The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 121
  1. #101
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    AHSA Members who are automatically members of the NHJC get no additional benefits except as arbitrarily chosen by the NHJC. They can be on committees.

    But, in fact it will cost an additional $30.00 a year if you want all the benefits offered. While a
    Non-AHSA member can receive these benefits for the same $30.00. Since they are subsidized by the AHSA I should think that we would be entitled to a Full Council Membership without any additional cost, Wouldn't you?


    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Article III Membership

    Sec. 1. NHJC Membership. All current AHSA Hunter/Jumper Junior Active, Senior Active and Life members are automatically members of the NHJC. NHJC members have all the rights and privileges awarded to members in good standing by the AHSA plus any specific amenities the NHJC may offer them from time to time, which includes eligibility for appointment to NHJC Committees.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sec. 2. Full Council Membership. Full Council Members are the AHSA Junior Active and Senior Active Hunter/Jumper members (plus all AHSA Hunter/Jumper Life members) who additionally choose to join the National Hunter/Jumper Council directly. The Full Council Membership fee is $30, payable to the NHJC. (Note: AHSA Hunter/Jumper members are those who checked the Hunter/Jumper Discipline box as their primary Breed/Discipline designation on their current AHSA Membership or renewal form). Full Council Members receive all rights and privileges accorded AHSA members in good standing, plus the following:

    1. Subscription to the official NHJC newsletter, "The Council Connection."
    2. Eligibility for appointment to NHJC Committees.
    3. Listing in NHJC Directory (including the website).
    4. Membership card, decal and pin.
    5. Discounts on various NHJC activities and merchandise such as NHJC educational programs and literature, NHJC convention registration, ads in NHJC publications, NHJC official items, etc.
    6. Press releases, notices and e-mail updates.
    7. Such other amenities as adopted by the NHJC subject to AHSA approval.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

    <BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Sec. 3. Direct Council Membership. Direct Council Members are those non-AHSA members who choose to join the NHJC by payment of the $30 annual membership fee. Direct Council Members receive the following benefits:

    1. Subscription to the official NHJC newsletter, "The Council Connection."
    2. Listing in NHJC Directory (including the website).
    3. Membership card, decal and pin.
    4. Discounts on various NHJC activities and merchandise such as NHJC educational programs and literature, NHJC convention registration, ads in NHJC publications, NHJC official items, etc.
    5. Press releases, notices and e-mail updates.
    6. Such other amenities as adopted by the NHJC subject to AHSA approval.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>



  2. #102
    Join Date
    Mar. 2, 2000
    Location
    Tallahassee, FL USA
    Posts
    42

    Default

    A couple of months ago I asked what difference it would make to the AHSA if it was not the NGB. No one, as TS purports, is hanging on to the 'international stuff,' they are hanging on to the enforcement rights granted under the Ted Stevens Act which allows the NGB to suspend or sanction the 'bad apples' in the sport.

    Under the 'USET plan' the USET claims that it will not change the function of the system as it exists now--but that does not answer the question of 'delegation' of duties. USET representatives have frequently stated that they do not care about anything but the elite athletes. If the USET can't delegate the enforcement of drugs and medication rules, suspensions, licensed officials programs, etc. to the AHSA, will those functions be fulfilled by the USET itself? How?

    AHSA attorney Peter Alkalay says that according to the USOC, the USET can't delegate anything. Armand Leone says he's wrong. I guess we'll eventually find out what the USOC thinks.

    But without the rules enforcement does that put us back to the 70's but with bigger stakes? Is our 'sport' going to become the equestrian equivalent of Chicago in the 1920s?

    This is the vested interest that all of us have in the NGB status--even the breed organizations.



  3. #103
    Join Date
    Oct. 29, 1999
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    527

    Default

    My understanding from the various things I have read over the past weeks is that the USET plan would have them focus on the International level and refer the national level to a national organization, the local stuff to local organizations.

    Their plan is modeled after OTHER USA olympic sports that do allow this form of delegation. It is not sending part of the organizations duties to another, but allowing the different levels to organize those levels.

    The bottom rules apply to all and the rules increase as you climb the ladder.

    The USET plan would adopt the FEI rule book for the international level and would be able to "legistlate" at that level, but would allow the lower levels to "legislate" on their own.

    Personally, I think this plan makes the most sense for the good of the entire sport. It gives a ladder for riders to climb and legislation of each discipline handles by themselves and at the various levels.

    Anyone that has dealt this soccer, wrestling, gymnastics or ice skating would have seen a similar system.



  4. #104
    Join Date
    Jul. 21, 1999
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    11,618

    Default

    TinyTot, maybe you can answer this question (and it's a real question, not some kind of veiled challenge!). How does the USET plan address the need to deal with the mix of elite level classes with lower level events at so many horse shows and events and with the governance of those events?

    As we all know, in the H/J world, with the exception of maybe one or two classes a year in the US, the elite level classes the USET proposes to govern (GPs with prize money over of $25,000+) are classes that are only part of shows that involve days and days of non-elite or non-FEI classes. We even have shows like our Pin Oak here in Houston that are have a big money GP, a full slate of H/J divisions, and saddleseat, and roadsters.

    Add to that, the scope of the classes the NGB has to govern -- and with respect to which it cannot delegat any of its functions as NGB (rules, judges, stewards, drug testing, protests, hearings, discipline, etc.) -- include any class or competition that could concern the qualification of an individual for international competitions. In the H/J world, that is any open jumper money class that could put you on the computer list. So that makes for quite a few classes around the country.

    How would the USET avoid the "delegation" prohibition of the Ted Stevens Amateur Sports Act and the USOC Charter/Constitution in shows where the AHSA deals with licensing of officials, drug testing, protests, etc. for everything but the possible qualifier classes? Will the USET have their own separately licensed judges, stewards, TDs, drug testing programs, protests and hearings, etc. in place at each of these shows for the GP classes that can be qualifiers for international competition?

    Equestrian sports are unique in many ways, one of which is that we have the elite levels competing in the same shows with the very grass roots levels -- $100,000 GPs preceded by lead line classes. I don't know much about the organization of the sports you listed. Are they set up the same way, so one competition has classes or divisions dealing with the extremes of levels of competitors? Or are they divided up more so that the baby levels are all together in one event, then you move up and the higher levels are at another compeition? If they are like horse shows, how do those organizations deal with the delegation problems?
    "I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but why is it that a woman will forgive homicidal behavior in a horse, yet be highly critical of a man for leaving the toilet seat up?" Dave Barry



  5. #105
    Join Date
    Oct. 29, 1999
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    527

    Default

    My understanding and part of this is simply a guess based on how things are currently handled regarding the $25,000 + events.

    Currently there are additional rules that the USET requires be followed for the class to be included on the ranking list, additionally they the show must be certified by the USET to offer that class. That system is already in place.

    Currently, any FEI event, including the world cup qualifying shows, must follow FEI rules, including having the FEI panel, judges, etc.

    Those systems could easily be modified for including more events using similat standards.

    Regarding the delegation, my understanding of the USET plan in that regard is based on how I know the USA soccer works, which was one of their models.

    USA soccer oversees the international aspects.
    Under them is USA national that oversees national soccer, but not international.
    under them are the state organizations.
    under theme the local organizations.

    There are base rules for that exist at ALL levels, but they add more as you climb the ladder.

    A similar situation could happen with the equestrian

    USA Equestrian over sees the international level
    AHSA handles the national events
    each discipline handles their areas
    local organzations deal with the grassroots

    This type of plan would require the disiplines to work more with the local organziations, something that is done with just about everyone, but h/j.

    A system would be in place to encourage riders to move up the ladder and as they did they would fall more under the national and international events.

    The problem with the Equestrian, as I see it, is that for years we have become a "hobby" system, chasing points. No other sport has year end awards for earning the most points, especially at any level you want to show. In my opinion, the USET has a better way to make over the ENTIRE sport, where as the AHSA plan only wants to start fielding a team. They have not talked about how the entire system would change.

    No the USET's major concern is not the grassroots level, but they fell that there are already organizations that do that service, that would come under their umbrella and follow their rules.

    The AHSA never started out as a organization for the athletes. It was a group of shows. The USET has functioned for years for the athletes.

    Neither was will be easy or perfect, but a change needs to be made and my feeling is that the USET would be more likely to have a positive impact in the long run.

    Please realize that much of this is MY interatation of what I have seen and heard and my knowledge of the people involved based on previous dealings.

    I am trying to look at this as to which way would best serve of team and athletes?



  6. #106
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    I have been present for both presentations and you are in serious error, both groups claim the title of USA Equestrian.

    While in the AHSA Plan the USET and the AHSA would be equal partners of the new corporation if they merged in the USET plan they would be delegating in the same way that the AHSA has done only to the AHSA which would be a third level participant.
    The USET seems to believe that they can delegate the unimportant stuff like us, but in fact there was an attorney there who specializes in this type of structure and said definitely it was an equal violation whether you delegated the top or the bottom of the ladder. Armand Leone disagreed but that doesn't make it true does it?

    The total lack of interest that the USET has in the lower than $25,000 Prize classes would create a bigger problem because the USET is then required to supervise and regulate all levels down to the grassroots. The idea is that any kid in the country has to know there is a way to make the Olympic Team. I doubt there is any evidence that the USET is prepared to be concerned about that at all.

    For the past 50 years the USET has been a part of the AHSA very successfully. And, at present the AHSA is still the NGB. I see nothing to be gained by turning over the total control of this sport to a small inverted group of wealthy people who don't care about anything below their level of competition. I think it would be most effective if they simply did what they do very well and under the mantel of equality with the AHSA.

    I cannot imagine how that would improve anything and it is grossly unfair to suppose that the various breeds and disciplines do not have an interest in supporting our team within the present AHSA structure. They have been doing that for many years. Here there is a base membership of 70,000 that represents the whole country and the whole industry.

    What I see as the real villain in this is this over specializtion and separation of all the disciplines and breeds as if they didn't belong to the industry. In fact it is the combination that makes our industry very strong and gives us a gross national product that gives us some influence when it comes to research about horse illnesses through the various departments of agriculture.

    We can approach the Congress as a potent and viable industry ranking way up there on the feeding chain. Without that rank we would lose all impetous to develop the horse farm and breeding programs for the benefit of an USA horse product. We would not be able to conserve open acreage for the use of horses and the tax benefits which derive from Farmland Assessment. If for example the horse was considered a companion animal instead of a farm product we could lose everything that makes this sport financially viable. Under the USET plan I see that as a very serious threat.

    I see nothing in the USET plan that would account either for the ladder to the grassroots or increase our financial position as a sport. I think their plan might make some very rich people who don't care much because they have enough money but it would certainly destroy all motivation for the little horse farm which is the backbone of this industry. If all the other breeds and disciplines except for the International level are relegated to the 3rd rung on the ladder you will see the sport as an industry collapse and you have our sport defined only as a participating hobby.

    Don't ever forget that there are no tax rates on ice skates or tennis rackets and soccor balls. They can all be stored in one closet. I susspect that is what Straussburger was trying to say in his editorial.



  7. #107
    Weatherford is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Aug. 10, 1999
    Location
    Ireland & sometimes the US ;)
    Posts
    11,073

    Default

    was originally proposed by the AHSA in the first meeting back in November.

    Their plan was to eliminate the AHSA as we now know it, and creat a new organization that addresses all the issues and addresses them equally. That organization would put the international functions in its own branch (formerly known as the USET).

    This structure was based on what has happened in other sports, and this was proposed, I REPEAT, at the FIRST meeting. The current USET proposal is very much based on what they were given by the AHSA (IMHO) - even to the organization's name.

    Read the press releases. Notice the dates. Read the IOC information (posted, I believe, on both the AHSA & USET web sites.) Read the USOC Fact Sheet. Read the proposals (I can send anyone who is interested the AHSA presentation and other information in pdf - Adobe Acrobat - format for easier reading. You must have Acrobat Reader 4.0, however.)

    If this new organization comes to fruition, the dues and fees structure will probably change - your h/j dues will go to the nhjc and not to the ahsa - that was the point of the fee restructuring a couple of years ago - to charge people by how much of the org they use. H/J has always been directly run by the AHSA, as verses dressage & CT which go through their own orgs. With the new system, a percentage of your dues will go to the national organization, but most will stay within your discipline. Ideally, that is. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
    co-author of 101 Jumping Exercises & The Rider's Fitness Program; Soon to come: Dead Ringer - a tale of equine mystery and intrique! Former Moderator!



  8. #108
    Join Date
    May. 6, 1999
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    10,421

    Default

    Your explanation has helped me a lot, TinyTot. Whichever organization assumes the highest mantle and subjugates the other, that "system" of coordination does make a lot of sense.

    What I'm still not sure of is why USET isn't willing to function as an important "branch" of US Equestrian. Why does it have to BE "US Equestrian"? And if it were to become that, what and who would IT'S "branches" be and how would they be coordinated by it? It sounds like USET doesn't want that additional "coordination" role at all, while AHSA does. Doesn't that imply that USET's function would be best suited as a significant branch rather than the penultimate authority?

    Sportponies Unlimited
    Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
    Shameless signature plugplugplug.
    Sportponies Unlimited
    Athletic Thoroughbred crosses for the highly motivated, smaller rider.



  9. #109
    Join Date
    May. 6, 1999
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    10,421

    Default

    From COTH's report...

    AHSA:"[T]o develop economies of scale, improved funding, and a comprehensive equestrian sports marketing strategy.

    "This is not just about picking an Olympic team. We can�t separate that from all the other sports," said Olympic gold medalist David O�Connor, also an SPI member.

    USET: [C]reates an NGB for which the focus would be the development and preparation of teams and individuals for international competition.

    "The key is to maximize the ability for sustained international competitive excellence," Armand Leone Jr. told the board.

    Sportponies Unlimited
    Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
    Shameless signature plugplugplug.
    Sportponies Unlimited
    Athletic Thoroughbred crosses for the highly motivated, smaller rider.



  10. #110
    Join Date
    Jul. 21, 1999
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    11,618

    Default

    Thanks for your explanation, Tiny Tot. I do appreciate it, and I appreciate your position. I'm still left with the delegation question, however.

    As I read the Amateur Sports Act and the USOC Charter and rules, the NGB cannot delegate any of the core functions of the NGB. For the FEI-recognized horse disciplines, those functions include not only applying FEI rules for the big classes at shows but actually licensing and training the judges and officials, and actually conducting the drug testing, and actually having a protest, hearing, and discipline system in place for anything that might affect one's ability to qualify to compete internationally.

    How does the USET-proposed system work, for example, if a Big Time Rider was also the trainer of a hunter who got caught with prohibited substances in its system? Big Time Rider/Trainer gets set down by the AHSA for a year, and can't participate in AHSA sanctioned competitions. Assuming the USET rules would still allow this person to compete in the $25+ GPs, it still means Big Time Rider/Trainer can't take his/her students and horses to AHSA shows, and he/she cannot compete in any of the Open Jumper classes leading to the big GP. Wouldn't that directly affect the ability of Big Time Trainer to qualify to compete internationally, thus creating a major jurisdictional issue between the organizations?

    This is one of the practical problems I have with the USET proposed system. In horse sports, the lines between "national" and "international" just aren't that clear. So far, the USET has not, publicly at least, provided answers to these practical questions and I, for one, am waiting for them to do so.
    "I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but why is it that a woman will forgive homicidal behavior in a horse, yet be highly critical of a man for leaving the toilet seat up?" Dave Barry



  11. #111
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    I just finished reading a letter to the editor in defense of the USET plan published in the Horse of Delaware Valley.

    This letter was flushed full of illogical metaphors and examples that contrary to the intent of the author proved the lack of ability for the USET to take on this job.

    He complained for example about the poling rule which was finally passed having taken so long due to the the ineptness of the AHSA. This was blatantly untrue. I was at the convention where this issue was first brought forward. It was an international athlete who got up and said that this rule was too harsh and if this rule were passed it would simply force them all to break the rule and they would hide the facts from the powers by protecting each other. It was an international athlete that triggered the defeat of this rule years ago and it is they who kept the rule in limbo.

    He also addressed the issue of one rider and one horse in high level competition. Those Olympic level riders with a barn full of quality horses which belong to their clients would be the first to object. Certainly the objection wouldn't come from us little folks.

    He uses these arguments to show the validity of the international riders managing their own affairs, obviously, this would never be successful. He wants limtations on the cost of entering these classes where the prize money is over $25,000 but he doesn't explain how then the costs of running the show would be covered.

    It would appear he has the grandious view that some kind of subsidy for the costs will permit these riders to compete if the USET is in charge. This is not what I read in the regulations of the USOC. He did not say a word about the ladder so that every child would know that it was possible to be on the Olympic team as a reason why the USET proposal was better.



  12. #112
    Join Date
    May. 6, 1999
    Location
    Ocala, FL
    Posts
    10,421

    Default

    "...He did not say a word about the ladder so that every child would know that it was possible to be on the Olympic team as a reason why the USET proposal was better..."

    OR why every horseperson should care and contribute to efforts to field that team.

    It occurs to me that USET doesn't NEED the lower levels (financially) to field a team. They have the big-time contributors who have taken up the slack for years (and have had horse after horse after horse on the teams), so the lower levels are truly unimportant to them.

    If this is true, I hope that the USOC still has the morals to recognize that this approach is hardly in the true spirit of the Olympics.

    Sportponies Unlimited
    Specializing in fancy, athletic, 3/4-TB ponies.
    Shameless signature plugplugplug.
    Sportponies Unlimited
    Athletic Thoroughbred crosses for the highly motivated, smaller rider.



  13. #113
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,381

    Default

    Tiny Tot - thanks for your explanation - so far you have offered a more comprehensive explanation of the USET's plan than the USET has... (or at least that I have seen).

    One problem I have, is the same one Portia mentioned... delegation. As things currently are handled, those special USET rules for +25K classes are handled by people licensed and approved by the AHSA. That would clearly not be an acceptable situation under the USET plan and the delegation issues bought about by the Ted Stevens act. So we are back to 2 sets of officials at one event (or one set that goes to the trouble of getting licensed by two organizations, with what will eventually be divergent qualification standards). This would, at the very least, increase exhibitor costs (and if the extra cost is applied ONLY to those people participating in USET level events, this might be disproportionate).

    The other issue is again tied to Portia's excellent analogy about Big Time Rider. What if BTR is contested during schooling for the Friday smaller prix (commonly used to sharpen horses for the bigger USET class on Sunday) - let's say the issue was offsets. Could BTR still ride on Sunday?

    All in all, I see a lot of confusion given that riders and horses will frequently cross in and out of what would be two somewhat divided organizations.

    My biggest concern with the USET is not that they don't have a sound plan, but that they seem to offer no real comprehensive, logical thought out argument WHY their plan is better for me, Joe Exhibitor (because let's face it, the Joe Exhibitors of this world are WHY we can afford to send teams to the Olympics). Maybe I'm missing something, but I almost get the feeling that it's like "Hey, it's better because we say it is." That ain't good enough for me in work or politics, I won't make it acceptable in my hobby.
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.



  14. #114
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    Everyone wants a team that can win. There seems little doubt that the USET can do that job. So why is it so difficult for reasonable people to find a solution?

    Territory, is the cuprit, and supremacy seems to be the goal for the USET while the AHSA offers compromise. Why is it so difficult for reasonable people to compromise?

    Judging from many other threads it is clear that to go into the 21st Century we don't need a top down association that doesn't understand the attitude against elitism and doesn't comprehend that the 80,000 supporters of the USET are not dedicated to the pursuit of excellence at all costs.



  15. #115
    Join Date
    May. 15, 1999
    Location
    The top of Schooley's Mountain, NJ
    Posts
    12,539

    Default

    Published in the New York Times. All is not well in USET lands. Their future does not look very secure does it?

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

    Market Place: Lucent Tries to Sell Golf Course

    By SIMON ROMERO

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

    [This message was edited by Snowbird on Jan. 24, 2001 at 11:52 AM.]



  16. #116
    Join Date
    Jan. 27, 2000
    Location
    On Blue Run
    Posts
    1,489

    Default

    If a rider is suspended by the FEI, they are automatically suspended by their federation, usually during the same period of time. It works the other way around also.

    Also, most shows prohibit poling or the use of offsets during the show, not just the twenty four hour period before the Computer List event.

    Speaking to that, there is a movement underfoot to run all classes which count toward the Computer List under all FEI rules (not just the no poling). That would include a formal jog and of course FEI medications rules.

    The reason behind this is that the Computer List is used to pick a team for Spruce Meadows as well as other International competitions. The thinking is we need to run our qualifiers under the same rules the horse will compete. Presently, that is not always the case.

    In all of these discussions I have read alot of theory and wonder about the practical aspects of all of this.

    [This message was edited by Emmet on Jan. 24, 2001 at 12:09 PM.]



  17. #117
    Join Date
    Jul. 21, 1999
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    11,618

    Default

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

    The article says that Lucent let the USET continue to use the property. Does the USET own any of the Gladstone property, or lease it, or is it just some kind of guest?
    "I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but why is it that a woman will forgive homicidal behavior in a horse, yet be highly critical of a man for leaving the toilet seat up?" Dave Barry



  18. #118
    Weatherford is offline Schoolmaster Premium Member
    Original Poster
    Join Date
    Aug. 10, 1999
    Location
    Ireland & sometimes the US ;)
    Posts
    11,073

    Default

    co-author of 101 Jumping Exercises & The Rider's Fitness Program; Soon to come: Dead Ringer - a tale of equine mystery and intrique! Former Moderator!



  19. #119
    Join Date
    Jan. 30, 2000
    Posts
    312

    Default

    Heavy-duty audit. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]



  20. #120
    Join Date
    Apr. 23, 1999
    Location
    Rosehill, TX
    Posts
    6,983

    Default

    From this section of the above article

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

    I take it that the USET Headquarters never actually belonged to the USET? I would never have guessed that from the USET literature.
    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

    The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”



Similar Threads

  1. USET files lawsuit in NJ Court against Alan Balch July 9
    By Weatherford in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 176
    Last Post: Aug. 9, 2002, 11:28 AM
  2. AHSA Hearing Committee Results (Reserpine)
    By Portia in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 167
    Last Post: Apr. 1, 2001, 09:59 AM
  3. AHSA / USET END TALKS
    By Dru in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 282
    Last Post: Feb. 25, 2001, 11:38 AM
  4. AHSA/USET/NHJC/XYZA - Synergy anyone?
    By LindaAllen in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 102
    Last Post: Sep. 1, 2000, 12:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •