[QUOTE=BITSA;8311949]
Draco couldn’t bring himself to kill Dumbledore in the end…[/QUOTE]
He did get his just desserts for everything else when his son became a Hufflepuff :lol:
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8312261]
The BNT’s hafta be careful about that. Take a big public purity stand, and risk having some former student come out of the woodwork saying ‘hold on a minute, buddy, you were pretty free with a needle back in the day when I rode with you’. [/QUOTE]
Whaddya mean, “back in the day”? I think that’s the point about no BNT speaking out. They can’t. Because they all do it, so they can’t come out and say this is wrong, because they’re doing it themselves. The silence from the top of the sport is deafening. Deafening.
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8311963]
The thing is that isn’t necessarily the trainer who gets set down. Not the trainer in the real sense of the word. Sometimes it’s a groom who signs as the “trainer” in order to protect the person doing the actual training of horse and/or rider.[/QUOTE]
Very true Snicklefritz. Moreover, even when the trainer does get busted, they still go on training, just not at shows. The assistant trainer takes over the shows. I recall seeing one who had been set down giving an expensive clinic near me recently. So the guy is banned from USEF but still traveling around giving clinics and doing business, selling horses, making deals, looking for new kids to coach, and just waiting out his time. Barely skipping a beat. They have to ban the horses and riders. Otherwise business just goes on as usual.
My trainer was squeaky clean. And she was, as I’ve mentioned before, regional-level BNT. Is that why she wasn’t national level BNT? I don’t know. I’ve wondered about a million times in the past few weeks, though.
[QUOTE=Anne FS;8312347]
I think that’s the point about no BNT speaking out. They can’t. Because they all do it, so they can’t come out and say this is wrong, because they’re doing it themselves. The silence from the top of the sport is deafening. Deafening.[/QUOTE]
I don’t agree. This is much too cynical for me. My trainer came back from Saugerties talking about both the Devin Ryan situation and the Colvin-Parker mess. He is disgusted by both and I imagine other trainers are as well. Do they write a column? Maybe not… they are busy riding, teaching, managing their businesses. So many things in the equestrian world are spoken about with whispers. Bad footing at a horse show… unethical training methods … abusive language with students… etc etc etc. It’s a weird subculture. I am not saying any of it is right but I don’t agree that everyone does it just because they aren’t standing on a soap box declaring it publicly. Too cynical.
Whaddya mean, “back in the day”? I think that’s the point about no BNT speaking out. They can’t. Because they all do it, so they can’t come out and say this is wrong, because they’re doing it themselves. The silence from the top of the sport is deafening. Deafening
anyone complaining about the complexion of the ammy rules have many of the BNT / ODG to thank
they are the ones who tried every way to sunday to circumvent the ammy / pro route be fake cooks, housekeepers, babysitters accountants. They invented getting around the rules.
I learned LTD in the early 80s It was not hidden, it was right on the white board right in the main aisle
Now they promote obesity as a means of slowing down the character of the horse… to me this is flat out abuse
the unabashed admission of drugging in the current case is not an isolated case. no skirting the intention.
the biggest sin is a judge claiming to not know anything about the current drug scene. Me I would love to see his card pulled.
for good
[QUOTE=equisusan;8312623]
My trainer came back from Saugerties talking about both the Devin Ryan situation and the Colvin-Parker mess. He is disgusted by both and I imagine other trainers are as well. Do they write a column? Maybe not… they are busy riding, teaching, managing their businesses. [/QUOTE]
So what are trainers willing to do about it ? Will they contact USHJA/USEF and voice their opinion? I understand they are busy running their business, but their business is the sport, and the sport is their business.
Surely they have time for one or two phone calls, or an email. If it means that much to them, they’ll do it.
I really hope that the USEF is reading these posts and taking note. They go on and on about needing to attract new memberships, so let’s think about how that is impacted by this drama for a minute.
I suspect that the new memberships would typically be coming from the local show crowd wanting to branch out and try an “A” show here or there or just from people moving up to the “A” circuit - correct? Well, if I were in their shoes, I would be completely turned off by these drugging scandals. Why would I want to pay more money to involve myself and my horse in that kind of world? And from a parent’s point of view, forget it! Why would I want to get my child involved in that sort of scene?? All of these infractions and lack of serious action on the USEF’s part are further ostracizing their future members.
The USEF needs to really take this seriously and think of the repercussions it has on the future of the sport. As many have already stated, more testing and harsher punishments need to be enforced. The cycling governing bodies have taken these measures and it has saved their sport. It is now time to save our sport as well!
That transcript was a muddy mess. Does no one ever proofread or bother to correct transcripts? Has no one taught the hearing stenographer horse terms or even basic english? Or are the witnesses and people running these hearings really that illiterate? A lot of their statements made no sense.
One huge question I had that no one bothered to bring up - in all the confusion of who was supposed to be the trainer, or whose name was on the form, no one asked who actually signed the form! If Rivetts had to be told his name was on the form as trainer, then who signed it? Obviously not him! Or do people just enter H/J shows with unsigned forms and everyone has to go to the office to sign when they show up? What a nightmare for show secretaries.
Often transcripts aren’t well proofread because it doesn’t matter. I’ve seen all sorts of goofed up spellings in court transcripts. Sometimes it’s the fault of voice recognition software. Sometimes it’s an error in transcription. Sometimes the witness was hard to hear/understand. Sometimes the finished work product is just sloppy. THAT doesn’t stick out to me as being unusual in this case.
[QUOTE=yaya;8313339]
That transcript was a muddy mess. Does no one ever proofread or bother to correct transcripts? Has no one taught the hearing stenographer horse terms or even basic english? Or are the witnesses and people running these hearings really that illiterate? A lot of their statements made no sense.
One huge question I had that no one bothered to bring up - in all the confusion of who was supposed to be the trainer, or whose name was on the form, no one asked who actually signed the form! If Rivetts had to be told his name was on the form as trainer, then who signed it? Obviously not him! Or do people just enter H/J shows with unsigned forms and everyone has to go to the office to sign when they show up? What a nightmare for show secretaries.[/QUOTE]I thought the same thing about the transcript. Couldn’t they find someone in Kentucky who knew Maclay and the famous eq horse Patrick? But then I got to wondering if it has to remain as originally transcribed, without edits, since it’s a legal document. Kind of like a lab notebook.
[QUOTE=yaya;8313339]
That transcript was a muddy mess. Does no one ever proofread or bother to correct transcripts? Has no one taught the hearing stenographer horse terms or even basic english? Or are the witnesses and people running these hearings really that illiterate? A lot of their statements made no sense.
One huge question I had that no one bothered to bring up - in all the confusion of who was supposed to be the trainer, or whose name was on the form, no one asked who actually signed the form! If Rivetts had to be told his name was on the form as trainer, then who signed it? Obviously not him! Or do people just enter H/J shows with unsigned forms and everyone has to go to the office to sign when they show up? What a nightmare for show secretaries.[/QUOTE]
I believe Rivetts told them that his secretary put him down as trainer on the entry blanks (someone correct me if I am wrong). NOW, here is MY big question. IF that is the case, and this goes to a real court (not just USEF court) isn’t that forgery on the part of Rivetts’s secretary? Isn’t an entry blank, technically, a legal document?
[QUOTE=MoonLadyIsis;8313381]
I believe Rivetts told them that his secretary put him down as trainer on the entry blanks (someone correct me if I am wrong). NOW, here is MY big question. IF that is the case, and this goes to a real court (not just USEF court) isn’t that forgery on the part of Rivetts’s secretary? Isn’t an entry blank, technically, a legal document?[/QUOTE]
That’s what I mean- there is supposed to be a legal signature of the person named in the space, so if he didn’t even know he was listed as the trainer, he obviously didn’t sign it, so who did?
[QUOTE=Peggy;8313360]
I thought the same thing about the transcript. Couldn’t they find someone in Kentucky who knew Maclay and the famous eq horse Patrick? But then I got to wondering if it has to remain as originally transcribed, without edits, since it’s a legal document. Kind of like a lab notebook.[/QUOTE]
No - when you’re deposed, you can review a transcript and correct things like that. Dunno if they got that opportunity here.
I did note that Rivetts’ attorney was clearly unfamiliar with horse shows - note his confusion about what “ten from the bottom” meant. So, that attorney probably didn’t realize just how ridiculous it was for Rivetts to claim he didn’t know the meds rules.
I’m not very familiar with hunter shows.
I would still like to know what “whistling” is? Is that a Thing?
BC testified in the hearing, mentioned several times that’s what she did: “[If they said…] Go whistle, I would whistle. If scott wanted a braid, I was braiding. I did whatever Scott said. But Most of the time I was there for Scott to whistle. That’s all I did. Set jumps and whistle”
I’m picturing a Big Lick class with cheerleaders lining the rail, whistling…
[QUOTE=Darkwave;8313485]
No - when you’re deposed, you can review a transcript and correct things like that. Dunno if they got that opportunity here.
I did note that Rivetts’ attorney was clearly unfamiliar with horse shows - note his confusion about what “ten from the bottom” meant. So, that attorney probably didn’t realize just how ridiculous it was for Rivetts to claim he didn’t know the meds rules.[/QUOTE]
According to an article he wrote here on COTH a while back, Rivetts’ attorney represents a lot of members charged with meds violations so you would think he would know better. But apparently he doesn’t. And the strategy employed by all didn’t make a lot of sense. Except the hearing committee. Their strategy was spot on. Get both Rivetts and Colvin in a room together and let them both point the finger at each other and tell half-truths, then say “well if no one is going to tell the truth, you are both set down.”
[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8313600]
According to an article he wrote here on COTH a while back, Rivetts’ attorney represents a lot of members charged with meds violations so you would think he would know better. But apparently he doesn’t. And the strategy employed by all didn’t make a lot of sense. Except the hearing committee. Their strategy was spot on. Get both Rivetts and Colvin in a room together and let them both point the finger at each other and tell half-truths, then say “well if no one is going to tell the truth, you are both set down.”[/QUOTE]
the problem being that setting thee two down while it makes sense makes no difference. Setting down the horse, the owner, the rider and the trainer – and for a significant period of time – that just might make a difference.
Horse set down - can’t compete - also puts an owner in the responsible position for knowing what their animal is doing (in a lease situation the lessee can be treated as owner
Owners (lessess) should be responsible for what is done to their horse
Rider - should know (unless below the age of understanding) should know rules and know what the horse they are riding has received
Trainer - (not the signatory) should take responsibility for the treatment of the horse
[QUOTE=IPEsq;8310848]
There are legal injectibles. Banamine, Legend, Adequan, etc. It would be far worse to have no proper way to dispose of needles. The fact that the containers may be filled to overflowing is another issue.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. But wouldn’t it be much easier if only vets could inject them and properly dispose of the sharps?
Not the complete solution but a step in the correct direction perhaps?
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8312261]
Tori has been admired and looked up to, and now that won’t be the case any more, even if everyone otherwise behaves as if the whole thing is ‘forgotten’. No one is going to be saying to a student 'go look at some videos of Tori winning the ___ Class and see how she rides [/QUOTE]
I guess GM didn’t get the memo. I’m attending one of his clinics and over the past 2 days he’s held her up as the gold standard, embodying the holy trinity of the sport; she’s an intuitive rider, she’s a horsewoman, and a horse trainer. There were several eye glances around in the auditors’ area the first few times GM encouraged the riders to emulate her. I’m thinking he’s spent enough intensive time with her over the years watching her and training her at the Horsemastership Training classes, etc. that he knows what’s real about her. Just a guess.
[QUOTE=Darkwave;8313485]
No - when you’re deposed, you can review a transcript and correct things like that. Dunno if they got that opportunity here.
I did note that Rivetts’ attorney was clearly unfamiliar with horse shows - note his confusion about what “ten from the bottom” meant. So, that attorney probably didn’t realize just how ridiculous it was for Rivetts to claim he didn’t know the meds rules.[/QUOTE]
When you are deposed your answers are your admissions so your attorney can ask for you to have the right to read and sign the transcript. In the process you fill out an errata sheet and any errors are noted.
This is not true of the transcript of a court hearing, which is what this transcript is akin to. Everyone doesn’t get to read and mark errata. What was recorded/transcribed is the record. If someone’s question/answer didn’t get picked up and transcribed-- it’s not part of the record.
