After 30 years in this sport the protocol is silence and agreement with the judgement of those "in charge". I was at the convention, I attended every forum and not once did SS try to engage me in dialog to find out what I was thinking.
I do agree the TS and LL did give me that courtesy. As members we ought to assume that those in charge know better than we do and they will take care of us.
\"in the wind, and rain, looking for the sun..................\"
Jaime, I think we would all like things to be pleasant. But sometimes, we need to stand up for our convictions. These topics allow all of us to discuss, read and become better educated. In many instances, we learn what is actually happeneing within the sport we love so much. What has happened or is happening to, people many of us know professionally is outrageous and unacceptable. Thank goodness for Snowbird and Portia for keeping us apprised. Sorry to be so long, will step down from my box now [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
With that, I look forward to reading the letters Snowbird you mentioned.
Vicki - for what it is worth, that is the most unprofessional interview I have ever read/heard/seen.
I am not the heirophant of graciousness, but I think a truly gracious interview-ee would have avoided naming names like the plague. Also, making the "self-serving" comment was . . . pedestrian. There had to have been a more gracious, indirect way to indicate she thought your motives were self-serving. That's what separates the good speakers from the poor. The former can kick the legs out of opposing arguments without directly making an ad hominem attack. SS made herself look small, not you. Keep up your war against the system. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]
What letters ?? and what articles ?? I am getting the impression that SS Dissed you Snowbird.So whats new about that Snowbird you are in a very big group if she has.But what letters or articles ?If it's the Towerheads one I cant get it to download so I cant read it.
SS makes a huge effect on the horse business and she deserved a ton of respect. She will say exactly what she's thinking, that's just her. Maybe people should look a little past her attitude and a little more at the message. She has horse shows ranging from huge to tiny, "A" to unrecognized. Both types are great for her area providing something for everyone in Buffalo to start a horse or qualify for indoors. People don't go to her shows for her personality, because everyone that goes knows just how it will be. She is great for the industry and great for her area, no matter if people like her or not.
but jabprincess was kind of right... Been there done that, and know SS and alot of others like her---they add color to our world....
OK, I'm going to state my point... I used to show excessively on the "AA" circuit, and then some... Even went to Snowbird's pad to get my last Medal or Maclay. This business is VERY old, and has been of the ol' boys club for MANY years... It's not going to change overnight, but it takes strong opposing forces like SS and Snowbird to make it work....
I don't think anyone would take away the contributions SS has made to the industry. But how can you take atitude away from the message? It was delivered with attitude and as you say, she calls it as she wishes.
I know plenty of people on the West Coast who make similar contributions to the industry. Some have attitude, many more do it with manners and grace and get an equal result. You may choose to go to the SS shows because they fill a need and I won't judge because I don't live in NY. Given the choice, and I am lucky to have one, I go to the shows where the management produces a desirable, well, run event with NO bulls#%! from the managers. I work too hard for the money to show my horses to give it away to a manager that doesn't treat me with the same respect and courtesy that I treat them. There's always another show.
\"just remember this my girl, when you look up in the sky, you can see the stars but still not see the light.\" -The Eagles (song by J. Tempchin/R. Stradlund)
First we're talking about the interview with S.Schoelkoff that's published on Towerheads.
Second part the letters are from Zone 10, I haven't gotten the letters up yet because I've been jammed and I'm going up to bed and crash.
The letters are wonderful because it is a letter from Peggy Fackrell to Larry Langer as a Member of Zone 10 complaining that she doesn't approve of the merger with WCE to the extent that they as a "Zone" have mandated a $3.00 per horse fee for shows that want to offer Zone Awards.
The response is from Larry Langer basically telling her that she is no longer and approved person. There are also Financial reports from the Benefit show showing about a $6,000 net profit and the Zone Show with another $5,000 net profit yet that income is not reflected in the financial report to the AHSA from Zone 10.
These will be published on our "unfettered" USHJO website. I use that address because it is not my intention to use this media for personal advertising but simply to publish information I think is useful. And, I wouldn't want anyone to think I did it to drive traffic to my own web site.
As to SS I am quite certain that in reaching for a reason why someone would not agree that "they" the NHJC are better equipted to make these decisions and that "me" a lowly member is just jealous. That is not an unusual defense when someone chooses to not look at any possibility that their personal opinion is flawed, and they have an inflated view of their position.
I agree that KK did an interesting job, while trying to stay professional when he diverted the attention of SS from her obvious pleasure that she has control over Drugs and Medications rules to the NHJC members.
As I said above, I too run horse shows, from schooling to A Rated. So I am not unfamiliar with the system. I am not interested at all in discussing the quality of the shows that SS runs or her ability as a show manager, that is totally irrelevant. The interview was not with SS as an exhibitor, trainer or show manager but as an important person in the management of the NHJC.
I am therefore more than happy to discuss my opinions of the NHJC and their effectiveness. I am also very much opposed to their lack of democracy and the lack of representation from the zones of all types of members who compete for whatever reason at all shows, thus, the proposed Revisions to the BY-Laws of the NHJC.
While I am so pleased and happy that so many are beginning to think for themselves, I was very disappointed that a prominent member of "MY COUNCIL" to which I am forced to belong and which is supposed to represent me never took up the problems which the rule changes tried to address.
I also felt that while Dolores Swann has given many hours of her time and spent many years on various committees, she and I have no relationaship in our approach to the "establishment". She takes her positions from having been invited to be on committees while mine are from someone never so invited or considered. We therefore are not speaking from a similar place although we may agree on many problems.
LL said over an over on the NHJC BB go write a rule change or shut up and let us do it all because we are hard working volunteers. Well, the financial reports indicate this might not be so clear as to how much is without any compensation. So, we took his suggestion and wrote 10 rule change proposals.
LL who was then Chairman of NHJC said that was the route to take. SS and TS seem to feel that rather I should personally have called them privately so they could tell me why what I seek was impossible.
I on the otherhand have this old fashioned idea that a "Service" organizaton such as NHJC is not in charge but rather there to serve my requests and interests as well as those of all the other members. I thought they were supposed to filter and focus the problems referred to it by the members and then find solutions.
If you do not even identify the problem and if you do not consider the proposed suggestions then how can they (NHJC)determine that the solutions are unworkable just because they didn't think of them.
Surely, even SS couldn't believe that all these proposals were written just because I'm jealous and self-serving, at least not if she had even read them.
My point is very simple while the NHJC was a well conceived and well intentioned concept it has gone awry. It needs to be totally re-structured to properly be representative and not continually perpetuate all the same people with all the same interests until they either die or retire.
While the AHSA still has oversite I trust they will correct the situation. SS seems to believe that the NHJC is already an independent association, it is not. It is simply a committee which is subsidized by our membership money.
I cannot imagine any reason why anyone who is an AHSA Member would ever want to pay $30.00 more so they can get a decal, membershipo card etc.
I hope the AHSA will not make the same mistake with the NHJC that they made with the USET in permitting them to be autonomous in 1998.
[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 04, 2001 at 12:21 AM.]
I have heard that the decisions have been made for those charged because their horses tested positive for the use.
I have heard that they all got off with a crack on the knuckles. No suspensions just the owners who footed the bills lost all their ribbons and awards.
Does anyone know more? If this is true then I don't think I can be very proud of the job done by those who influence increased levels of chemicals that alter performance. Nor, a hearing committee that let everyone off the hook.
I'm sorry to say I still remember the press release of Dr.Lowe who said there was no similar situation in any other discipliner for outside contamination of horses.
My other question is if medicating horses to alter performance on otherwise sound horses is not permissible why is show management required to provide containers for medical waste items. Certainly, if vets are perdorming these duties they know how to dispose of medical waste.
So, while Ms Schoelkoff and others are very proud of the job they've done. Unless, there are more details to justify it, I don't think I agree it is a good job well done. Rather than deal with the issues of medicating they seems to be wanting to deal with ways for those trainers not to get punished when they get caught.
Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> I agree that KK did an interesting job, while trying to stay professional when he diverted the attention of SS from her obvious pleasure that she has control over Drugs and Medications rules to the NHJC members. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Snowbird, I think that statement is not a lot different from SS using the term "self serving" about your goals in her interview... Tough for us to know anything about her pleasure in being on that committee, obvious or otherwise...
I also thought that her call to have vets who are actively practicing was a good idea. And given the sensitivity of the ELISA test, it is probably a good idea to understand what happens when you give your horse a drug to treat him for some illness/treatment (dormosodan in order to do x-rays/ultrasound, for instance), and it shows up in trace levels 4+ weeks after administering it. It makes even more sense to clearly define what amount of an acceptable drug is considered trace verus performance altering.
I also agree with her that if there is a perception people are being targeted with the testing, then you MUST address that issue, whether it is based in fact or not. Life is a lot like Marketing - Perception IS Reality.
The one thing I found interesting was her statement about the AHSA committees and AB. If I read correctly, she said that AB would not have anyone on a committee that didn't attend the convention or the meetings. Then made the statement that he kicked off anyone that didn't agree with him. I read this as an almost "cause and effect" relationship, although I am not sure that is how she meant it.
Given that, I can only guess that this was a poorly presented statement on behalf of the interviewer, or the interviewee needs to understand that in this day and age, that is pretty standard practice for a functioning committee. I promise you, if you are on one of MY committees, and you do not attend, you will not be long for my committee. This is a fairly common trait of committees that would like actually produce work product. Most people in business today have at some time in their life, been on the other kind of committee. Everyone I know agrees they are a waste of good oxygen.
I just now got to the the interview and I think she took a pot shot at Snowbird.
I find SBS and Snowbird a couple of opinionated pains in the butts (<sigh> guess it takes one to know one)but I think she fired a shot across Snowbird's bow.
I tend to think SBS's opinion on the D&M situation to lean to the benefit of the pro and not the horse.
Perhaps if she was always diligent in doing the right thing, I would have more respect for her.
I have no doubt that I am a royal pain in the butt to anyone who keeps their head in the sand and hides from the truth.
So while we may agree to disagree at least you have entered the dialog. I'm happy so long as people start thinking about issues whether they agree with me or not.
I admit I can be terrible nag when people take credit for upping the quantities of permissible drugs because the tests have gotten so sophisticated that they now can find a tiny bit.
I really hate this whole concept of outside contamination so that people can be absolved of responsibility. I resent the new formula whereby the owner can be punished by losing their awards and points but the trainer skips happily through life as a coach instead.
If a horse has a physical problem that can be documented by a veterinarian then I am in favor of these being card carrying horses with their permitted dosages printed and public with it's special card.
I see no reason why there is so much effort put into learning all the receipes for cocktails for the poor horses instead of training the horses. And if a horse has a mental attitude that needs adjusting it should be done the right way or no way.
The point is that I disagree that the group of "horsemen" who formed a committee to fight the conservative recommendations of the Veterinary Committee should be proud of what they accomplished. I also think it was wrong of the NHJC to give them $10,000 for their advertising the need to use drugs.
How in the world do we as sportsmen who put the welfare of the horse first, justify demanding the right to use supplements that are mind altering
drugs. Is that really something You would be proud of?
I really get very angry with people who pass rules which will favor specific groups in not favor other groups and then say they did it for the benefit of the horse.
Because we are first of all a Riding School we get those horses after they have been abused and after they have soured and no one wants them anymore. We have to pick up the pieces and then rehabilitate these horses so that they will again trust people.
Most of them have totally lost confidence in any rider. So, those riders from families that will never be able to afford a $500,000 horse take these throw-a-ways and teach them how to trust again.
Can you imagine how bad a horse feels that has been medicated and drugged for years while it is pounded at an endless number of shows to pacify some rider who has enough money to insist they they must win whether they learn to be a rider or not? That poor horse suddenly, is dumped and has to get over his addiction cold turkey.
I believe that the high standards set by the FEI should be enforced for all healthy young horses and that they will all be better for it. Let's put an end to rounds by robots without pride or happiness. What I love is the definition of dressage that ny instructor taught me a 100 years ago when I was young. He said that training (dressage) was the skill of getting a horse to do under saddle what he would do from pure joy on his own. Brilliance is not achieved with drugs but with joy!
[This message was edited by Snowbird on Mar. 05, 2001 at 08:07 PM.]
Keeping in mind the caveat of 'never say never', drug use is never in favor of the horse, if it is used to get him to the ring. I remember when all this discussion first started, one of the points was to keep those old schoolmasters comfortable. I can't help but think those old schoolmasters would have been happy turned out in the field if they were too lame to show wihout drugs.
Snowbird, I understand what you're saying but please don't assume that, since I haven't commented on this BB, I have not previously entered the fray.