of course putting the physical aspect aside I am sure some have worked under high pressure environments when harsh “words” have flown…and I am sure it might be considered verbal abuse to many while the person uttering it considered it a pointy spur in the side so to speak.
I think my favorite statement of this entire thread is calling physical abuse “spatially relocating.” Let’s rename all crimes. Murder is now “relieving one of their humanly duties.” Robbery is “unwanted sharing.” Rape is “extreme cuddling.”
My worst nightmare would be for this big baby to spatially relocate to the U.S.
As a volunteer I ran into a UL rider who thought the rules were for everyone but him and he threw a major hissy fit at me. That was the end of my volunteering. I lost complete and utter respect for that drunk asshole. I have no time for prima donna jerks who think everyone should bow down to them and ignore their bad behavior just because they can win. So can a lot of other people.
I am a veterinarian, and if he placed his hands on me and “spatially relocated” me would I have him arrested. Sure. But then I’d never work for a team ever again. The veterinary world is small. Everyone knows everyone and no one likes a vet who works with lawyers.
1 Like
[QUOTE=Backstage;8212960]
I’m honestly not sure what JER is saying regarding AN’s behaviour. In an earlier post, she referred to the incident as an ‘assault’ - her quotes, not mine. Suggesting that she potentially didn’t think the situation was actually assault. Her further comments in that post (see below) read to me as if she thinks that the physical altercation was justified:[/QUOTE]
I think she is just pointing out the inconsistencies of both sides of the story… they are tight-lipped and have admitted very little, both sides… we don’t know the entire story. We don’t know what happened, if it was an aggravated assault or if it was something else entirely…
[QUOTE=JER;8212774]
Then why isn’t ESNZ saying this?
If ESNZ took the physical assault – admitted to by AN – seriously, AN would be out of the program pending various legal charges and investigations.
But this is not what they’re doing. You can soapbox and grandstand all you like, but ESNZ is not taking that approach to this incident. Why not? What is their obligation to the team vet? Why isn’t the team vet pursuing legal action against AN?[/QUOTE]
I don’t know why ESNZ isn’t saying this. I’m not ESNZ.
I don’t really care what isn’t being said. The fact of the matter is, both sides have publicly acknowledged that a physical altercation took place and the veterinarian was grabbed by his lapels and involuntarily relocated. I don’t know why the vet didn’t press charges, nor why legal action wasn’t pursued. I don’t really care.
I’m pretty shocked that you think that stating that physical violence is never ok is ‘soapboxing’ and ‘grandstanding.’ Guess what? I don’t really care what ESNZ is or isn’t doing regarding AN. I don’t care if he is on their team or someone else’s, as long as it isn’t the U.S. team.
Physically assaulting another person is not ok.
[QUOTE=beowulf;8212974]
I think she is just pointing out the inconsistencies of both sides of the story… they are tight-lipped and have admitted very little, both sides… we don’t know the entire story. We don’t know what happened, if it was an aggravated assault or if it was something else entirely…[/QUOTE]
I definitely agree with that. But, there is common ground - both parties seem to admit there was a physical altercation. And its also clear it wasn’t as if Nicholson was pulling someone off the horse to prevent an immediate harm. He was reacting to the fact that the vet wasn’t as present as he would have liked, and he expressed that displeasure in a physical manner. ENZ may be a NSF with faults, but I think their concern is understandable and I don’t think that criminal charges need to be laid for it to be a serious concern.
[QUOTE=Blugal;8212779]
I agree with you JER - it was noticeable from the beginning that all the parties were glossing over the actual details. Perhaps they got legal advice… perhaps someone is suing?[/QUOTE]
Well, you’re the lawyer. 
If there is legal wrangling in the works, then I think it’s very odd that AN is freely admitting that he took it upon himself to reposition the vet. One would be cautioned not to comment.
Overall, I’m struck by ESNZ’s apparent need to cover their collective ass and also that they haven’t severed all ties with AN. Seems like a case of all parties not acting properly. At least AN admits it.
And LadyB, I never said assault or harassment was okay.
[QUOTE=sockmonkey;8212939]
I think my favorite statement of this entire thread is calling physical abuse “spatially relocating.” Let’s rename all crimes. Murder is now “relieving one of their humanly duties.” Robbery is “unwanted sharing.” Rape is “extreme cuddling.”[/QUOTE]
Um, let’s not get carried away.
I was deliberately using humorously euphemistic language. The idea is to call attention to the action, not minimize it. And it worked with you, I see.
It sounds like both AN and Team NZ are better off without each other.
I don’t know AN, I don’t know much about NZ Eventing or the team, but after skimming through some of the linked articles and reading the comments here, I’m left thinking that most of the problem could have been avoided if they’d just let him use his own vet from the start. I’d imagine there probably still would have been a little friction with him around, from what I’ve read here about his personality, but I doubt it would have been anything more than a minor annoyance. The problems seemed to really start where NZ Eventing wanted to have control of the management of the horses and athletes.
It is never a good move to surrender the decision making regarding the care of a horse (or any athlete) to a “third party”.
It just isn’t. Decisions regarding the care of a horse and rider should be made by their own personal team, not a politcal group of strangers. I would think most of you here would agree with that, regardless of whatever your personal opinion of AN may be.
FitToBeTied made a very good point up-thread, the “team” concept is one of the many things wrong with the Olympics and World Championships.
I think this has become true in most if not all Olympic sports. I love to watch and root for “my” team, but making it all about the team winds up putting the sport at the mercy of a tightly knit political group. I’m a huge gymnastics fan and I see a very similar problem there, all the athletes, no matter how hard they work or how good they are at their sport, are ultimately at the mercy of USA Gymnastics. That isn’t fair to fans or athletes. Often you see one or two athletes become slaves to their team, having to compete in every event at every competition, with little or no regard for the individual’s health and well being.
AN’s incident with the vet sounds like it was the final straw at the end of a long day. I agree with those of you saying that his horse was likely not the vet’s top priority at the moment, nor should he have been, but at the moment I’d be willing to bet AN was pissed that after his horse had basically carried the team that day, the team vet couldn’t even be bothered to stick around to monitor the hoese’s IV. I’m not in any way making an excuse for what he did, it was stupid and someone with a little more class would have handled it very differently.
Unfortunately to be a top rider, one of the qualities you must possess is the ability to tolerate an absolutely insane amount of BS. It’s truly an insult to the integrity of the sport, but that’s the way it is and I don’t see change a comin’ anytime soon. Most of us could never handle it. You can only expect a person to take so much, people don’t seem to realize that.
I totally believe the posters that have seen AN in person and describe him as a selfish ass are correct. The riders that seem to be able maintain their class and sportsmanship amaze me, they are truly gems. I’ve seen the road to the top make some of the kindest, happiest people into sour grapes.
Anyways, all my typing and musing isn’t even worth two old pennies, the truth about this whole thing is somewhere in the middle, and we plebeians will never know the real story.
[QUOTE=Divine Comedy;8212983]
I’m pretty shocked that you think that stating that physical violence is never ok is ‘soapboxing’ and ‘grandstanding.’ [/QUOTE]
Apologies for your state of shock. That’s not what I was saying.
More explanation: when you read the available accounts of this situation, it’s not hard to discern that both parties are culpable for said situation in some way. AN’s behavior is pretty damn obvious; ESNZ’s a little more cryptic.
One reason for this – and I’m speculating here, but that’s all we’re left with – is that ESNZ/vet might have thrown the first punch. Not necessarily physical punch, but a promise or agreement to do something with the horse, which didn’t happen. The disregard results in an argument, which escalates.
I’m not excusing AN’s behavior. I’m suggesting – repeatedly, with some circumstantial evidence to support – that he’s not the only bad actor here.
I will also throw out the idea that there are some of us on this forum who would react physically and angrily to their horse being mistreated. You might not know until it happens.
sorry JER. I was not getting carried away. I, too, was attempting to use humour. I really did think your statement was my favourite. From now on I will use my sarcastic button when I attempt humour.
[QUOTE=sockmonkey;8213036]
sorry JER. I was not getting carried away. I, too, was attempting to use humour. I really did think your statement was my favourite. From now on I will use my sarcastic button when I attempt humour.[/QUOTE]
Oh dear! Massive apologies.
Sometimes I start thinking that I’m on the intelligent spectrum of homo sapiens sapiens, but then I realize that I’m not really so sapiens after all.
I can see why the ESNZ/AN dispute bothers you so much: you’re a vet. What if vet-tossing becomes an acceptable pastime for UL riders?
[QUOTE=JER;8213028]
Apologies for your state of shock. That’s not what I was saying.
More explanation: when you read the available accounts of this situation, it’s not hard to discern that both parties are culpable for said situation in some way. AN’s behavior is pretty damn obvious; ESNZ’s a little more cryptic.
One reason for this – and I’m speculating here, but that’s all we’re left with – is that ESNZ/vet might have thrown the first punch. Not necessarily physical punch, but a promise or agreement to do something with the horse, which didn’t happen. The disregard results in an argument, which escalates.
I’m not excusing AN’s behavior. I’m suggesting – repeatedly, with some circumstantial evidence to support – that he’s not the only bad actor here.
I will also throw out the idea that there are some of us on this forum who would react physically and angrily to their horse being mistreated. You might not know until it happens. :)[/QUOTE]
Thanks, this does clarify your stance.
I too would react physically and angrily to my horse being mistreated if it were an active physical abuse. Leaving the horse without a vet supervising the IV intake is more akin to ‘possibly an accident waiting to happen’ and the horse is not actively in distress. Sharp words, sure. Shouting match? Sure. Throwing a person across the room? No.
Similarly, if I think the workers at my barn are doing something potentially but not actively dangerous with my horse (perhaps if they lead two horses out to the field together and I believe that poses a potential danger to my horse) I ask them to stop leading my horse in a pair. Even if they argue and we start shouting, that doesn’t give me the right to throw a punch.
But if I ever caught someone beating unreasonably on my horse, you can sure as hell bet I’d be in there physically forcing them away.
That being said, yeah, it’s shady on all sides, and if that was ultimately your point, then yes I agree.
duplicate post
[QUOTE=JER;8213052]
I can see why the ESNZ/AN dispute bothers you so much: you’re a vet. What if vet-tossing becomes an acceptable pastime for UL riders?
:)[/QUOTE]
Let’s just add it in after XC to make sure the riders are physically fit to continue. You have to make it over 4m to be able to present your horse the next day.
I had physical therapy years back. It was torture. When the physical terrorist came near my knee, I actually said to him “if you touch me again, I’m going to neuter you.” He backed off very quickly. I never saw him again. hmmm. I may be wee, but I’m scrappy. I’m not afraid of vet-tossing:D
Food for thought, for those with an appetite: How does this compare to the Jeremy Clarkson situation? While legions of Top Gear fans petitioned and harangued for the BBC to preserve the presenter’s career, the simple fact was that the BBC was obligated to fire him for physically assaulting a co-worker. Which is what they did, even though Clarkson was one of the BBC’s biggest stars (he was probably their biggest star in terms of world audience).
If ESNZ has a plethora of eventing superstars, and AN is not really needed for team success, then why didn’t they simply say ‘You assaulted a staff member, that’s it, and also we’ll be talking to the police.’?
For all of the posters who say that physical assault is unacceptable, why is ESNZ saying it’s excusable under certain circumstances? Maybe some outrage should be directed at an organization that doesn’t protect its staff.
[QUOTE=TB or not TB?;8213075]
Let’s just add it in after XC to make sure the riders are physically fit to continue. You have to make it over 4m to be able to present your horse the next day.[/QUOTE]
This is an historically accurate idea. Very much in the spirit of the original old-guard dead-cavalry-guy tradition.
Back in the old days, we had the weight rule. The horse/rider combo had to have some specified amount of weight on board and, in case of shortfall, had to have a special weight pad with lead. Then a rider proved that live weight and dead weight were not carried equally by the horse, and therefore, this practice was cruel and discriminatory to smaller horses and riders.
Having a vet-toss solves these problems. A vet, presumably, is live weight. Moreover, the horse won’t be bearing the brunt of this new weight rule – it will be up to the rider to demonstrate the strength and fitness to toss the vet a distance of at least 4 metres. Non-metric types who prefer an English-sounding and sufficiently random unit of measurement can designate this distance – 4 metres – as one Nicholson.
We complain that the values of the long-format are lost, that eventing has gone soft, that riders aren’t fit, that we’ve strayed too far from our cavalry and military roots. A mandatory vet toss might just be the answer we’re looking for.
As for the vets, you can’t tell me with a straight face that they’re going to bothered by the notion of being thrown four metres by a human. Vets are people who spend many years and many dollars going to school and doing internships so they can enter a profession in which the average workday includes having a 1000+ lb animal bite, kick, push and step on you. If that is your normal, a four-metre toss by a rider doesn’t even register on the scale of ouch.
My advice to you, sock monkey: avoid lapels.
[QUOTE=JER;8212479]
spatially relocates [/QUOTE]
:: spewed pepsi max all over work equipment ::
[QUOTE=JER;8213189]
Having a vet-toss solves these problems. A vet, presumably, is live weight. Moreover, the horse won’t be bearing the brunt of this new weight rule – it will be up to the rider to demonstrate the strength and fitness to toss the vet a distance of at least 4 metres. Non-metric types who prefer an English-sounding and sufficiently random unit of measurement can designate this distance – 4 metres – as one Nicholson.[/QUOTE]
Plus, think how it would curtail the practice of riding too many horses in a single event. A vet-toss is inarguably a matter of intervening in horse welfare in the spirit of the Nicholson metric.
