The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 141 to 153 of 153
  1. #141
    Join Date
    Sep. 2, 2005
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    12,751

    Default

    I would not assume that lots less people in the hack means that so many people are scratching. There are a fair number of people who do not hack since their horse might be great over fences but not even close to the hack winner.



  2. #142
    Join Date
    Sep. 13, 2002
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    5,051

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trubandloki View Post
    I would not assume that lots less people in the hack means that so many people are scratching. There are a fair number of people who do not hack since their horse might be great over fences but not even close to the hack winner.
    No kidding. I used to show a horse that did great over fences, but we never went in for the under saddle unless there were 6 or less entered...and then I hoped someone got bucked off! Moved like a sewing machine. But we won a lot of championships on just over fences points!


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #143
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,410

    Default

    True enough about the hack. I never bother unless there are less than 7 horses because with my old horse you had to get it done over fences or pray for that half point or some kind of wholesale buckathon. And I suppose if you hadn't actually seen my horse trot... or canter... you might wonder why I wasn't there...

    But make no mistake, I've seen horses who would get a legitimate piece of the hack that could have made the points for ch/rch ... disappear when the testers showed up near the in gate. But typically this occurs early in the show week and early in the morning when they first show up. Think "hack for the first years". Usually by the time the weekend classes roll around everyone on the grounds knows there have been testers on the grounds who could be back and make their plans according to their own personal moral code.
    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.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  4. #144
    Join Date
    Sep. 2, 2005
    Location
    Upstate NY
    Posts
    12,751

    Default

    I guess the difference is I have never assumed the testers would not be there.



  5. #145
    Join Date
    Jun. 17, 2001
    Location
    down the road from bar.ka
    Posts
    32,017

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HandyHunter View Post
    Just a quick question, what do the amateurs and juniors who are suddenly forced to scratch when their trainers see the testers come in think of having to pay the scratch fee? Do they know why they're suddenly not showing?
    Today, many circuit shows stick a flat 50 or so "add scratch fee" on your bill so you can add and scratch at will. you can't add once the class starts but can scratch whenever you want until the class is pinned.

    Trainer can also say "oh, my, Pookie is looking a little sore, maybe he is tying up again, lets take him back'. average Ammy or kid is going to think that was done in the horse's best interests, not to hide something.

    Oh, and the testers usually are not there that often. Most of the time you show, you won't see them at your show. Matter of number of shows and number of testers available, usually at any given show only one day as well, not the whole show.
    When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

    The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #146
    Join Date
    Dec. 9, 2012
    Posts
    210

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by findeight View Post
    Actually, we don't know what killed Humble, the actual COD. There is nothing in place at USEF that requires any investigation or disclosure. Nothing to protect a protester from civil suit either. It was her own Pony and therefore her choice what to disclose or not under most state laws. the Pa state police were involved but no charges have been filed.

    I am trying to keep the thread on a constructive track with suggestions to avoid a repeat and get something fairly uncomplicated and inexpensive in place for the dead or collapsed horse or Pony on the showgrounds during a USEF regulated event. Name calling doesn't help.
    I did not know the entire legal side, if I name called I can't find it in my posts My apologies!

    So one of the problems is that there is no way to investigate a death at a show? What if there was a form as part of the entry that had a small fee with it, stating that if your horse collapses or is found deceased, USEF has the right to and will investigate that death to ensure the safety of all horses involved with USEF competitions? Then the fee (say, $25) would go to a specific account used with those investigations. That would solve the funding part, and although it would not stop anyone from doping, it could at least make them think twice about doping enough to kill a horse. A $25 fee per entry should certainly add up to cover at least some of the investigation.

    Consequences of those investigations would have to be added of course... but maybe that's a start?



  7. #147
    Join Date
    Feb. 6, 2000
    Location
    MA
    Posts
    12,746

    Default

    Soory, I pay USEF enough damn fees already without having to further subsidize investigation of cheaters.
    Don't add another $25 to a fund that will do nothing because there are no teeth in the rules and no guts in the organization.
    "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

    ...just settin' on the Group W bench.


    4 members found this post helpful.

  8. #148
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kmmoran View Post
    I did not know the entire legal side, if I name called I can't find it in my posts My apologies!

    So one of the problems is that there is no way to investigate a death at a show? What if there was a form as part of the entry that had a small fee with it, stating that if your horse collapses or is found deceased, USEF has the right to and will investigate that death to ensure the safety of all horses involved with USEF competitions? Then the fee (say, $25) would go to a specific account used with those investigations. That would solve the funding part, and although it would not stop anyone from doping, it could at least make them think twice about doping enough to kill a horse. A $25 fee per entry should certainly add up to cover at least some of the investigation.

    Consequences of those investigations would have to be added of course... but maybe that's a start?
    No more fees please !!

    We already pay a drug fee, USEF fee, Zone fee, membership fee, horse recording fee etc etc.
    Fan of Sea Accounts


    1 members found this post helpful.

  9. #149
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghazzu View Post
    Soory, I pay USEF enough damn fees already without having to further subsidize investigation of cheaters.
    Don't add another $25 to a fund that will do nothing because there are no teeth in the rules and no guts in the organization.
    This, unfortunately.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief



  10. #150
    Join Date
    Dec. 2, 2010
    Posts
    28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Are you sure you'd like to give the USEF carte blanche to excommunicate people for something undefinable as "improper" or "unsportsmanlike" conduct?
    MVP (sorry for long delay), you misunderstand. This already IS the rule. I am not proposing it. USEF already has this power. So what additional rules do they really need? What actions that cause prejudice to the Federation or the sport could they not sanction?

    While you articulate possible explanations for why Ms. M should not be sanctioned (which are excellent points BTW), I was focused on the USEF's response that, in effect, they wanted to get her but lacked the rules to do it. I don't think Mr. Long expressed any doubts about the culpability of Ms. M. He hung his hat on the 'our hands are tied' because we lack the rules to do anything. I find that explanation irresponsible, given the scope of GR702(d).

    Without the cooperation of Ms. M, proof of illegal substances may be hard/impossible to prove; likewise other, more serious violations. But certainly the USEF could have issued a censure or even a suspension for acts that were "deemed improper" (fleeing the scene of her dead pony and failing to cooperte with the USEF) and caused prejudice on the sport (as shown by NYT article). The various penalites are defined (already) in GR703.

    If the USEF pleads ignorance of their own rules and lacks the moral character to enforce the rules already in place, what good will more rules do?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  11. #151
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 2007
    Posts
    15,446

    Default

    Bestlegup,

    You are correct that Long (IMO) stopped at "our hands are tied." That was a great rhetorical strategy for two reasons.

    1. He logically does not have to express an opinion about Mandarino's guilt or innocence. That would only follow *if* the USEF had clear and enforceable rules.

    2. He can draw attention (as he did) to the USEF's general "concern" and on-going efforts to improve things. The last bit of the spin from Long, then, is "look at the progress that is being made!" Perhaps, then, we will be left with the impression that the USEF is Working On It and not the abject failure that produced the problem in the first place.

    What Long perhaps hopes the NYT and readers don't know is that this shizzle has been going on for 40 years.
    The armchair saddler
    Politically Pro-Cat


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #152
    Join Date
    Jan. 13, 2008
    Posts
    5,630

    Default

    shizzle love it



  13. #153
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2003
    Posts
    1,349

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mvp View Post
    Bestlegup,

    You are correct that Long (IMO) stopped at "our hands are tied." That was a great rhetorical strategy for two reasons.

    1. He logically does not have to express an opinion about Mandarino's guilt or innocence. That would only follow *if* the USEF had clear and enforceable rules.

    2. He can draw attention (as he did) to the USEF's general "concern" and on-going efforts to improve things. The last bit of the spin from Long, then, is "look at the progress that is being made!" Perhaps, then, we will be left with the impression that the USEF is Working On It and not the abject failure that produced the problem in the first place.

    What Long perhaps hopes the NYT and readers don't know is that this shizzle has been going on for 40 years.
    As the voice of the USEF, Long should NOT express an opinion. His statements must be based on fact. And the fact is this: nothing was found with regards to the Humble debacle that went against any USEF rules as they are currently written. If he feels that this event has shed light on gaps in the system, then he can work towards finding ways to close those gaps (and it seems that he has indicated that is the case), but some of the posters here seem every bit as crazy as the woman who is the subject of this thread.

    Changes are obviously necessary, but they must be well thought out and that takes time. Cool your jets folks, and think about this rationally. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.


    1 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. New York Times article - USEF and Humble
    By Kestrel in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 868
    Last Post: Jan. 14, 2013, 11:13 PM
  2. Colbert's response to the "USEF" rebuttal
    By alicen in forum Dressage
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun. 24, 2012, 11:12 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: Jun. 20, 2012, 10:58 AM
  4. Response from USEF re: Faunti qualification at 2011 Pony Finals
    By FrenchFrytheEqHorse in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 89
    Last Post: Sep. 15, 2011, 08:00 PM
  5. Replies: 8
    Last Post: Dec. 31, 2009, 05:55 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
  •