• 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

Another Pony Lawsuit....

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

  • Originally posted by lilitiger2 View Post
    So, obviously, this is not exactly Montana ranch horse domain! And I am still trying to wrap my head around $175k for a pony, but...just out of curiousity, what happens, most likely, to the pony? He sure is cute.
    I think, with proper maintenance, he will probably continue showing either at the same level or as a short stirrup pony. As others have stated, plenty of horses do just fine with some rotation if they're well-maintained.

    Comment


    • Thanks, hope he does have a comfortable future!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by FineAlready View Post
        Just read the complaint. No idea if what is in it is true or not, but I can say that it certainly doesn't appear to have been drafted by a hack. A lot of the redundancy has to do with needing to plead things very specifically for specific counts in the complaint (and against each defendant).
        Really? Maybe that's the standard, but I found it inartful. 3/4 of the way through, now the pony is not "gentle" (PP 67)? WTF? Oh, and then Andre (*not* a named Plaintiff) appears, as if by magic in PP 70?

        The whole thing reads to me as a cudgel to get a settlement.

        Which is not to say that there aren't crooks in the horse world, or folks who will misrepresent things to clients in order to make money... And I certainly would want to know that a 6 year old $175K pony I'd bought as an "investment" didn't have the cleanest xrays on the planet, but... IMO, there's a whole 'nother side to this one.

        Predictive reading of radiographs is still more art than science. I'll be interested to hear how this one progresses (if it does).

        <ETA> YMMV </ETA>

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Eventer13 View Post
          You DONT think it should be laid out objectively for the client?! Seriously? God forbid clients make their own decisions. I mean, they're only the ones paying for the horse!

          Its not the trainer's job to interpret for the client. Its the VETS job to present the information in a manner that the client will understand. Its called client communication.

          If the client would then like an additional opinion on the future soundness of the horse for its given job, they can then consult the trainer. But, IMO, the trainer should in no way "filter" the information. That is totally not their place. I don't care how much experience they have, the trainer is only giving an opinion.

          If the client is really uncomfortable making the decision and wants to go with whatever their more-knowledgable trainer believes is best, fine. But that should occur after they have actually heard it straight from the vet's mouth and heard the information presented in the most objective form possible.
          That makes total sense... For "normal" people

          Comment


          • Originally posted by paw View Post
            Really? Maybe that's the standard, but I found it inartful. 3/4 of the way through, now the pony is not "gentle" (PP 67)? WTF? Oh, and then Andre (*not* a named Plaintiff) appears, as if by magic in PP 70?
            I noticed that, too.

            And man, is it a discount law firm that would prepare a document with so many typos in it?

            Comment


            • Originally posted by MHM View Post
              I noticed that, too.

              And man, is it a discount law firm that would prepare a document with so many typos in it?
              You might be surprised how typical that is, in general.

              I agree it's not a well-drafted complaint. I will excuse part of it to whatever NY custom there might be (we don't really draft that way in PA) as well as some horsey things being lost in translation to a non-horsey drafter... but yes, it's also not a model of clarity/polish.
              ~Veronica
              "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
              http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

              Comment


              • I definitely agree that it was a bit sloppy and that it could have been better written. It's not how I would draft a complaint, but it is by no stretch of the imagination the worst example of a complaint I've ever seen. It gets the job done, and, honestly, I have seen plenty that do not. It's been my experience that a lot of state court complaints look something like this and are a little rougher than what I am used to in federal court. So, for what it is, I did not find it to be a bad complaint. Some of them are so bad they are difficult to even answer. I call that the "dazzle them with confusion" approach.


                Originally posted by paw View Post
                Really? Maybe that's the standard, but I found it inartful. 3/4 of the way through, now the pony is not "gentle" (PP 67)? WTF? Oh, and then Andre (*not* a named Plaintiff) appears, as if by magic in PP 70?

                The whole thing reads to me as a cudgel to get a settlement.

                Which is not to say that there aren't crooks in the horse world, or folks who will misrepresent things to clients in order to make money... And I certainly would want to know that a 6 year old $175K pony I'd bought as an "investment" didn't have the cleanest xrays on the planet, but... IMO, there's a whole 'nother side to this one.

                Predictive reading of radiographs is still more art than science. I'll be interested to hear how this one progresses (if it does).

                <ETA> YMMV </ETA>

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Tha Ridge View Post
                  I think, with proper maintenance, he will probably continue showing either at the same level or as a short stirrup pony. As others have stated, plenty of horses do just fine with some rotation if they're well-maintained.
                  it truly depends entirely on the degree of rotation and to date, we don't know that. Yes lots of ponies have foundered and with a little maintenance are not lame and can be kept comfortable but we had a pony on trial who was just ever so off one direction at the trot, just sooo slight we could have easily missed it, just on the turns and only to the left. Turned out to have a career ending degree of rotation when we xrayed him.

                  So... unless we know how bad the rotation is, there is no way to judge just how serviceably sound he is. Given that he is a young pony, I hope for his sake that he will be usable if only as a ss or walk trot pony, but he will also be able to find a home as a companion, or leadline pony I'm sure. No way no matter how slight the rotation, you're getting anywhere near 175K for him, that is one thing I know for sure.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Midge View Post
                    Interesting that Emil owns the pony until the week the kid buys her and then he's owned by Bibby. And purchased through Larry.
                    Originally posted by Tha Ridge View Post
                    There were obviously multiple fingers in the pie here regarding the sale of the pony, but I'm VERY skeptical that any of the above misrepresented the pony in any way.
                    Why do you suppose it changed hands like that?
                    *****
                    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                    Comment


                    • Originally Posted by RockinHorse
                      Bolding mine...

                      First of all, unless you are the one buying the animal, I don't think it matters what you are willing to look past. It matters what the BUYER is willing to look past.

                      Second, personally, I think that conversations and education to determine what a buyer's comfort level with PPE findings and maintenance etc, should happen well before a PPE is performed. If a buyer is looking for an older schoolmaster, it makes sense to me to have those discussions well before hand to make sure the buyers objectives and budget are realistic. If this occurs, then hearing the findings from the vet should not be too much for the client.


                      Since I couldn't figure out any other way to copy and paste that...

                      Of course I meant I am comfortable on behalf of my client. My client pays me for my expertise and experience with such matters. I am the one who helps them come up with a program for maintenance on their animal. If the client was 100% able to make these decisions on their own, then that that is 100% fine with me and I don't need to charge them and they can train themselves! Most of the time my clients fall someplace in between knowing nothing and being able to train themselves. They generally appreciate my knowledge of caring for horses and finding them something suitable for their needs- thus why they train with me :-)

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Midge View Post
                        Why do you suppose it changed hands like that?
                        I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that probably 100+ horses are sold through the barn a month, and obviously some have their own unique ownership situations. Some of them don't ever step foot on the barn property before they're already sold.

                        Perhaps Bibby got a deal on the pony and flipped it right away? None of us know for certain, and none of us have any reason to assume it was anything nefarious.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by FineAlready View Post
                          The complaint actually alleges that each of the defendants (farm, trainer, and vet) represented to the plaintiff that the pony was "sound, healthy, possesed no physical defects, and was suited for investment and competitive jumping."

                          I think the part you are reading about the farm "directing" the vet to perform the PPE and tell the plaintiff if there was anything wrong with the pony is actually just a section that could have been drafted better than it is.
                          You and I recall the same document.

                          What about the paragraph that describes what P Griffith did in terms of setting up the PPE sounds bad to you? I just noticed that even the plaintiff agrees that the trainer had asked the vet to communicate with her, the plaintiff. So... you can't claim that the trainer tried to block that communication, the buyer getting the PPE results straight from the vet.
                          The armchair saddler
                          Politically Pro-Cat

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rabicon View Post
                            Yes, but IMO the new po should have been told that pony had rotation at that time but they deem it good for the job at hand
                            because he was sound and they could manage it. From what it looks like in the complaint they were never told anything about rotation in the pony.
                            I'll bet that this *is* what happened....and then the management plan didn't work.

                            The PO'd PO wanted some of her money back (or maybe almost 2X). So PO revises history (or is balls-on-accurate) in this complaint in order to find the inciting cause of the whole problem.

                            The complaint, of course, is only one version of the story and it is slanted-- both toward the plaintiff and existing law. It seems to me that that is the nature of the complaint genre.

                            It would be much messier to argue that you were defrauded by the vet and/or trainer because they looked at X-rays and the pony trot... saw some coffin bone rotation that was somewhere in between "perfect" and "toast" and were simply mistaken about how the position of the coffin bone on an Xray related to clinical lameness they could, in fact, manage.

                            Or it might be harder to argue the other possibility: Client knew what was wrong with the pony and something about what counted as "management." But that stopped working and/or it was taken to a new, untenable level and the PO was PO'd. That-- having to block the horse for shows-- sucked because if the team that was on the PO's side at the time of purchase can't keep it sound, then what other buyer or lessee will be able to do that?
                            Last edited by mvp; May. 3, 2013, 12:10 AM.
                            The armchair saddler
                            Politically Pro-Cat

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Eventer13 View Post
                              You DONT think it should be laid out objectively for the client?! Seriously? God forbid clients make their own decisions. I mean, they're only the ones paying for the horse!

                              Its not the trainer's job to interpret for the client. Its the VETS job to present the information in a manner that the client will understand. Its called client communication.

                              If the client would then like an additional opinion on the future soundness of the horse for its given job, they can then consult the trainer. But, IMO, the trainer should in no way "filter" the information. That is totally not their place. I don't care how much experience they have, the trainer is only giving an opinion.

                              If the client is really uncomfortable making the decision and wants to go with whatever their more-knowledgable trainer believes is best, fine. But that should occur after they have actually heard it straight from the vet's mouth and heard the information presented in the most objective form possible.
                              I actually agree with you .

                              I was just pointing out from an earlier comment why I think it is NOT a good idea for trainers to get in between buyers and vets. This was based on an earlier poster who shaid he/she always has the vet relay the information to him/her first so she can explain things to the client.

                              Without meaning to, a trainer can inadvertenly minimize things that the trainer might not have a problem with, not realizing that the buyer does not have the same comfort level.
                              Auventera Two:Some women would eat their own offspring if they had some dipping sauce.
                              Serious Leigh: it sounds like her drama llama should be an old schoolmaster by now.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Ponytrnr117 View Post
                                Originally Posted by RockinHorse
                                Bolding mine...

                                First of all, unless you are the one buying the animal, I don't think it matters what you are willing to look past. It matters what the BUYER is willing to look past.

                                Second, personally, I think that conversations and education to determine what a buyer's comfort level with PPE findings and maintenance etc, should happen well before a PPE is performed. If a buyer is looking for an older schoolmaster, it makes sense to me to have those discussions well before hand to make sure the buyers objectives and budget are realistic. If this occurs, then hearing the findings from the vet should not be too much for the client.


                                Since I couldn't figure out any other way to copy and paste that...

                                Of course I meant I am comfortable on behalf of my client. My client pays me for my expertise and experience with such matters. I am the one who helps them come up with a program for maintenance on their animal. If the client was 100% able to make these decisions on their own, then that that is 100% fine with me and I don't need to charge them and they can train themselves! Most of the time my clients fall someplace in between knowing nothing and being able to train themselves. They generally appreciate my knowledge of caring for horses and finding them something suitable for their needs- thus why they train with me :-)
                                From your original post, it sounded like you had the vet give you the findings and then you relay those finding to the client. If that is not the case, no problem. If it is the case then it is not a practice I would be comfortable with for two reasons:

                                1) like the game of telephone, things change in every telling
                                2) without meaning to, the way information is passed along can be influenced by the feelings and beliefs of the teller

                                In every PPE I have done, I have reviewed the results with the trainer. However, we are both working from original information from the vet (much easier now that so many things are available instantly .

                                I value my trainer's experience and opinion but not as much as I value the vet's when it comes to health and soundness.
                                Auventera Two:Some women would eat their own offspring if they had some dipping sauce.
                                Serious Leigh: it sounds like her drama llama should be an old schoolmaster by now.

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by Tha Ridge View Post
                                  None of us know for certain, and none of us have any reason to assume it was anything nefarious.
                                  Best thing I might have read so far...

                                  Comment


                                  • I'm just....puzzled by this.

                                    While it is plausible that it happened as has been described, is it not also plausible that purchaser bought pony, knowing that it had a little bit of rotation (communicated verbally, no paper trail) but went ahead with the purchase. Kid shows. Kid doesn't do as well as expected on pony and pony rotates still further. Pony then doesn't increase in value as purchaser expected and sees suing as a way of attempting to recoup dollars?

                                    Where is the insurance agency in all of this? Surely this pony made of solid gold was insured (and if not...really??). Do they have vet reports and rads?

                                    I'm also puzzled by the allegations of blocking. Was the pony lame enough that it required to be blocked for every ride? Was it a case of it getting sore at the shows because of poor footing? Seems a bit extreme to block the whole foot in this case. And wouldn't that test?

                                    I'm not on either side of this - I know unethical things do occur - but something just feels off.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by OneGrayPony View Post
                                      I'm also puzzled by the allegations of blocking. Was the pony lame enough that it required to be blocked for every ride? Was it a case of it getting sore at the shows because of poor footing? Seems a bit extreme to block the whole foot in this case. And wouldn't that test?
                                      Completely aside from whether this specific allegation is true in this case, blocking feet is not a new practice (in more than a few disciplines, in fact I can think of another USEF discipline that might be the poster child in this area couchcoughWildEyedAndWickedcoughcough), and it is a given they don't block with easily detectable substances (or detectable at all). Also, even if it was a detectable substance, the horse has to be tested and the sample has to target the specific substance in order to get a positive result.
                                      Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by DMK View Post
                                        Completely aside from whether this specific allegation is true in this case, blocking feet is not a new practice (in more than a few disciplines, in fact I can think of another USEF discipline that might be the poster child in this area couchcoughWildEyedAndWickedcoughcough), and it is a given they don't block with easily detectable substances (or detectable at all). Also, even if it was a detectable substance, the horse has to be tested and the sample has to target the specific substance in order to get a positive result.
                                        Hitting the nail on the head, as usual, DMK

                                        FWIW, it ain't just feet that get blocked

                                        Comment


                                        • Yes, I suppose I just hadn't even thought about it in the hunters. I know about tail blocking in the quarter horses. With all this talking about testing and testable substances that seems to be a rather large and obvious one that they would test for were it common. Again - with all the focus on quieting substances, I just hadn't heard any whisperings about it.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X