastructure.

If we don't build it will it matter if they come? Where are the lesson barns, the inexpensive starts, the 4-H shows with Olympic discipline classes??? How come every county has a 4-H center, but some whole areas of the country don't have a riding stable that offers instruction to beginners in hunt seat, dressage or eventing? What do we need to support an infrastructure revolution? IMO - these are the most pressing questions as barns are being lost to developers, trail riders and race horse trainers.

One more time.

If we don't build it will it matter if they come?

DMK
Jul. 17, 2002, 05:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Marketing efforts often, IMO, go wrong when the concentration is too much on the riders. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What a great point. Only the die hard fans know who Penny Chenery, Lucian Lauren and Ron Turcotte were. The WORLD knew about that big chestnut horse and fell in love with him. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Racing sure has figured out which star needs promoting! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

nutmeg
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:45 PM
How many people just read mbp's post and found it to be a complete breath of fresh air? Great ideas we can run with!

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 17, 2002, 06:51 PM
Amazing what one hears at a restaurant in Virginia.

Did you know that when Jane was president of AHSA she appointed Jim Fairclogh chairman of the Driving Committee? The same professional she hires to buy and train her driving teams.

She appointed George Morris the chairman of the Jumper Committee for years, and she had him buying her horses for her at the same time and helping Leslie Burr.

Then there was Robert Dover, her Dressage trainer, who happened to be the representative of the riders to the Olympic Committee, and the one she buys so many valuable horses for and with.

Isn't it odd that the Olympic discipline she does not influence is 3-day Event? That is where Jim Wofford came from, and she got him out of office so she could become president of AHSA. Just a coincidence that David O'Connor now gets kicked off the USET board for not supporting the inside agenda? Also a coincidence that Eventing does very well the last couple of Olympics without Jane controlling or supporting them? That is also Denny Emerson's discipline. What happened to Denny at USET? Just asking.

Let's see now. Who is the chairman of the USET Driving Committee now? And the USET Jumper Committee? And who calls the shots on USET Dressage? I think their names are Fairclogh and Morris and Dover.

Another thing too. Those AHSA Executive Directors when Jane was president there. Bonnie Jenkins and Eric Straus. Standish now out, Jenkins now in at USET. Straus leaves AHSA and then goes to work for (you guessed it) Jane Clark, and now is an officer of USET.

Well, it is all probably just a large coincidence. Sort of like connecting dots in a straight line right to the end of the rainbow.

LaurieP, you asked where I got my information. Interesting how many people know these things and read these boards and are talking about them at dinner these days.

JDufort
Jul. 17, 2002, 07:17 PM
In eventing, it seems you can make it via hard work and lots of family support.

two young riders currently ranked in the top 10 nationally, both headed for NAYRC, started together at a simple "pony barn". Did a bunch of local schooling shows, got tossed off lots of ornery ponies, learned to ride anything and everything. paid for the privilege of hanging around the barn as pre-teens by cleaning stalls and covering pony birthday parties. first "own" horses were green and cost under $3,000. by early teens began to train under an advanced eventor, and quickly moved from Novice upwards. Next horses cost (gulp!) just a bit more than $10,000 - still green, but athletic. Both now are riding intermediate and planning the move to advanced this fall or next spring (as 18 year olds). Both have Olympic dreams.
both families have two working parents - and the net income of one parent basically covers the riding. its a family choice. and its a joy to support talent and hard work.
so - are these kids privileged? of course. are they super rich, or funded by the super rich? absolutely not.

what I want to know is - how do we build a vision that brings corporate sponsorship into the sport to create a pathway towards international competition for our most talented, dedicated riders? because the next step for our young riders is a very big one, and it will take much more money than one working family can manage. I am thrilled to see that dressage has created a European tour for top Young Riders, and I hope we can manage one for eventing soon. and the NCAA involvement in equestrian sport also has the potential to bring opportunities for developing young riders, especially if it migrates to the Olympic disciplines (as is under discussion). The key to the United States competing successfully on an international level is to create opportunities for young riders with talent and dedication - widening the pool of competitors will strengthen us.

Weatherford
Jul. 18, 2002, 11:45 AM
Hmm Albemarle - email me and reveal yourself.

I have had more than a couple people compliment me(or not) on my new alter, and since it is NOT me, I am curious as to your identity.

But, of course, you can remain anonymous, that is fine, and probably safer. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

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

Glimmerglass
Jul. 18, 2002, 12:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Albemarle Cty:
Amazing what one hears at a restaurant in Virginia. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Luckily when I go for dinner I am not preoccupied with the lives of other people for whom I hold such contempt.

When it comes to the appointment people, logically would anyone disagree with the underlying actions: I mean if you want someone on the driving committee are you going to appoint the guy who services the boilers at Gladstone? Ok, bad choice ... hmm how about the head manager at Burger King, right? I mean are we just looking for a warm body or a qualified individual?

Jane has entrusted perhaps millions of dollars in horses and equipment to people who are proven leaders in their discipline. So if you had to assemble a group of people who should have some of the best insight ... who are you going to pick?

I am not saying I like all the people she's appointed - in fact a few I dislike - but like anyone in such a position to appoint anyone they'll choose proven winners.

poltroon
Jul. 18, 2002, 12:34 PM
Presumably she thinks these people are the best in their discipline, or she wouldn't sponsor them. It would be stranger if she selected someone she didn't elect to sponsor/support in her horsey dealings.

But, that's independent of whether others, even a majority of others, would make the same choices, or if an omniscient entity would agree with her assessment. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DMK
Jul. 18, 2002, 12:59 PM
I don't know if you can make much hay out of who she picked to head up the various disciplines. Jane Clark isn't the first person to pick people she knew and had history with to run point on her biggest operations.

That just described damn near every CEO, President, VP, Director and Manager in this country. People almost always pick a known, trusted entity to work for/with them given a choice. How often do you see a new CEO come in and eventually replace some department heads with people he has worked with in the past. Ummm... ALL of them that I have worked for so far. Been the recepient of that methodology once or twice, myself.

The issues arise when they are blind to that person's weaknesses in the position, but that is a whole 'nuther discussion. I can't speak for the management ability of the three people named, but they were not without an acceptable resume to qualify for the job regardless of who they had worked for in the past.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Portia
Jul. 18, 2002, 01:00 PM
My understanding is that Jim Wofford voluntarily resigned the AHSA presidency because it turned into a full time, non-paying job and he needed to make a living and spend time with his horses and students. It was a sad day, since he is such a wonderful horseman and gentleman.

One thing I hope comes out of all this is that the president of the NGB will get paid a decent salary, so the position can be opened up to a broad range of qualified individuals.

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 01:21 PM
That was my understanding too, and I think this should remind everyone here that a lot of what is written here is hearsay or rumor (not talking about the documented items) and is then repeated as fact and it gets out of hand.

Laurie

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 18, 2002, 01:47 PM
This all seems to have suddenly touched a nerve.

As near as I can tell, nothing I said was wrong at all, except that I don't really know for sure if Jane Clark got the opposition together to Wofford staying as AHSA president or not or opposed him staying. I guess others will straighten out anything wrong on all the connections I heard from personal knowledge.

I think the point is that with all the successful people around horses, the small connected private club part is what bothers a lot of people the most. If the people who train and ride and buy for Jane are so far and away the best, and the other people who work for her are the only people who could do the jobs that is one thing. Last I checked there were lots of other successful and respected people around who could do those jobs also.

Isn't there some conflict issue here? I think the committees do all kinds of rule things and selection things and budget things, and to have all these connected to one person with big donations and appointment power connected to the purse strings is questionable to say the least. It just might explain a lot of what is going on was my only point.

I don't know why someone would think I suggested she appoint people from the Burger King unless she thinks everyone else in the jumpers other than George Morris belongs at the Burger King. Aren't there just a FEW other people in his league?

IMHO.

Snowbird
Jul. 18, 2002, 02:24 PM
We can wrangle over details, we can hassle each other over concepts, we can whine about disclosure versus silence BUT..the is Conflicts of Interest

Disclosure (public information) prevents an appearance of impropriety. Yes! It is perfectly logical that someone like Jane Clark with her experience would select who she believes is best to govern a sport because she has already indicated her prefernces by supporting their activities in a big way financially.

Are there other people who are as qualified or maybe even better qualified that could do the job, sure there are. But, they may not know either Jane Clark or Finn Casperson and, whether it is deliberate or not there is an appearance of impropriety when the same person who donates the money has an influence on who gets the subsidy, and who gets to play in the games.

I believe that Wofford resigned because there was a general opinion at that time that the Office should be without pay. He was the first to bring up the subject and I think almost everyone at that time agreed it was not a job that should get paid because it had never been a job that should be paid.

AB was willing to take it on because he had spent 30 years working on Planning Projects for the AHSA and didn't want those projects abandoned. I think this job was up to now always done on the same basis as those who used to volunteer their services to the US Government for $1 a year as an effort of "community service".

Actually, I think in the beginning AB was Jane Clark's choice for the office of President. The idea was that the President should not be paid so he could not be influenced by anyone on the Board of Directors who might have other interests and intimidate his job performance. The Executive Director was actually the CEO.

So the real issue is full disclosure and oversight of the records to make sure that everyone does have a fair chance.

I believe when Jane Clark was President she required full oversight of all the activities of the USET as President of AHSA. It is only now that she no longer believes that it necessary or needed.

Weatherford
Jul. 18, 2002, 02:43 PM
You beat me to correcting that point!

It is very important to hire and pay a professional to do this job in this day and age. Someone, perhaps, who has an active interest in horses as well as marketing and fund raising skills - like a former college president or something - rather than a professional in the horse industry? That way conflicts of interest could be minimized?

Snowbird, you last paragraph is right on the money!

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

wtywmn4
Jul. 18, 2002, 02:50 PM
And you Weatherford, along with Portia, beat me, not hard to do tho. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Albemarle, if you're talking about conflict of interest, excuse me, but the entire board of both organizations has that problem. So, whats your point? Unless like Glimmerglass stated, we want just warm bodies?

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 18, 2002, 03:22 PM
I am a bit confused with this thread??? In my opinion Jane Clark & Dee Dee Matz have spent hours and hours trying to help a sport, that definately needs some kind of guidance. They both come from two of the biggest and oldest racing families this country has been lucky enough to see.The racing world ,when it was THE SPORT OF KINGS was proud of any thing the Clarkes or the King Ranch did for the good of the sport.I feel these two women have been raised and bred to understand the business.
The horseshow industry (ie: the professional??)has a business that is probably the only one in the world dealing with this kind of money ,where you need no license to hang a shingle out.Doesn't any one find that odd??? You have horse show managers running and monopolizing a sport because of the mileage rule??(they are in charge of your livelihood????)
My point being these two girls come from a background where the horse indusry is run like a business, not a private party.You have rules that are the same for everyone.If your horse wins enough money (doesn't matter where it is) you qualify for the bigger races.The riders (thank heavens) are not running the sport,people licensed with enough savy are in charge and if they do a good enough job they stay ,if not they are fired.
I don't know why this horse show industry has to be so backbiting and nasty,but it is!! Until everyone respects the opinions, the decisions, etc. etc.It is in big trouble.California grouped together and formed a west coast riders league and they look like they are doing something for the good of the sport.
This is not a popularity contest or a private party ,but a big business and it needs to be treated as that.Yes conflict of interest is a problem,but stop it at the bottom from the hunter judging on up, the politics ???Please it is a joke!!

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 18, 2002, 03:33 PM
Geez, even I agree with Portia! And I believe I have preached that exact point before. Pay the Prez!

And "lost in the fog", duh, about the conflict of interest. In our microscopic industry (by comparison), conflict of interest is unavoidable. What's the next step, legislate ethics and honesty? I might add, those few members of both Boards who may not have a conflict somewhere along the line, most likely don't because they haven't been to a horse show/event in a decade.



DMK, spot on again, re: team players.

Snowbird
Jul. 18, 2002, 04:44 PM
It was however a mistaken majority idea and I have since changed my mind. I suspect many people now realize that is true we have grown into a business instead of a participatimg sport.

I think even a paid postion will be difficult to fill because Kentucky is not the center of commerce yet. Obviously, the President will be required to reside near the headquaarters.

Excuse me! Whiskey Poppa! Raised and bred to run this sport! That sounds more like a royal assumption of the throne than it does a business reason for choosing anyone.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The horseshow industry (ie: the professional??)has a business that is probably the only one in the world dealing with this kind of money ,where you need no license to hang a shingle out.Doesn't any one find that odd??? You have horse show managers running and monopolizing a sport because of the mileage rule??(they are in charge of your livelihood????)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

All lumped into one paragraph WoW! There are lots of businesses without licenses including psychologists. There are just as many where you don't have to be even certified but be a member of some organization. No I don't find that odd because we have never established what the minimum quality of the knowledge necessary to be certified or licensed.

I am personally opposed to the concept because in my experience there are just as many bad tradesmen
licensed as there are good ones who would succeed if the field didn't require licenses. This a service industry where the buyer decides what caliber service they need. Horse keeping and training is more of an art form than it is a science.

Horse Show managers provide a service, if you don't like the service you avoid the shows. The rules do not require you attend every show that is offered. If someone is determined to accumulate the most points of anyone that is their psychological dilemma and not the responsibility of the show manager. Perhaps, it would solve the problem if you could order blue ribbons with appropriate logos here on the Internet.

As to racing, I have just spent 4 years on the Board of the Sire Stakes which modifies harness racing at least in New Jersey. I can vouch for the fact that it is no different than any other horse sport. It is in a decline because the tracks cannot attract on site bettors. It is torn by the fact that the stallion owners want to be able to ship semen so they can make the most amount of money possible from their stallions. Qualifying the animals for competition is just a nebulous and difficult as for our events. The dozen or so top horses want the right to compete everywhere so they can win as much money as possible and complain bitterly if by virtue of their success they are prevented from competing in even the lower string races. Yes! They say they are being "Penalized for Excellence". Does that sound familiar to anyone?

YES! Conflicts of Interest are a major problem, there are rules to control it at the bottom and at the judging level where blatant situations have been identified. But, we have not enforced any at he top, it's time!

Eliminating any Conflict of Interest is a matter whose time has come.



!

wtywmn4
Jul. 18, 2002, 04:44 PM
Duh is right Ruby, but some seem to think it's a big deal /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 18, 2002, 04:57 PM
Okay, I get it now.

According to what I see here, it is perfectly all right for people who donate big money to make decisions that they are directly involved in. So if any individual who puts up big enough money wants their horse or rider on a team to represent the US, that is just fine.

I don't THINK so.

Then there is this idea that you cannot make rules for ethics and all that. Everyone is going to be honest.

NOT.

Why do we have laws in real life, and a RULE BOOK for our sport? Because we need them, that's why and that has been proven over and over again.

If some of the people posting here really do believe what they are saying, where were they when the drug rules got started and when people were murdering their horses for insurance money? I guess we have all forgotten that a big money father was on the USET board then while his son was riding in the selection trials. I think the son ended up in jail for what he did.

Get real. If this sport is not big enough now to have strict conflict rules then it really does not deserve to be called a sport, and that is what some of you are saying. I don't think most people agree with you though. Conflicts of interest are just not okay and all you have to do is watch TV every day to see why.

Or just think about it for a second or 2.

Snowbird
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:01 PM
But, do we need incestuous Boards that are all in business together? Should all the officials selected be employed by the same show manager. Should everyone be looking to earn their daily bread from the same pot? Should anyone who is not in business with them be excluded?

I agree with Weatherford, I really don't care who it is that donates if that person has no strings attached to the gift. But, if they want a seat on the Board as their price, if they want the trainers they trust rewarded and if they use their seat to benefit their horses and riders then we have a problem.

Weatherford
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:03 PM
Conflicts of interest recognition is in all sectors of society.

Filling out the Conflict of Interest Form - required for persons serving on the USAEq Board, officers, etc, simply means DISCLOSING those conflicts when & where they might exist. Unfortunately, some people with conflicts do not think this is necessary - others fill out the forms as required. It is the PERCEPTION of conflict that is as much of a problem as the reality.

And that ties into the whole marketing issue, not to mention trust issues.

If you look at the current Selection Committee for SJ, you would have to think hard to SEE any Conflicts of Interest, IMHO. That is a good thing. It can be done.

Meanwhile, if those who have Conflicts or potential conflicts would simply ADMIT it as a possibility, the sport would be better for it.

Jim Wofford resigned from his positions at the USAEq when he accepted the Coaching job for the Canadien team because he felt there was or could be a perceived Conflict of Interest. Our loss.

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

wtywmn4
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:20 PM
Unfortunately Albemarle you didn't get it. Sorry, must be the way I phrase things.

What I was trying to say, lord where is Merry when you need her, is that it's almost impossible not to have conflicts in this sport. It is big business and who wants someone overseeing this business who doesn't know what a horse is?? I sure wouldn't would you? Maybe its the depth of conflict we're looking at.....

And Weatherford, it was very much our loss on Jim Wofford, IMHO.

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:26 PM
Ms. Schooleys Mountain sounds like maybe she should be running the USET and the AHSA and also of course harness racing in her spare time!!! also sounds like she may be a horse show manager too!!
I think Jane Clark is ROYALTY for all she has done for the sport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You all would be smart to turn this negative bb into a positive one!!!

Weatherford
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:36 PM
I think what I am saying is we need to get the conflicts OUT IN THE OPEN - of course they are there!

But if (for example) Trainer A has sold rider(s) B (C,D,E) expensive horses then Trainer A should NOT be on the selection committee. There ARE other trainers/riders out there who are NOT in that position who can serve perfectly well (as the current committee shows.)

And, IF conflicts were acknowledged, then people WOULD recuse themselves from decision-making where it directly reflects them and their pocketbooks.

In the long run conflict of interest in the decision making process HURT OUR HORSES - whether it be the final decision - by riders/trainers/vets/owners/whomever on which horses do or do not go to the Olympics, computer list and how they work (rider lists vs horse/rider lists).

Think about it - you are a trainer who has sold a seven figure horse to a client, that horse qualifies for the Olympics, but comes up slightly lame before the plane is scheduled to leave. You have to make the decision to leave said horse behind and jeophardize your client's wrath?

No one should be put in that position! Bert & Jack could make those decisions because they were not involved as professionals in the sport.

Conflicts need to be open and declared, and people need to recuse themselves from decision making when and where the conflict is evident.

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

Coreene
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:36 PM
There's no reason at all to be rude.

Weatherford
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:43 PM
No one, least of all me, has denied that Jane's contributions to the sport have been enormous - I have posted several times reminding everyone that it was her solid stance and determination on the Insurance killings that helped us WIN that battle. It might have been a LOT tougher without her - especially given the monies involved.

However, her actions as first, president of the AHSA, then as vice-president of the USET in regards to the NGB issue, as detailed by the correspondance, give me a huge cause for concern. I do not understand what she is trying to do and why - since none of these actions are in the best interest of the sport. Unfortunately, I can only conclude what I do - that this struggle is about power and money, and I find that sad and just a little frightening.

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

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 05:59 PM
All of JC's money is NOT going to buy Leslie spot on the WEG team if her performance is not up to snuff OR if the just mentioned Selection Committee, who apparently have no conflict, doesn't invite her to participate (just an example, folks). Thanks (?) to the lawsuits we all know about, we have trials where performance is all that matters, not who you know.

So that point in your argument is without merit, IMO.

And as far as this business being big enough to find people with NO Conflicts, numbers wise, perhaps. But you have to find people willing and knowledgeable enough to do the job. And THAT is a very small number of people, comparatively speaking.

Unlike the regular business world, where your CEO may be a success with a knowledge of business, law, economics, but no knowledge of how to make cookies, or sneakers, in our sport, you must also have knowledge of horses and that very much narrows the field.

Laurie

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:03 PM
that she alledgedly wants? AB's absence? So do a lot of others. AL's absence? NOt that I can see. She has had high positions in both, so what is it that you think she wants?

Laurie

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:18 PM
As far as show jumping is concerned, the selections trials, which begin this weekend are pretty much objective. There is a selection committee; Linda Allen, Frank Chapot, Lisa Jaquin, Dennis Murphy and Melanie Smith. Their opinions may or may not effect the final outcome. However, I can assure you those five individuals don't care about anything but performance, soundness and the rider's ability under great pressure.

The point being, no one is buying their horse or rider onto this team or any other SJ team in recent memory. The only way onto this team is to jump your way there.

DMK
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:26 PM
Albermarle, nobody with a lick of sense thinks we can avoid conflicts of interest. Hell, the business world wouldn't have INVENTED the darn things if there wasn't a recognition that conflict existed. As Weatherford said, the basic requirement is to disclose any conflicts.

Lauriep - I think the general concern with Jane is that it seems when she ran the AHSA she liked that institution to have a lot of control over the USET, but when that arrangement no longer existed, it appeared that she wanted to change the game so she was in charge of the USET, and the AHSA was not. As none of us (as far as I know /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) are Jane Clark or any of the principals involved, we don't really know what the motivation was. Desire for power, true belief this was the best decision, a touch of momentary insanity, complete altruism or just a sincere desire to prematurely age Alan Balch... pick one! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

But as far as I am concerned... who cares and if you do, Dear God Why? If you have any interest in the outcome of this (neverending) battle, let it hinge on the merits of the plan each has put forth. Ten years from now most likely none of them will be in charge, and 30 years from now they may all be dead. Hopefully the plan that prevails is the plan that promotes the sport best and keeps the integrity of the sport alive for the next 100 years. Who did what to whom in which backroom and whether vaseline was involved is utterly irrelevent, if not amusing in an entirely National Enquirer sort of way.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:47 PM
DMK, only better stated. We can't read minds, I know of no one that has been confided in by any of the principals, so issues should be the focus.

Thanks for being so eloquent, as usual!

I vote for locking this one so we can move on!

Laurie

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:48 PM
with arm in air and fist clenched all the while ROTFLMAO!!! You go sister.

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:49 PM
You must be really limber!

Laurie

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:50 PM
What does Jane Clark want?

I guess we could ask her if she ever went someplace where someone could ask questions of her out in the open. So we know that is one thing she does not want. It doesn't look like she approves of all the openness ideas, since AHSA has been opening up more and USET has been closing down more and more.

So all we have to go on is what we can see in writing and that is her letter from way back that I think was put up, that was when this whole back and forth started.

If I follow it right, nobody even knew how this NGB thing started at the time. It seems that the AHSA president who was out of office for a couple months started saying to the USOC that the organization she ran for many years was all of a sudden not what it had always been before then. The bankroll went away from AHSA and went to USET it looks like at the same time. I think AHSA had term limits.

So it looks pretty simple to me.

She just wants power and influence and putting her people in to where she wants them to be. She wanted to stay in power and couldn't in the AHSA.

It is probably also just as important what she does not want. She probably does not want people she does not like or respect in those same positions or to be able to have independent power or influence from her people. She thinks she knows better than those other people do how things ought to go.

In thinking this all through, I guess there is nothing wrong with what she wants or does not want unless you think the sport ought to be a lot bigger than the old small connected private club deal.

It just seems to me that this is a clash between two different ways of looking at how things should be done, open and wide or smaller and private.

IMHO.

DMK
Jul. 18, 2002, 06:58 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
DMK, only better stated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's the clever use of the word "vaseline" that makes that whole post work so well. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Ruby-Em - I agree with Laurie. Remind me not to challenge you to a game of twister. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:06 PM
Last time I looked, Jane Clark's name was no where on any list of Officials, Trustees, etc. at USET.

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:07 PM
My, my, my, do we have an ax to grind?

She used to be at the horseshows all the time. Ruby, yd, what is the status now?

AC, do you attend the shows that she would attend, considering the horses she owns?

Laurie

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:16 PM
I am with Laurie!!

2Dogs
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:17 PM
All I know is that I pay my dues year after year and like many if not most dues paying members of the USAeg, I sure as hell want my little but consistent voice represented. This is not a fiefdom for the the biggest contributor, for god's sake. What I have read tonight makes me think this horse business is still in the middle ages: you have the castle owner and then the serfs.....shame shame

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:22 PM
Don't judge too quickly. There is very little of anything other than supposition, innuendo, and little fact in this whole thread, which is why it isn't right to see JC vilified.

Most of the big owners are very nice people who love horses, or have a desire to help good riders achieve their goals.

Laurie

wtywmn4
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:27 PM
Here, here lauriep. I vote with you on locking this down and moving on!

Albemarle Cty
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:30 PM
are just not in the know like Lauriep and her friends.

These last few posts show just what the difference is in outlook. There's them insiders that's in the know and then there's all the rest of us. The rest of us need to be thankful for Royalty to take care of us and tell us what to think and who to listen to.

I guess that does pretty much sum it all up come to think of it.

Snowbird
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I think Jane Clark is ROYALTY for all she has done for the sport!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You all would be smart to turn this negative bb into a positive one!!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Was that "for the sport" or "to the sport"?
Seems to me it depends on which association she cares about.

Are you saying we'd all better stop seeking information and depend on what her Highness chooses to permit? OR ?????

What has she done for you lately?

lauriep
Jul. 18, 2002, 07:39 PM
and that is why, again, I feel it is unfair to judge JC or anyone else when we cannot possibly know what motivates anyone.

What motivates you to become a member 4 days ago and jump into this? JUst curious...

Laurie

ohnowwhat
Jul. 18, 2002, 08:30 PM
Goodnight all. Sleep tight ..... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Snowbird
Jul. 18, 2002, 08:51 PM
Hmmm! It figures

bonfire
Jul. 19, 2002, 04:40 AM
While Wofford was USET "Developmental Coach of the Year", Emerson was USET V.P. for eventing, and O'Connor was winning Olympic gold, silver and bronze medals, the 3-day team was far and away the most successful of all USET Olympic disciplines. The 3-day people accompplished EXACTLY what the USET charter mandates.
Yet, because those 3 individuals would not knuckle under to Clark. Casperson,et al,and vote to get rid of Balch and overthrow the AHSA as ngb, they were kicked off the USET Board.
Doesn`t that just make you hope that the USOC makes the USET the national governing body?

buryinghill1
Jul. 19, 2002, 05:45 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
You must be really limber!

Laurie<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

lauriep
Jul. 19, 2002, 05:50 AM
carefully guarded that key! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Laurie

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 19, 2002, 10:31 AM
No offense, but have any of you been to the Kentucky Horse Park lately???? Eventers,show jumpers, dressage????The Jane Clarks of the world have made this all possible.
Being 'OMINOUS'(exhibiting an omen/ or foreshowing evil)as Ms. Schooleys Mtn. calls it, is ridiculous.
Read Denny Emerson's article about recognizing the owner!!! Maybe this is the problem with our sport ,only the ones bred into it understand about giving back!!It is too bad that they are getting trashed for trying.

buryinghill1
Jul. 19, 2002, 10:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by WHISKEY POPPA:
The Jane Clarks of the world have made this all possible.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely. But some owners get a leeeeetle too involved with managing the events, controlling the governing body and the outcome of the competitions. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif
I would love to have The Butlers behind me, or Andrea King, or Michael Golden, or The Nissens, or countless others.

Thinking back to L.A. 1984. If Sue and Terry Williams hadn't given their dressage horse to Debbie Shaffner, and then sent him on to Conrad, that silver medal might have gone to Switzerland with Heidi. And Touch of Class might have gone off to be a junior jumper. Jane Clark wouldn't have sent the weird back-up mount for Leslie, The Dolans would have kept Albany for Debbie, and The Windrush Syndicate might have sold Lyps long before his time was up. Yes, maybe some owners have gotten a little too controlling. Others just paid their bills. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif
This post of course was yet more unrelated drivel from yd. Oops. Steer! Get back on course! Back to your regularly scheduled topic...

[This message was edited by yd on Jul. 19, 2002 at 02:02 PM.]

Caruso
Jul. 19, 2002, 10:54 AM
Absolutely right!

There is at least one owner who prefers anonymity, however... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Portia
Jul. 19, 2002, 11:04 AM
I have been to the Kentucky Horse Park recently, and on several occasions in the past. It is a public facility owned by the State of Kentucky, and it was the vision of Jim Host and many others in Kentucky years ago that made this wonderful center for horses and international level competiion in all breeds and disciplines possible and brought it to fruition.

I'm not aware of any connection between it and Jane Clark, however. Now, Jane Atkinson and Equestrian Events, Inc. have been very important to its development, including their remarkable development of the Rolex Kentucy 3DE into one of the 4 most important eventing competions in the world.

As for the idea that "only the ones bred into the sport know about giving back," that's a comment I strongly disagree with. Yes, many of them do and are wonderful. But I don't believe for an instant that having that kind of heritage is either a guarantee that such a person will give back or a prerequisite to generosity of time, energy, and money. Are you saying Sheila Johnson doesn't know how to give back simply because she's self-made and wasn't born and bred into the horse world but chose to become a part of it? Or Dr. Bernard Salick? Or any one of many other such people?

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

[This message was edited by Portia on Jul. 19, 2002 at 02:16 PM.]

mbp
Jul. 19, 2002, 11:21 AM
YEAH JANIE (Atkinson that is!!!!!) Talk about someone who had done oodles for the olympic disciplines!!!!

Re: Jane Clark - I applaud several of her activities (applause!!)

However, what I think is at the core of the concern about "conflicts" is not whether the appointment she may or may not make are competent. Instead, it is that with respect to the USET (as opposed to USAEq) there is no recourse for the sporting base at large.

It is one thing for Jane Clark, as an elected, for a term definite and then subject to running again, President of USAEq to appoint buddies. As long as they do a good job, fine, if they don't Jane can lose her re-election and new appointees will ensue.

It is somewhat different to have these close ties in an entity like the USET that is not subject to any membership vote. So, when the USET as an entity that is pretty much lopsidely loyal to one party, seeks to grab control as NGB, and there is no membership oversight through elections, this issue concerns many people much more so than it would given appointments within a membership governed entity like the USAEq.

Does that make sense?

When this possible scenario is coupled with the veils of secrecy re: accounting issues and the disturbing financial and related revelations that have come out re: the USET, people get more upset. The concern is not that Jane Clark isn't entitled to appoint people in whome she has confidence, but rather that the NGB will not be an entity that is accountable primarily to one person and not subject to membership oversight.

It is a typically American reaction - people want to have the right to have input (whether they exercise it or not) /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif It is kind of like an administrative agency, that has been solely APPOINTED by one head executive, trying to take over our ELECTED government. It makes people nervous and reactionary.

At least, that seems to be the crux to me.

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 19, 2002, 11:27 AM
What I am saying is after you read the list of people that have donated wonderful things to the Ky.Horse Park and other horse facilities and venues ,we should all be very thankful.I am by no means doing anything but thanking Sheila Johnsen,Nina Bonnie and on and on for every donation no matter how big or how little.I am just stating that some of the founding families have been doing it for generations in the world of HORSE.I feel they should be respected.Respect is something there is a bit of a lack of in this horse show industry.
By the way Portia there is a list of small to big donations the horse park would be very interested in getting.They as you know have put in a great new ring that needs more landscaping.They are also hoping to build a bigger indoor where the WCF could be held, all of this needs funding. So any donations would be much appreciated.If you are interested you can contact Nina Bonnie in Louisville,Ky.

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 19, 2002, 11:59 AM
There is a very long list of patrons of The KHP, the Va. Horse Center, Devon, etc. Those state "funded" venues such as Ky. and Va. are by no means totally state funded. Of course, both of those state facilities present an opportunity for charitable donations, in any amount. As does the Red Cross, your local library, you local University, etc.

That said, I hear (I think) where Whiskey is coming from. I believe Whiskey is trying to point out that we should be grateful for those donors who can afford large monetary gifts and who, like Jane Clark, choose to gift non-profits related to a sport they love. Do we hear the Baseball Hall of Famers complaining?

If I were in their tax bracket, I too would be looking to donate to a non-profit or charity of my choice as opposed to funding Uncle Sam's $345.00 toilet seats.

buryinghill1
Jul. 19, 2002, 12:07 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:

If I were in their tax bracket...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like Peter and Nanc Doubleday
/infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

JulieMontgomery
Jul. 19, 2002, 12:16 PM
"So goodbye, dear, and amen...
Here's hoping we meet now and then,
It's been great fun
But it was just one of those things...."

Glimmerglass
Jul. 19, 2002, 12:24 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
Do we hear the Baseball Hall of Famers complaining? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just Pete Rose ...

buryinghill1
Jul. 19, 2002, 12:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
Do we hear the Baseball Hall of Famers complaining? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Shoeless Joe?

mbp
Jul. 19, 2002, 01:35 PM
I thought Cole was the one who said:<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> It's too darn hot <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Beezer
Jul. 19, 2002, 04:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ruby G. Weber:
That said, I hear (I think) where Whiskey is coming from. I believe Whiskey is trying to point out that we should be grateful for those donors who can afford large monetary gifts and who, like Jane Clark, choose to gift non-profits related to a sport they love. Do we hear the Baseball Hall of Famers complaining?

If I were in their tax bracket, I too would be looking to donate to a non-profit or charity of my choice as opposed to funding Uncle Sam's $345.00 toilet seats.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That's a HELL of a tax write-off. /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif Might as well make it for a nonprofit you enjoy participating in. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Like many others have said, I, too, don't begrudge people supporting their favorite charity. But I stop far, far, FAR short of worshiping at their feet. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

I'm a cynic. I know this. But those of you who honestly believe that ANYONE contributes to ANYTHING without some thought of getting something back for it (whether it's their name in the paper praising them for their good deed or the "purchase power" such a donation gives them or just a really hefty tax write-off) need a hard half-halt of a reality check.

I don't know Jane Clark from Adam. I know OF her only through pictures of her horses in magazines and what I've read about her. I don't think she *personally* needs to be drawn and quartered. But no matter how much you want to crown her for being so generous to the sport, just remember: Ain't nobody ever given something for nothing.

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

Snowbird
Jul. 19, 2002, 07:43 PM
The USOC was created to prevent special interests from monopolizing any sports activity.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>just remember: Ain't nobody ever given something for nothing.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right and there's no "free lunch", but that's why every Non-Profit is required to have members of the Board sign a "Non-Conflict of Interest" Statement.

We can be grateful and appreciative for an actual donation without strings from a sincere patron but it has to have no peception of possible rewards. No one on the Board or a Trustee is supposed to derive any personal benefit from any of their actions.

The structure should be that the money can be earmarked for a discipline, but then that person should not be able to have any influence on the choices in that discipline.

Perception is everything, and wise people who want a lot of patrons have to make sure that there is a correct perception. It may be that these people are well intentioned and honorable, but the silence makes it seem as if that may not be true.

khobstetter
Jul. 20, 2002, 12:16 AM
/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif
And I think I am going to need it... OK...Armour up !!!!

Unless you have spoken to Jane Clark herself it is absolutely unfair to make a bunch of pot shot statements at her.

SHE is not the problem here..it took alot more than ONE person to get us into this mess....

At some point we need to stop taking personal potshots at people we have never even spoken to.

She has been an important part of our Teams. Period, end of subject....!!!

The problem we are in now is one of long making....many decades have gone into this mess and the decention between USET and AHSA. Many many people and policys have come and gone before Jane Clark ever came on the scene.

She has an ulterior motive and something she wants and it has NEVER wavered....not even now with so many people swinging the hangman's noose in her direction.

She wants to see good horses go to good competition..... AND SHE WANTS TO SEE THEM WIN !!!...of course she would prefer the winners were hers...BUT she loves USET and AHSA and wants to see the USA Teams win...she always has !!!

BUT !!! By golly you guys..you would want that too !!!

SHE does not make the selection criteria, SHE does not pick the Team, SHE does not "pay" her horses way onto the Teams.....THEY HAVE TO QUALIFY JUST LIKE ALL THE OTHERS !!!!!!!!!

Far above the fact that she wants to see HER horses win is the fact that SHE does not want to be humiliated by a bad one being there when it doesn't belong there.....NO MATTER WHO OWNS IT !!!

She runs with the "big dogs" and they all want the same thing...for Heavens sake ...she is willing to stand there and take all this crap everyone is throwing at her...

YOU GUYS !!!!! This has been decades in the making....

We need to STOP saying and posting nasty, personal things about people we do not even have the nerve to pick up the phone and call..

Yes she is a "public personality" BUT give it a break...

Someone has to stop with all the "what was and what is and what THEY did and what SHE did and what HE did and what HE said and what SHE said..

Can it be us..can we stop just rolling all the crud around and get positive and create threads with ideas.

Can we be a positive force and stop with all the "yes BUT" posts.???? I for one believe change is good, although sometimes very difficult.

For all this hassle, I can hardly wait to see what the good Lord brings us as a NGB...if we all survive !!!!

OK....I am waiting for the first "Yes, BUT SHE..." response to this... Go ahead, bring it on...

I have on my coat of armour !!!!

Ouch, that didn't hurt, Yike, that didn't either, oh my that was close.... I can feel the cannon balls flying thought the air already...

/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Ruby G. Weber
Jul. 20, 2002, 05:39 AM
Is there room inside that suit of armor for moi?

ohnowwhat
Jul. 20, 2002, 06:41 AM
Who in the world wrote that script for you?

Hickstead
Jul. 20, 2002, 07:00 AM
As frequent lurker, and infrequent poster, I would like to mention that the only people I see bringing up the subject of anonymous donations are the USET supporters. The other side responds, but without fail, that is all they do on that point! .

Is someone paranoid or are they trying to deflect attention from the real business - which include financials, managment, conflicts of interest (real or perceived) and power.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Snowbird
Jul. 20, 2002, 08:32 AM
Yes! and when you are a public personality everything you do is the stuff of controversy. The first decision anyone in Jane Clark's position does is make that decision to be out in the open and up front in any cause.

Once you make that decision you are then grit for the mill of public opinion. It's even more important to dot your i's cross your t's and avoid any possible taint of a conflict of interest.

No! we are not required to be grateful just because someone is financially generous to any good cause. We can be appreciative if that person does not gain any personal benefit from the donation.

Times are changing, the days of the oligarchy are past, numbers have taken precidence. The numbers are the members. If the USET could get that message then this would be over in 5 minutes. Patrons ended with the Middle Ages and sponsorship is here.

I personally don't give a twit about any of the "personalities". Certainly, just as Alan Balch or Armand Leone are not totally evil people neither is Jane Clark. Indivdually these are sensible and sincere people, collectively they don't seem to be able to solve any problems. It's the system which permits such preceptions to be pervasive that needs to be changed. USET needs to learn that they can't keep secrets any more.

If they had told everyone that they were simply responding they wouldn't have created the preception they were playing dirty tricks. If Jane Clark was not not in any position to pick the people whom she supports to be on the board, there wouldn't be any conversation.

The truth is out there and it is only with full information that you end suspicions and speculation. We will know soon! The court papers will be public record and we will know just exactly the case is that's being presented the sooner the better.

khobstetter
Jul. 20, 2002, 09:41 AM
Snowbird...

Your post..quote...."If they had told everyone they were simply responding they wouldn't have created the preception they were playing dirty tricks".

I assume you are speaking about Jane Clark, Armand Leone and USET...

OK....HERE GOES AGAIN...!!!!!

I listened to every single painful word of the July 9 meeting..from the start to the finish.. I am an AHSA/USAEq supporter and a way back friend of Alan Balch...

Do you know what...did you hear something I didn't??? Did you have earphones that worked better than mine????

NO ONE FROM USAEq EVER MENTIONED THAT ALAN HAD JUST FILED ANOTHER LAWSUIT WITHIN A COUPLE OF WEEKS OF THAT MEETING !!!!!!!!! NO ONE DID .. NO ONE DID .. NO ONE DID !!!!

There was absolutely NO mention at that meeting that USAEq (Alan Balch) had done that..not a single little tiny word !!! The meeting was advertised and touted as "the" meeting for weeks prior to that. We were all told to "listen" !! We were all told that EVERYTHING WAS ON THE TABLE AND OUT IN THE OPEN !!

NO IT WAS NOT !! No one told this membership that there was a fresh new lawsuit against USET and that USET would be responding within days (according to the court deadlines). NO ONE !!

So...do I believe USAEq was "hiding something" ??? Do I believe USAEq was playing "dirty tricks" ??? Do I believe Alan Balch was trying to pull a fast one and file a lawsuit and not tell anyone ???

NO !!! I believe Alan Balch was doing business to the best of his ability..I believe Alan Balch was truly from his heart doing what he thought was best by filing the suit...I believe Alan Balch had great reason in his own mind for filing that...AND I believe USET was appropriate in their response..

I believe it is not my position to ASSUME and post that he and USAEq were, to use your quote for the same thing.... "If they had told everyone they (had filed another lawsuit) they wouldn't have created the perception they were playing dirty tricks"...USAEq did not tell its membership about ANOTHER lawsuit THEIR PRESIDENT had filed..

All of the pot shots at EITHER SIDE can just about be slung back..... AND ITS NOT APPROPRIATE OR PRODUCTIVE to be saying stuff like that....

Your position that "IF USET WAS OPEN AND HONEST" can be sent right back the other way.

In this simple line of 5 or 6 posts, the stuff being passed about USET swings itself right back smack into the USAEq lap of leadership.... USAEq should have told the membership at their wildly publicized "listen in" meeting that they were taking another legal action AGAINST USET that will cost $$$....they didn't.

So what !!! Let the legal system play itself out but to continue to post stuff about USET that is finger pointing and pot shots does not help the situation...

Alan should have told us first... and there would NOT be the lengthy threads here pointing the finger at USET for "suing USAeq" and the rotten timing of July 9th.AND

Ruby..come on it but I think its a little warm/hot in here and I think the armour is about to get some dents...

Hickstead...definately NOT paronoid about this and not trying to deflect anything. I had questions and I went straight to the horses mouth..(haha, get it !! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif) You get better information that way and it helps to understand BOTH SIDES and not PICK SIDES... they (USOC) will do what they will at this point according to BOTH SIDES actions so its better left to them..IMHO !! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 20, 2002, 10:05 AM
Knobstter PLEASE keep up the GREAT WORK!!!
Good thing Jane Clark rescued Leslie from Schooleys Mtn.!!! Hee Hee!!!

DMK
Jul. 20, 2002, 12:15 PM
Actually Khobstetter, I don't know where it was reported, but I knew the USAEq had filed the challenge in June after the USOC letter was opened. And since I do not know any of the parties involved, we will have to assume I a) hallucinated the event, b) am psychic or c) read it someplace. I think we can safely rule out b, but "a" could be up for grabs.

As for perceptions about dirty tricks on EITHER side... please... /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Lawsuit. Countersuit. NO BIG DEAL. It is business strategy, and they are entitled to pursue a strategy that they believe is in their best interests. Whether we think both sides should run around and hug and love each other and go forth tossing rose petals to a happily ever after ending doesn't have much bearing on the real world. They have different goals in mind, and each side will pursue them to their best advantage. This is where is starts to be like a chess match, only now the game has a timer on it. Manuevers are still part of the game.

But now that khobstetter explained the purpose of the suit/countersuit, it's even a smaller deal. It was obvious they were down to a few minor - yet key - differences in plans. It's obvious that if there is a desire on both sides to continue discussing the plan, they can do so while this other issue is on sidebar in the courts. It happens all the time. If all we are really discussing is who can see anon donor identity, fine. Let the courts resolve it, structure the new organization around the decision and go on with life. It only gets to be a big deal when all the chicken littles of the world start squawking.

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

Albert Einstein (1878-1955)

Snowbird
Jul. 20, 2002, 12:19 PM
Actually it was her Momma that helped me find and purchase the farm here on God's Mountain. Leslie learned how to be as great as she is when she leased our barns for her horses.

This is a great place to get to better than you thought you could, Thom Brede had his first job here as a groom, Doc Rost broke 2 year olds for the Hardy's here. Sharon Hardy now Cole grew up in the same bedroom as my daughter and Steve Hawkins remembers showing ponies here.

This mountain has a tradition for cultivating rugged individuals capable of independent thought and great talent. And, when they're strong we send them out to save the world.

WHISKEY POPPA
Jul. 20, 2002, 03:24 PM
You of all people should be singing Jane Clarks praises!!! For the sake of the mountain!!

Snowbird
Jul. 20, 2002, 06:05 PM
Please explain to me why I should praise Jane Clark? She isn't God is she? I thought God was a man and he built my mountain. If I'm wrong please enlighten me.`

Peggy
Jul. 20, 2002, 08:55 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by khobstetter:
She wants to see good horses go to good competition..... _AND SHE WANTS TO SEE THEM WIN !!!_...of course she would prefer the winners were hers...BUT she loves USET and AHSA and wants to see the USA Teams win...she always has !!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This reminds me of something about which I have always been curious. Why did Jane Clark--and others(*)--qualify and send a relatively inexperienced Metallic to the 1996 Olympics? There were other, more seasoned and experienced horses in the trials that could have gone if he didn't. Robert Dover who rode Metallic admitted after the competition that the horse wasn't ready(**).

(*)although Ann Gribbons was (is?) Metallic's owner, she "leased him to Robert Dover under the sponsorship of Jane Clark." (Knoll Farm web site (http://www.knollfarm.com/About%20Us.htm))

(**)"Dover struggled the most, posting the lowest score of the day (124.75) aboard Metallic. Dover said the horse wasn't ready for Olympic cometition. 'This isn't the way I wanted to finish the Olypmics,' Dover said. 'This has just been such an extraordinary eye-full for him. in the first round, Metallic listened to me just enough to get by. I'm shocked we even made it to the Special (test).' The inexperience of his horse had Dover contemplating whether or not to compete. 'Had I thought this out all over again, in all probability I wouldn't have competed,' he said. 'I'm proud of the bronze medal we won as a team, but I'm not proud of making a horse ride before his time.'"(August 1, 1996 edition of "The Rockdale Citizen" (Conyers, GA newspaper)

khobstetter
Jul. 20, 2002, 09:14 PM
Peggy...my suggestion to you is that YOU pick up the phone and ask her yourself....

Hindsight, expecially 6 year later is rather a nasty subject to bring up.

**Why did Todd Minikus raise such a tizzy about the last Team??

**Why did George throw such a tizzy about the Teams we fielded in Europe when the planes went down???

**Why did we send Touch of Class to the 84 Olympics when she had NEVER in her life jumped a course that big??

**Why in the good Lord's name did ANYONE think Abdullah was ever going to jump all the jumps at the Olympics with his history..??

The answer.....SEEMED LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME !!.

To sit back and be a Monday morning quarterback, especially 6 years later smacks of taking pot shots at Jane Clark again.

Besides...what does that have to do with the price of butter in this kitchen?????

For every nitty, picky little question and pot shot at Jane Clark and her horses...there are usually about 20-30 about someone else and another owner and another trainer....

My answer to you question, especially after reading your post...

WHY DIDN'T DOVER INTERVEEN ON BEHALF OF THE HORSE????

Because Metallic qualified ABOVE the other horses and it seemed like the best thing to do AT THAT TIME !!! Period...they are not the only ones in history who had looked back later and wished it was different...

Look at the words you quoted from Robert Dover...for heaven's sake he felt bad and I'm sure everyone else did too.

Why in Heaven's name would you bring that up now, in this situation, other than to take a shot at Jane Clark...

GEEZ...let's not relive every bad decison everyone has made for eternity...let's let Metalic, Anne Gibbons and Robert Dover keep what ever dignity thay came back with alone.

And have YOU always made perfect decisions you have never regretted with horses....ha...not a chance.. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Peggy
Jul. 20, 2002, 10:28 PM
KHobstetter - I brought it up only b/c of the part of your post that I quoted in mine.

I don't think that I'll call Jane Clark; my question was more for group discussion than anything else. But, I will go for partial credit by answering your last one to me. Have I ever asked a horse to do something above it's level? You bet--unfortunately. However, never with that many people watching nor at that level of competition. Does that make one more right or more wrong? No. But, fair or not, those in the public eye get noticed more. And, in my opinion, when you "represent" your country in the Olympics you are doing just that.

Snowbird
Jul. 21, 2002, 10:15 AM
If you are trying to be the voice of samity and logic that you would have posted logic instead of a tirade against someone.

Remember the mission is: No bitch slapping, your rule! That is supposedly the purpose of your posts.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The answer.....SEEMED LIKE THE THING TO DO AT THE TIME !!.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That my friend is not an answer that should be the question and slightly rephrased:

To Whom and WHY did it seem to be the right thing to do?

The point is that the USET claims success as it's right and justifies it's challenge. Therefore any decisions which were less than stellar are on the table for discussion.

I wonder if anyone has calculated the number of wins before they declared independence to the number of wins after they became independent.

SGray
Jul. 22, 2002, 08:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by khobstetter:
......Someone has to stop with all the "what was and what is and what THEY did and what SHE did and what HE did and what HE said and what SHE said..

Can it be us..can we stop just rolling all the crud around and get positive and create threads with ideas.
...........
OK....I am waiting for the first "Yes, BUT SHE..." response to this... Go ahead, bring it on...

......;)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


alright: here're my "yes, but"s

yes, but, it was the uset that filed the challenge; USA Eq has simply defended it's (longtime) position as NGB.

yes, but, according to the laws of New Jersey (under which the uset is incorporated) the Trustees of a non-profit MUST be allowed access to the financial records of the organization. A trustee requested access, was denied access, and then went to court to have the laws enforced.

yes, but, The Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act of 1978 requires that any given NGB handle any given sport from the bottom to the top (an NGB cannot start handling/regulating at the international levels).