• 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 mvp View Post
    Absolutely. And the morality of the seller (or not) is irrelevant to this case. The buyer had a trainer/agent working for her. The buyer had a PPE. The seller could have been the worst lying bustard on Earth and it wouldn't have made a difference. Note that the seller is not named as a defendant in the complaint.
    We don't even know if the seller learned the results of the PPE. For all the seller knew, the pony WAS sound when sold. Reading between the lines, it seems like Heritage had the pony in their program when it was purchased. it might have leigitimately been sound when it left the seller and got to Heritage. The pony might have foundered on Heritage's watch. Yet ANOTHER reason to block it and sell it.

    Seller might be equally disturbed/upset to learn about the rotation/blocking. What if the pony did founder in Heritage's care and therefore didn't sell when the buyer was told? It would get back to the seller why the sale fell throught... Then the seller might be after Heritage for failure to properly care for the pony.

    If the pony foundered under Heritage's watch, and the choices are enjoy a big commission and hide the founder or buck up, be honest, lose the sale, and maybe get sued by the seller.... is it so shocking which option might win out? Heritage was in a better position to keep the buyer in mushroom status than the seller... AND get a commission on top.

    Why not? Unless moral obligations bother you.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

    Comment


    • How would the blocking happen time and time again with out the pony owner knowing about it? I have to assume they paid the bill for it.

      Comment


      • Is it possible the pony was nerved/blocked for the initial PPE, so the vet looked at the x-rays, but assumed it to be a non-issue as pony was sound, passed that info on to trainer, trainer filters the info further to just pony is sound. Trainer may then have come to see pony has issues, panicked, and dealt with it by blocking rather than owning up to their mistake.

        Question: if the pony was allegedly being blocked to show prior to the PO moving barns and becoming aware of the issue, who was paying the vet bill for this service? If PO was paying and just not paying attention that is one thing, but if trainer was paying and then rebilling creatively, or swallowing the costs, that changes things.
        Freeing worms from cans everywhere!

        Comment


        • Originally posted by mvp View Post
          Now, now. I do hate it when trainers write in such a way that it appears that they are talking down to their clueless clients. I believe this poster is using that kind of short-hand when she says that she would be comfortable with this or that problem on an older horse for a kid or ammie. Of course the trainer knows that she is being comfortable on behalf of the client.

          It's also reasonable for a trainer to add their years of experience comparing Xray or conformation flaws to the horse's clinical soundness and tell their client what their experience has led them to believe about how that plays out. But it does sound as though the trainer is playing ducks and drakes with the client's money without some careful wording.
          I get what you are saying but these are situations where it is very easy for a trainer to interpret and relay the vets finding according to their own thoughts of what is best for the client rather than laying things out objectively in lay terms for the client to make their own descisions.
          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 trubandloki View Post
            How would the blocking happen time and time again with out the pony owner knowing about it? I have to assume they paid the bill for it.
            I am guessing the line item said something like "maintenance" or "show fees" and not "nerve blocking" but who's to say the buyer DIDN'T pay for it and just not realize WHAT she was buying?! She may have seen a monthly injection on the bill and thought it was Adequan or the like. Or maybe they don't itemize bills?! I assume Heritage found some way not to obviously disclose whatever was going on, if you assume some nefarious treatment was happening.
            ~Veronica
            "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
            http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

            Comment


            • Originally posted by CHT View Post
              Is it possible the pony was nerved/blocked for the initial PPE, so the vet looked at the x-rays, but assumed it to be a non-issue as pony was sound, passed that info on to trainer, trainer filters the info further to just pony is sound. Trainer may then have come to see pony has issues, panicked, and dealt with it by blocking rather than owning up to their mistake.

              Question: if the pony was allegedly being blocked to show prior to the PO moving barns and becoming aware of the issue, who was paying the vet bill for this service? If PO was paying and just not paying attention that is one thing, but if trainer was paying and then rebilling creatively, or swallowing the costs, that changes things.
              I would assume they also did a drug screen for the PPE. I am certainly not up on every last thing that can be done, but what would they block with that wouldn't test? And if it needed to be made sound to show, it needed to be made sound to ride. Unless that kid just rides at the shows, there would be a whole lot of drugs going through that pony.
              *****
              You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

              Comment


              • Isn't there some sort of nerving process one can do that actually severs the nerves in the feet by an invasive procedure but these nerves can actually grow back? Maybe it was something of that sort?

                I haven't had a chance to read the entire petition, and the article seemed very vague on that part of it.
                Talking to some people is like folding a fitted sheet.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                  We don't even know if the seller learned the results of the PPE. For all the seller knew, the pony WAS sound when sold. Reading between the lines, it seems like Heritage had the pony in their program when it was purchased. it might have leigitimately been sound when it left the seller and got to Heritage. The pony might have foundered on Heritage's watch. Yet ANOTHER reason to block it and sell it.

                  Seller might be equally disturbed/upset to learn about the rotation/blocking. What if the pony did founder in Heritage's care and therefore didn't sell when the buyer was told? It would get back to the seller why the sale fell throught... Then the seller might be after Heritage for failure to properly care for the pony.

                  If the pony foundered under Heritage's watch, and the choices are enjoy a big commission and hide the founder or buck up, be honest, lose the sale, and maybe get sued by the seller.... is it so shocking which option might win out? Heritage was in a better position to keep the buyer in mushroom status than the seller... AND get a commission on top.

                  Why not? Unless moral obligations bother you.
                  It doesn't matter if the seller was in on some deal with the buyer's agents. The pony passed through that "gate" of a PPE exam. That's a buyer-protecting gate insofar as the vet and presumably the trainer are working for the buyer, not the seller. If Heritage Farm was the agent for buyer and seller, I'd hope that was disclosed to the buyer before Griffith's opinion during the PPE was taken seriously by anyone.

                  The complaint says that the Xrays took on or around the PPE date showed rotation. Did the pony look lame then? Does soreness or the degree of rotation they saw count as "founder"?

                  If you take those X-rays as the sine qua non of a pony that is unsuitable for the purposes bought, it was fubar before Heritage started managing it on behalf of the buyer.
                  The armchair saddler
                  Politically Pro-Cat

                  Comment


                  • This will be an interesting case to follow.

                    Caveat emptor most definitely. Livestock is just that, livestock. Do not invest more than you can afford to lose is how I always purchase.
                    Proud to have two Takaupa Gold line POAs!
                    Takaupas Top Gold
                    Gifts Black Gold Knight

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by mvp View Post
                      It doesn't matter if the seller was in on some deal with the buyer's agents. The pony passed through that "gate" of a PPE exam. That's a buyer-protecting gate insofar as the vet and presumably the trainer are working for the buyer, not the seller. If Heritage Farm was the agent for buyer and seller, I'd hope that was disclosed to the buyer before Griffith's opinion during the PPE was taken seriously by anyone.

                      The complaint says that the Xrays took on or around the PPE date showed rotation. Did the pony look lame then? Does soreness or the degree of rotation they saw count as "founder"?

                      If you take those X-rays as the sine qua non of a pony that is unsuitable for the purposes bought, it was fubar before Heritage started managing it on behalf of the buyer.
                      It really doesn't matter if the seller was "in on it" from the POV of who the PPE was FOR. But if the seller WASN'T in on it and the rotation happened on Heritage's watch-- that's yet ANOTHER reason that makes the big lie appealing. That's my point.
                      ~Veronica
                      "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                      http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by AffirmedHope View Post
                        Isn't there some sort of nerving process one can do that actually severs the nerves in the feet by an invasive procedure but these nerves can actually grow back? Maybe it was something of that sort?

                        I haven't had a chance to read the entire petition, and the article seemed very vague on that part of it.
                        Yes, that was what I was thinking of, the pony was "nerved" and it grew back. But there is the other way of temporarily doing it that only lasts a few months...does that really show in a blood test? And if you did do a blood test, aren't there a 100 things you could possibly test for, so do people actually test for them all?
                        Freeing worms from cans everywhere!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by AffirmedHope View Post
                          Isn't there some sort of nerving process one can do that actually severs the nerves in the feet by an invasive procedure but these nerves can actually grow back? Maybe it was something of that sort?
                          Nerving would be the exact name of that procedure.
                          Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by RockinHorse View Post
                            I get what you are saying but these are situations where it is very easy for a trainer to interpret and relay the vets finding according to their own thoughts of what is best for the client rather than laying things out objectively in lay terms for the client to make their own descisions.
                            Yabbut, the client who has now paid 2 pros to give her input knows that horses are a giant gray zone money pit.

                            Neither pro can predict the future and they'll be careful to remind you of that if you start to ask for too much assurance! Also, I have *yet* to meet a DVM that won't put his/her findings into layman's terms. IMO, you don't need a trainer to do this and the trainer is not better qualified than the vet to do it.

                            And trainers aren't the only ones who have seen the horse with, say, fugly-on-film knees, stay sound or not over time. IME, vets will give you their .02 off-the-record opinion about what happens in the future to horses with this or that defect seen on that day. Try talking to a vet with whom you have a good relationship at a PPE and then reading the written results! You see a lot more CYA language in the written form.

                            So the client has really missed something if she pays for two different pros to evaluate the horse from their respective areas of expertise.... and then doesn't communicate directly with one of 'em.
                            The armchair saddler
                            Politically Pro-Cat

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                              Reading between the lines, it seems like Heritage had the pony in their program when it was purchased. it might have leigitimately been sound when it left the seller and got to Heritage. The pony might have foundered on Heritage's watch. Yet ANOTHER reason to block it and sell it.
                              I'm not sure what lines you are reading between...where would you get the idea that the pony was in Heritage's program when it was sold? There is nothing in the complaint that would indicate such a thing. The pony might have been physically located at Heritage for the prepurchase (perhaps on a trial period), or it might have just been vetted by Heritage's vet at the seller's farm. I don't think you can really tell from the complaint.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                                It really doesn't matter if the seller was "in on it" from the POV of who the PPE was FOR. But if the seller WASN'T in on it and the rotation happened on Heritage's watch-- that's yet ANOTHER reason that makes the big lie appealing. That's my point.
                                Then you'd have to know when the pony came to Heritage Farm. Again, from the buyer/plaintiff's POV, it's irrelevant because the pony feetz Xrays showed rotation on the PPE day.
                                The armchair saddler
                                Politically Pro-Cat

                                Comment


                                • On the subject of trainers "interpreting" PPE results for customers: my junior hunter was definitely represented to my parents differently by my trainer than what his PPE exam actually revealed.

                                  The only reason I know this is that I found his written PPE results in my parents' basement years and years and years later (long after we no longer owned the horse).

                                  At the time of purchase, I know the trainer told my parents that there was essentially "something a little different" in his front feet, particularly one of them, but that it was not likely to be a big deal. We bought the horse. He was frequently lame. He was on isoxuprine at home (off of it for shows), and he was shod like a navicular horse.

                                  Surprise, surprise, the written prepurchase results revealed that the horse had notable navicular changes, particularly on one front foot.

                                  Certainly, my parents must have had the opportunity to read the report (although if it worked the same way as it did when I later bought my current horse as an adult, they probably didn't have the written report until long after they had already sent the check), but they are not horse people and would have had NO idea what navicular changes signify. IMO, the vet should have some obligation to explain the prepurchase results DIRECTLY to the purchaser.

                                  It's not rocket science. This stuff is teachable, and can be explained to a non-horse person sufficiently so that it can be understood by them.

                                  Comment


                                  • I suppose we can assume that since the x rays are technically the owner's, she was able to get a look at them and have another vet evaluate them?
                                    *****
                                    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.

                                    Comment


                                    • Originally posted by Midge View Post
                                      I suppose we can assume that since the x rays are technically the owner's, she was able to get a look at them and have another vet evaluate them?
                                      My guess is that that is what eventually happened. That is how I found out that some of my current horse's prepurchase x-rays are unreadable. I left the program I was in and had my vet records transferred to a new vet clinic. The vet at the new clinic reviewed them in connection with a lameness issue my horse was experiencing (unrelated to area with the unreadable x-rays) and told me, "You know some of these x-rays are unreadable, right?" Um, no. No I did not.

                                      Comment

                                      • Original Poster

                                        Are folks thinking that the pony was nerved for Pony Finals? I have never heard of a pony's feet being blocked for anything other than diagnostic purposes.


                                        Poor pony. I hate this sport sometimes.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by FineAlready View Post
                                          IMO, the vet should have some obligation to explain the prepurchase results DIRECTLY to the purchaser.
                                          Yeah. That's why one of the interesting parts of this complaint is the paragraph about what Heritage Farm told the PPE vet to do: As I read it, the farm set up the PPE and had the vet communicate with the plaintiff. No where does it say that the vet was not to speak to the plaintiff, or to the trainers first.

                                          FWIW, this vet has a good reputation and has been around awhile. I'm sure he knew that he was working for the buyers, not the trainers, when performing a PPE.

                                          Just who decided not to give the full scoop to the buyers on PPE day seems a central issue. But I don't think the buyer should have been obligated to do any special wringing of information from the vet.
                                          The armchair saddler
                                          Politically Pro-Cat

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X