• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

New York Times article - USEF and Humble

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pds View Post
    Please explain why you think, "The necropsy is a report that needs to be read by a professional..." Is there something in the report that you are afraid will be misinterpreted?

    You wanting to keep the necropsy from public inspection implies some level of guilt in my eyes. Otherwise why hide it.
    Not to take sides, but often you are damned if you do and damned if you don't. If there's nothing to hide and you open it up, people who have something against you will nitpick every little detail. If there is something to hide, it's even worse. We see this in business and politics all the time.

    I don't think the necropsy being unavailable for public inspection necessarily means anything one way or the other.

    After the Exxon Valdez debacle occurred, a prominent newscaster asked the captain why he wouldn't just come out and say he had not been drinking. If he had nothing to hide then the premise was he should just come out and say so. The captain said that for legal reasons (ongoing court case) he had been advised not to discuss certain subjects. Does that mean he was definitely drinking because he wouldn't say otherwise? No.
    Last edited by SnicklefritzG; Dec. 31, 2012, 10:46 AM.

    Comment


    • Just as a point of information, a necropsy report lists all post mortem findings.
      For instance, a horse could be euthanized for an intestinal blockage, and the report might make note of a couple of lag screws in a front sesamoid. It could further note that this particular horse had evidence of prior exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage.

      Doesn't mean the screws caused the colic.
      Or the EIPH.
      "It's like a Russian nesting doll of train wrecks."--CaitlinandTheBay

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

      Comment


      • While determining Mg threshold levels for testing in live animals has been difficult, I believe it is pretty easy to determine if levels are high in a necropsy. Given the fact that the USEF was given access to the necropsy, and found no evidence of wrongdoing, I would have to assume it's unlikely the pony was given Mg. It's really easy to speculate on a tragedy, but facts need to be considered.

        Comment


        • The fact is that at high level of competitive riding most barn do administer illegal substances. But most of these trainers are skilled enough to not engage in public legal battle(although many are sued). They hide their "mistakes" or criminal acts under masks of human and animal compassion, i.e. join USEF committees, become a judge(so you can take revenge on those that scorn you now, or help your sales business) and advertise acts of kindness on FB and other forums of self promotion. The Talent Search was a great try. Follow that route and all will be forgotten. Follow the example of one of our most revered Olympic riders.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CBoylen View Post
            While determining Mg threshold levels for testing in live animals has been difficult, I believe it is pretty easy to determine if levels are high in a necropsy. Given the fact that the USEF was given access to the necropsy, and found no evidence of wrongdoing, I would have to assume it's unlikely the pony was given Mg. It's really easy to speculate on a tragedy, but facts need to be considered.
            According to this letter from USEF to the New York Post, USEF was NOT given access to the necropsy or the full list of meds given to Humble.

            http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...er.html?ref=us

            Comment


            • I have nothing to hide. Here is the report by Dr Reed of Rood and Riddle which summarizes the report and the findings:

              http://amberhillponies.com/Amber_Hil...nd_Riddle.html

              It took me a bit to get it uploaded.... this should put an end to the naysayers.
              Elizabeth Mandarino
              www.amberhillponies.com
              cell 908.397.0977

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Limerick View Post
                According to this letter from USEF to the New York Post, USEF was NOT given access to the necropsy or the full list of meds given to Humble.

                http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...er.html?ref=us
                I can not speak for why Mr. Long says one thing one day and then another the next. Maybe he was doing damage control as a NY Times reporter was all over the USEF.
                Elizabeth Mandarino
                www.amberhillponies.com
                cell 908.397.0977

                Comment


                • You can't test for calcium.
                  McDowell Racing Stables

                  Home Away From Home

                  Comment


                  • Interestingly, that letter does not state anything conclusive about an underlying condition. It asserts that there is the possibility because of the high level of eosinophils present in a short period of time, but that's not the same as diagnosing something.
                    http://www.youtube.com/user/supershorty628
                    Proudly blogging for The Chronicle of the Horse!

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Laurierace View Post
                      You can't test for calcium.
                      well you may want to tell New Bolton that because Humble was tested for it.
                      Elizabeth Mandarino
                      www.amberhillponies.com
                      cell 908.397.0977

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by supershorty628 View Post
                        Interestingly, that letter does not state anything conclusive about an underlying condition. It asserts that there is the possibility because of the high level of eosinophils present in a short period of time, but that's not the same as diagnosing something.
                        The necropsy states "emerging lung disease".
                        Elizabeth Mandarino
                        www.amberhillponies.com
                        cell 908.397.0977

                        Comment


                        • ...somewhere, a lawyer is banging their head on a desk repeatedly!

                          Between this thread and the one in the Sport Horse Breeding forum about Jill Burnell, breeding something like Gerbils or Guinea Pigs looks more appealing every day! Oy!
                          www.DaventryEquestrian.com
                          Home of Oldenburg, Westphalian & RPSI approved pony stallion Goldhills Brandysnap
                          Also home to Daventry Equine Appraisals & Equine Expert Witness www.EquineAppraisers.com

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by amberhill View Post
                            I have nothing to hide. Here is the report by Dr Reed of Rood and Riddle which summarizes the report and the findings:

                            http://amberhillponies.com/Amber_Hil...nd_Riddle.html

                            It took me a bit to get it uploaded.... this should put an end to the naysayers.
                            Elizabeth, honey, your ability to understand the letter is only outweighed by your ability to destroy this sport and to know how to give drugs.

                            There are no definitive statements in the letter. Only a reiteration of facts presented at necropsy done as a professional consideration to his colleagues.

                            The letter does nothing to bolster your assertions. It does nothing to hurt them either.

                            Reed

                            Comment


                            • Regarding the NY times.... here is the correspondence proving he had an agenda and did not report our statement or the truth for that matter

                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              To: mccrad <mccrad@nytimes.com>
                              Sent: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 12:31 pm
                              Subject: [FWD: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino]

                              Mr. McGraw,
                              I am not in the office due to the holidays and do not have a full list of the inaccuracies and omissions contained in Mr. Bogdanich's article. Just to give you a flavor of Mr. Bogdanich's communications with me regarding the reporting of this story, I am forwarding you a series of emails with Mr. Bogdanich. These emails followed a phone conversation wherein I attempted to give Mr. Bogdanich information regarding the lack of credibility of his "sources," the identities of whom were obvious by the uneducated phrases and accusations he was parroting. I tried to explain that these "sources" were all defendants, potential defendants, or their counsel in a case pending in New Jersey and had underlying personal animus towards my client. I was told that he was "not interested in hearing about that stuff." At that point, it was clear that he had an agenda other than reporting accurately on what occurred at the Devon Horse Show and the subsequent actions taken by USEF.
                              Most troubling is the fact that I sent to Mr. Bogdanich a prepared statement (see below) refuting Mr. Long's assertions that my client did not cooperate with the Federation. Unless I missed something in the article, and please correct me if I am wrong, the only "fact" reported was that Ms. Mandarino had refused to comply with the Federation's requests for documentation and information. Mr. Bogdanich had a prepared statement from me with an email from General Counsel of USEF confirming that statement and USEF's "misunderstanding," and he intentionally chose not to use it. I found his antagonistic manner unprofessional, and his reporting to lack integrity. It is also worth noting that one of the Jane Doe defendants in the pending litigation was posting on an unseemly anonymous gossip website as early as June 4, 2012 that someone "should get the NY Times reporter that did the racing article" to do an article on Humble. I am surprised that a publication of the NY Times' stature would allow itself to be used to advance personal agendas, but in my opinion that is what has happened. Had the article focused correctly on the drug use in our sport, and on the people who actually have been suspended or otherwise punished (as opposed to Ms. Mandarino who has never been charged by USEF with a medication infraction despite dozens of random tests on her horses and ponies), it might have had some credibility. I will be in touch to discuss this further but would ask that the statement I prepared below be published immediately by the NY Times as a follow-up to yesterday's story.
                              Thank you,
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


                              -------- Original Message --------
                              Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
                              From: "Bogdanich, Walt" <waltbog@nytimes.com>
                              Date: Thu, December 06, 2012 5:47 pm
                              To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              I thought you said you were not going to communicate with me further?
                              Since you have apparently changed your mind, please know that I remain open to discussing with you my request to interview Ms. Mandarino. Rest assured that I will be very careful in what I report.
                              Thank you.
                              Walt Bogdanich

                              From:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:32 PM
                              To: Bogdanich, Walt
                              Cc: Purdy, Matt
                              Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino

                              Mr. Bogdanich,
                              Once again you are making a knowing misstatement of fact. My client proposed to produce the necropsy and toxicology to the NY Times with restrictions on its use and dissemination, and you declined because you didn't want to adhere to the proposed restrictions. That is the full truthful statement on what happened and is evidenced by your own email. Anything other than that statement is false and misleading.
                              And again, your statement that I "have decided to deny [my] client, Ms. Mandarino, the opportunity to present her side of the controversy" has no basis in fact and I have already brought that to your attention. If any of these untruths are published, we will seek any and all appropriate remedies.
                              Thank you,


                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX



                              -------- Original Message --------
                              Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
                              From: "Bogdanich, Walt" <waltbog@nytimes.com>
                              Date: Thu, December 06, 2012 5:00 pm
                              To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              Cc: "Purdy, Matt" <purdy@nytimes.com>
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              You are incorrect. Your client DID offer me the necropsy and toxicology report. I’m sorry that you have decided to deny your client, Ms. Mandarino, the opportunity to present her side of this controversy. If you change your mind, please get in touch with me.
                              Thank you.
                              Walt Bogdanich
                              212 556-5881

                              From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:54 PM
                              To: Bogdanich, Walt
                              Cc: Purdy, Matt
                              Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino

                              Mr. Bogdanich,
                              My client did not agree to give you the necropsy and toxicology, and you are aware of that based on the attached email. As is shown by your own email, it was offered to you with certain restrictions on use and dissemination because it is a private document. You declined to accept it with those restrictions. You should be aware that there was a lawyer other than myself present with Mr. Mandarino during your phone call last night. You should also be aware that your statement that I am refusing to allow Ms. Mandarino to grant an interview has no basis in fact.

                              Based on your deceptive conduct, my client has decided that she will not communicate with you further, and I have decided that I will not communicate with you further.


                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX






                              -------- Original Message --------
                              Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
                              From: "Bogdanich, Walt" <waltbog@nytimes.com>
                              Date: Thu, December 06, 2012 3:05 pm
                              To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              Thank you for your email.
                              Please send me the full and final necropsy report, plus toxicology. If you choose not to – even though your client had already agreed to send it to me – please state your reason for denying my request. Also please state your reason for not allowing your client, Ms. Mandarino, to grant me an interview.
                              Please call me if you wish to discuss this further.
                              Thank you.
                              Walt Bogdanich
                              212 556-5881

                              From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:41 PM
                              To: Bogdanich, Walt
                              Subject: Elizabeth Mandarino

                              Mr. Bogdanich,
                              In follow up to our conversation of last evening, please find the following on-the-record statement and an attached pdf of an email exchange with Sonja Keating of this morning showing the accuracy of this statement.

                              Ms. Mandarino provided the Interim Client Report with the findings on necropsy as well as toxicology tests conducted by New Bolton to the United States Equestrian Federation on June 19, 2012 as part of a motion made pursuant to GR617, which allows the CEO or Executive Director to dismiss a protest if it is unsubstantiated. General Counsel for the Federation acknowledged receipt of the motion in an email, with the CEO copied, on June 27, 2012. The report provided was deemed “interim” because additional toxicology testing for over 1100 different substances was ordered. That testing was performed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and the results were received by Ms. Mandarino on June 28, 2012. I forwarded those results on June 29, 2012 to both General Counsel for the Federation and the Secretary of the Hearing Committee. On November 26, 2012, General Counsel for USEF contacted me to request a copy of the Final Client Report from New Bolton, and I immediately provided it to her. The findings in the Final Client Report were identical to those in the Interim Client Report that had previously been provided to the Federation. All of these results were also provided directly by New Bolton to the mortality insurer that provided coverage for Amber Hill Farm. I trust that the NY Times will ascertain the accuracy of all factual statements it chooses to publish regarding this tragic event.

                              Thank you,

                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
                              Elizabeth Mandarino
                              www.amberhillponies.com
                              cell 908.397.0977

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by amberhill View Post
                                Ms. Pam Mahoney, Are you accusing me of posing as an attorney? You must know as an atty yourself that this is against the law. That is quite the accusation. I suggest you IMMEDIATELY retract the accusation unless you have proof to support your claim. You have been so advised.
                                OMG, this is getting to rival the Arabian Jumper thread in wierdness...would the mods care to look into IP addys here loking for a houseguest?

                                I know Pam is quaking in her Wellies after having been "advised" to cease and desist posting on a chat board. She IS a lawyer, you know.
                                When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

                                The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Daventry View Post
                                  ...somewhere, a lawyer is banging their head on a desk repeatedly!
                                  I'm banging my head, and I'm not even HER lawyer

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                                    Earlier I made a comment speculating that that list of regular drugs in combination could potentially contribute to the lung disease they saw.

                                    It occurs to me this morning that if you were a veterinary researcher wanted to test the long term health effects of all those drugs stacked, you probably couldn't get it past your university ethics committee.
                                    Excellent point. Look what happens when people stack medications and the possible drug interactions between herbal supplements and prescription drugs. Do we actually think horses don't experience the same issues when we give one drug or supplement on top of another?

                                    It just disgusts me to see the lengths that people will go for money, fame and a blue ribbon.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by RAyers View Post
                                      Elizabeth, honey, your ability to understand the letter is only outweighed by your ability to destroy this sport and to know how to give drugs.

                                      There are no definitive statements in the letter. Only a reiteration of facts presented at necropsy done as a professional consideration to his colleagues.

                                      The letter does nothing to bolster your assertions. It does nothing to hurt them either.

                                      Reed
                                      Dr. Reed is very well respected in his field and opines on the necropsy. By the way , I am not your honey. If you do not understand the letter, his contact information is included.
                                      Elizabeth Mandarino
                                      www.amberhillponies.com
                                      cell 908.397.0977

                                      Comment


                                      • My lawyers are not banging their heads... hardly. They are reading right along. I have explained what happened to Humble. It was a tragedy but had nothing to do with illegal drugs, stacking or the NY Times article on GABA.
                                        Elizabeth Mandarino
                                        www.amberhillponies.com
                                        cell 908.397.0977

                                        Comment


                                        • Um, no finding of "innocence" was ever made, USEF declined to uphold the protest due to lack of specific evidence of wrongdoing.There is a difference.

                                          So the Pony was obviously sore and needed robaxin and may have had an upset tummy for the banamine and was injected with something else that AM also acceptable to keep it going and get it around the show ring. We may need to think a little about the environment that makes that OK as opposed to rest and watching the workload.

                                          And I am all for approved substances used for therapeutic reasons...just not all at once on a sore animal.
                                          When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

                                          The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X