• 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

RF Amber Eyes/Commentary

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by supershorty628 View Post
    Did you see the protest sign from Canada that said "I am a little upset" ? I laughed at that, too.
    I think the headline was, "Canada holds largest protest ever" and the inset picture was a woman holding a sign, "I am a little upset". classic!

    Comment


    • Originally posted by DoubleTwistedWire View Post
      You'd also think, since they show at larger shows, "Hey, that sounds vaguely like a CSI*/**, those are pretty big fences! I wonder how big this horse was jumping?" I'd think as a professional that you'd at least have an idea that it was an international caliber competition, and thus, you know, might be bigger than the Child/Adult Jumpers here, and thus likely to disqualify you from being "Green" as a hunter.
      But, if you (wrongly) believed that it was okay to not count any European experience when calculating green status and the horse has only competed in the U.S. since 2012, well, 2nd Year Greens IS the right place for the horse, right?
      Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
      Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

      Comment


      • From the Chronicle article:

        "Glefke also answered questions about Commentary’s eligibility for the second year green division. He knew the horse had competed one year in the United States, and in Europe before that. He said it’s common industry practice to consider a horse’s first year competing in the United States as their first green year, even if it competed in Europe."

        SERIOUSLY??? Wow, why would anybody with a legitimatelly green horse showing for the first time at 3'6" go in First Year Green when the compitition is horses that have been showing over that in Europe?!? Great way to kill the division.

        Maybe I'm niave, but frankly, enter them in the Regular, or ride in the lows until they are confident enought to show in the Regulars. There are certainly enough low, schooling and training hunter classes available at every show these days.

        No wonder people moan about the lack of horses in the First Years. Why enter if they are going to be showing against ringers. Which is exactly what they are given the above quote.
        The truth is always in the middle.

        Comment


        • I feel like if they were trying to "cheat" the system and clean everyone's clock with a horse that was ineligible for the division, why would they put her in the 2nd year greens? Why wouldn't they have put her in the 1st years? That makes me think they knew she was ineligible for the 1st years, but that they didn't know enough about eventing to realize that she had competed at or above 3'6" for more than 1 show season and was therefore ineligible for the 2nd years.

          That said, I really don't care what the mare shows in - she's a lovely horse no matter which way you slice it. There are usually so few entries in the 2nd years that it's nice to see someone at least attempting to utilize the division and not stick with the 3'6" performance or even just the high performance.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Thoroughbred1201 View Post
            From the Chronicle article:

            "Glefke also answered questions about Commentary’s eligibility for the second year green division. He knew the horse had competed one year in the United States, and in Europe before that. He said it’s common industry practice to consider a horse’s first year competing in the United States as their first green year, even if it competed in Europe."

            SERIOUSLY??? Wow, why would anybody with a legitimatelly green horse showing for the first time at 3'6" go in First Year Green when the compitition is horses that have been showing over that in Europe?!? Great way to kill the division.

            Maybe I'm niave, but frankly, enter them in the Regular, or ride in the lows until they are confident enought to show in the Regulars. There are certainly enough low, schooling and training hunter classes available at every show these days.

            No wonder people moan about the lack of horses in the First Years. Why enter if they are going to be showing against ringers. Which is exactly what they are given the above quote.
            Exactly what we are facing now with our legitimate, born in US, been in our barn since he was a yearling, first year horse. Nearly the entire division has years more experience than he does. If the passports didn't get "lost" somewhere over the Atlantic, performance records in Europe would be available. It is one big scam.
            Laurie

            Comment


            • Originally posted by LulaBell View Post
              I feel like if they were trying to "cheat" the system and clean everyone's clock with a horse that was ineligible for the division, why would they put her in the 2nd year greens? Why wouldn't they have put her in the 1st years? That makes me think they knew she was ineligible for the 1st years, but that they didn't know enough about eventing to realize that she had competed at or above 3'6" for more than 1 show season and was therefore ineligible for the 2nd years.
              'Cause Second Years is a much better prep for a Derby with 4' options and all kinds of other scopey demands.
              EHJ | FB | #140 | watch | #insta

              Comment


              • Originally posted by lauriep View Post
                Exactly what we are facing now with our legitimate, born in US, been in our barn since he was a yearling, first year horse. Nearly the entire division has years more experience than he does. If the passports didn't get "lost" somewhere over the Atlantic, performance records in Europe would be available. It is one big scam.
                That is just maddening. Especially when talking about taking a horse through the breeding divisions, then up to performance. That would infuriate me. It was nerve-wracking enough sending my OTTB in the First Years many, many years ago, when warmbloods were just becoming the vogue. It wasn't a problem then, but I think now, I'd avoid the division altogether.
                The truth is always in the middle.

                Comment


                • How about they knew she'd jumped WEF in 2012, so they couldn't quite get away with first year. That's assuming they didn't know about eventing heights.

                  Originally posted by LulaBell View Post
                  I feel like if they were trying to "cheat" the system and clean everyone's clock with a horse that was ineligible for the division, why would they put her in the 2nd year greens? Why wouldn't they have put her in the 1st years? That makes me think they knew she was ineligible for the 1st years, but that they didn't know enough about eventing to realize that she had competed at or above 3'6" for more than 1 show season and was therefore ineligible for the 2nd years.

                  That said, I really don't care what the mare shows in - she's a lovely horse no matter which way you slice it. There are usually so few entries in the 2nd years that it's nice to see someone at least attempting to utilize the division and not stick with the 3'6" performance or even just the high performance.
                  "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                  Thread killer Extraordinaire

                  Comment


                  • Wading in here (and yes, I've read all 708 previous posts)...

                    I know in the article the new owner says they were in a hurry, he didn't even know eventing horses were USEF registered, etc. etc. etc. But really, that is no excuse no matter how busy you are or how hurried the transaction.

                    All anyone has to do is do a quick search on the USEF website to find out immediately if the horse is already registered. If you know the horse's name and/or the immediate former owner's name, it takes about 2 minutes.

                    That's what I did with the horse I just bought, when I was preparing the bill of sale. Found out he was life registered, included it in the description on the bill of sale. The seller, through their agent/trainer, gave me the registration certificate -- which the USEF sends to every owner upon registration -- along with the other papers when we completed the sale. I filled it out, sent it and the $60 for the ownership transfer to the USEF, and we're done.

                    The USEF makes the horse registration database easily accessible and searchable for a reason. The rules -- several different rules, actually, the existence of which emphasize that the Federation believes this is an important issue -- prohibit re-registering an already registered horse, and this makes it easy to comply with those rules. The days when "I didn't know and was too busy to check" flies as a reasonable excuse are long gone.
                    "I don't want to sound like a broken record here, but why is it that a woman will forgive homicidal behavior in a horse, yet be highly critical of a man for leaving the toilet seat up?" Dave Barry

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by RugBug View Post
                      Yes, but that is you. You could be the norm or you could be an outlier.
                      I am going to go out on a limb here that Kelly Farmer & Co. are bigger outliers than I am. Considering the fact that they are outliers in the hunter world and I clearly am not.

                      These people sell horses well into the six figures as part of daily life.

                      COME. ON.
                      The Noodlehttp://tiny.cc/NGKmT&http://tiny.cc/gioSA
                      Jinxyhttp://tiny.cc/PIC798&http://tiny.cc/jinx364
                      Boy Wonderhttp://tiny.cc/G9290
                      The Hana is nuts! NUTS!!http://tinyurl.com/SOCRAZY

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by dags View Post
                        'Cause Second Years is a much better prep for a Derby with 4' options and all kinds of other scopey demands.
                        Except they didn't use the open divisions to prep for the derby. The derby at Devon was the first hunter class the horse ever entered, and they COULDN"T use the open divisions there as a prep (obviously didn't qualify). At Upperville, where they did enter the open divisions, they didn't do the derby.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by meupatdoes View Post
                          I am going to go out on a limb here that Kelly Farmer & Co. are bigger outliers than I am. Considering the fact that they are outliers in the hunter world and I clearly am not.

                          These people sell horses well into the six figures as part of daily life.

                          COME. ON.
                          I'm with RugBug on this one. Why would their being big names in the hunter world who sell six figure show hunters mean that they know lots more than the average person about eventing?

                          But I'm also similar to RugBug when it comes to The Chronicle - I use the table of contents to find the sections I want to read, and altogether skip the rest. I rarely look at the eventing pictures, I never even flip through the dressage section, and I don't even know if there is ever an endurance section to the magazine.

                          Comment


                          • Article updated on the Chronicle website

                            Hello,

                            The Chronicle of the Horse just received a copy of Commentary's new USEF card. It shows that the Commentary's registration has been updated, with her original U.S. Equestrian Federation number and registration information, and her new name and owners. As of the afternoon of Friday, June 14, the USEF website doesn't reflect this change. My experience has that the Federation's horse database doesn't always reflect very recent changes.

                            I have updated the article on the Chronicle website to reflect that the horse's new information has been confirmed.

                            Best,
                            Mollie Bailey, Editorial Staffer
                            The Chronicle of the Horse

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by meupatdoes View Post
                              I am going to go out on a limb here that Kelly Farmer & Co. are bigger outliers than I am. Considering the fact that they are outliers in the hunter world and I clearly am not.

                              These people sell horses well into the six figures as part of daily life.

                              COME. ON.
                              You could easily have a broader focus than they do. For instance, I believe you regularly ride dressage. Do you think Kelly Farmer does that? She is highly specialized.

                              Really? You can't envision a world where a highly specialized professional does not know the details about another specialization?

                              That does not absolve them of the responsibility of finding out when those details become pertinent to their current specialization, but the incredulity that it was not somehow already a part of their knowledge base is ridiculous, if you ask me.

                              It STILL does not mean it excuses them from following the rules. But I think they should not be held accountable for something just because a poster on a bulletin board thinks it makes perfect sense that they know it. I am probably giving them more leeway than they deserve because I do believe they made conscious decisions about re-registering the horse, most likely based on a suspect and deceptive "common practice." If it is common practice...I hold the USEF responsible for allowing it and not necessarily the perpetrators for not being of strong enough will to take the higher moral and ethical road (the one that I would require of myself...and anyone I worked with, BTW).
                              Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                              Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ynl063w View Post
                                Except they didn't use the open divisions to prep for the derby. The derby at Devon was the first hunter class the horse ever entered, and they COULDN"T use the open divisions there as a prep (obviously didn't qualify). At Upperville, where they did enter the open divisions, they didn't do the derby.
                                I am fairly certain the intent was to do the derby until the mare sold and then they pulled her as a result.

                                Okay, so assuming we believe that people are SO IGNORANT that they don't know a DARN THING about any disciple other than their own... what's the explanation for why these people couldn't figure out to try typing the horse's NAME into the USEF database before registering her? Her name's on the sale video. Do they not have internet access? Fingers? Literacy? Didn't know the USEF existed? Didn't know it had a website? Not yet familiar with this thing we call the internet?!
                                ~Veronica
                                "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                                http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                                Comment


                                • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                                  Okay, so assuming we believe that people are SO IGNORANT that they don't know a DARN THING about any disciple other than their own... what's the explanation for why these people couldn't figure out to try typing the horse's NAME into the USEF database before registering her? Her name's on the sale video. Do they not have internet access? Fingers? Literacy? Didn't know the USEF existed? Didn't know it had a website? Not yet familiar with this thing we call the internet?!
                                  Here's my take:

                                  Originally posted by RugBug View Post
                                  I am probably giving them more leeway than they deserve because I do believe they made conscious decisions about re-registering the horse, most likely based on a suspect and deceptive "common practice." If it is common practice...I hold the USEF responsible for allowing it and not necessarily the perpetrators for not being of strong enough will to take the higher moral and ethical road (the one that I would require of myself...and anyone I worked with, BTW).
                                  If the USEF has allowed this common practice...well, the horse is eligible for the 2nd years. I can't tell you why they re-registered the horse. Maybe they really did believe that eventing horses would not be registered with the USEF. Maybe they were being deceptive and sneaky. But the judge and jury of COTH has determined they know all the answers and that.is.all. That's what I don't like. Stick to the facts, not supposition
                                  Keith: "Now...let's do something normal fathers and daughters do."
                                  Veronica: "Buy me a pony?"

                                  Comment


                                  • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                                    I am fairly certain the intent was to do the derby until the mare sold and then they pulled her as a result.

                                    Okay, so assuming we believe that people are SO IGNORANT that they don't know a DARN THING about any disciple other than their own... what's the explanation for why these people couldn't figure out to try typing the horse's NAME into the USEF database before registering her? Her name's on the sale video. Do they not have internet access? Fingers? Literacy? Didn't know the USEF existed? Didn't know it had a website? Not yet familiar with this thing we call the internet?!
                                    Oh I'm not arguing that they were going to do the Upperville derby but scratched before it happened - one of the articles stated that as fact. But since they went in the Devon derby with no open division prep, I don't think the intent of entering the open divisions at Upperville was as prep for the derby (I don't think they were even in the same ring?). I think they entered the open divisions at Upperville because they could. Not being able to use the open divisions at Devon as a prep for the derby obviously didn't deter them from entering the derby, so they presumably weren't concerned about "prepping" for the derby there.

                                    As far as creating a whole new USEF number for the horse, they might not have thought it was a big deal (please read on before you blow a blood vessel). This is probably another "standard industry practice" that everyone does (please read on before you blow another blood vessel). That doesn't mean it's ok to do, but I'm not willing to tar and feather them in particular just because they got caught, when this is likely something that all the professionals do on a regular basis. If breaking the rules is as widespread as it seems to be, it's a problem with the industry in general and needs to be addressed at the industry level.

                                    Nailing one person to the wall over this might make many COTH posters feel great, but it's not going to stop the practice as a whole.

                                    Edited to add: obviously RugBug and I are on the same page again.

                                    Comment


                                    • It's funny because it's industry practice with SOME pros... and yet I can think of plenty of others who import horses and are careful to update their registrations. But those are horses who BENEFIT from having their history follow... and here's a horse where (at least the perception was) that losing the history might be a better benefit. Coincidental...

                                      The excuses, if you believe them, are a little sloppy and myopic for people who own millions of dollars of horse flesh competing at the highest level of shows week after week with a capable staff. These same people manage to get their horses registered, qualified, to the ring, etc. and yet... the idea of plugging 11 letters into a database stymies them? Basic tasks like getting a driver's license or grocery shopping must bring them to their knees! It's all so very... COMPLICATED!!! How do they complete horse show ENTRY FORMS? There are MORE blanks to fill out and it's so gosh darn COMPLEX!!!!

                                      And if it's industry practice to get a new USEF number everytime you buy a horse-- how come they correctly followed the procedure when they re-named Praise BEFORE the Amber Eyes debacle? They deviated from industry practiced and followed the rules THAT time.. apparently demonstrating SOME ability to use the USEF database/system. I guess they either lost that power or forgot. That's some weird amnesia that strikes ONLY the part of the brain that remembers how the USEF website works?!

                                      Look, when you f-up you say mea culpa and fix it. You don't trot out a LAME list of excuses like this.
                                      ~Veronica
                                      "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                                      http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                                      Comment


                                      • Originally posted by Mollie Bailey View Post
                                        The Chronicle of the Horse just received a copy of Commentary's new USEF card. It shows that the Commentary's registration has been updated, with her original U.S. Equestrian Federation number and registration information, and her new name and owners. As of the afternoon of Friday, June 14, the USEF website doesn't reflect this change. My experience has that the Federation's horse database doesn't always reflect very recent changes.
                                        Thanks for the update, Mollie. Did they change the breeding info from unknown as well?

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by vxf111 View Post
                                          It's funny because it's industry practice with SOME pros... and yet I can think of plenty of others who import horses and are careful to update their registrations. But those are horses who BENEFIT from having their history follow... and here's a horse where (at least the perception was) that losing the history might be a better benefit.

                                          The excuses, if you believe them, are a little sloppy and myopic for people who own millions of dollars of horse flesh competing at the highest level of shows week after week with a capable staff. These same people manage to get their horses registered, qualified, to the ring, etc. and yet... the idea of plugging 11 letters into a database stymies them?
                                          I don't think it stymies them. I think it just doesn't occur to them in the first place to do it because no one does it. Most of these professionals are importing young horses from Europe; would those horses even HAVE a USEF number (I don't think so but I could be wrong)? Although in this case, the USEF record for the horse indicated that it was indeed eligible for the second year green division. They could have easily known it existed, determined the horse was eligible for the division, and re-registered because that is standard industry practice.

                                          I'm probably looking at this from a different standpoint than most. I work in a highly regulated industry where human error is a big issue. In order to get to the bottom of WHY the human errors are occurring, we don't automatically blame the individual who committed the error. If we come across human error events that are happening because upper management is somehow allowing it to happen (without even knowing it), we go to upper management and let them know that the problem lies with them, not the individuals. When upper management then gets involved, the problem can be solved.

                                          We find that if you "blame" the individuals from the onset, they get defensive and don't want to help you find the true root cause. And if we can't find the true root cause, we can't find a way to eliminate the problem from our process. We would much rather hear "well that's just how we all do it" than "I don't know or remember anything", because we can do something about it if we find out that everyone thinks that what they are doing is perfectly ok.

                                          It's always better to work WITH people, rather than against them.

                                          I have a hard time picturing these professionals rubbing their hands together and thinking, "I know what I'll do. I'll totally cheat so I can show this horse in the second year greens even though I know it's not eligible and I'm going to show in the regular division too anyway."

                                          The drugging problem obviously does not fall into this category. That is a violation for personal gain and that cannot be tolerated ever.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X