Go into debt for a horse???

[Perfect_Pony]

@slc2;2883529

I have seen ENOUGH people abusing unsuited horses, screaming at them, jerking their mouths, screaming at their horses as they ride, ‘I hate you you bi***’!’, I’ve been watching wannabe people for YEARS who buy 100 pairs of expensive breeches, 10 bridles, a dozen expensive saddles, a huge expensive truck, a big rig, go to 300 clinics a year, on this poor animal that can barely stand up, FORCING horses with bad feet and chronic arthritis to go in class after class (just get that chiropractor out and that supplement out and all will be healed!). I am SICK of seeing people take unsuitable horses and try to force them do do work they can’t POSSIBLY stand up to! There’s the other side of that story for ya and it’s not exactly about smelling the roses and going for trail rides on Sparky.

Goodness, are you still on here playing authority on everything and spewing extremes to prove your point?

I have seen ENOUGH people who have gone out and probably taken out loans to buy BIG, FANCY horses they cannot sit, abusing them screaming at them, jerking their mouths, screaming at their horses as they ride, ‘I hate you you bi***’!’

These are the same people who are totally competent riders who are grossly over mounted by often times FEI level horses costing them nearly 6 figures or more because that is what they need to “win”. I have seen the tears in the barn when all that money and talent can’t get the rider past 1st or 2nd level, because the horse is simply too big and extravagant for the rider (who could easily be at 4th level on skill on a suitable, smaller, a little less fancy horse).

It goes both ways… and in this land of debt, keeping up with the Jones’ and throwing money at things I have seen a lot of it.

[dkcbr]

>>Under the Rules of Judicial Conduct in most jurisdictions it is per se unethical for a judge to comment on something that will come before them in the future. They are supposed to judge only based on what they see before them in that particular case- not preconceived notions or biases. Secondly, judges are supposed to recuse themselves from any matter in which they have a conflict of interest. When you have an interest in selling horses, then telling people to take out a loan to buy one is a conflict of interest. Period. It is not, and cannot be, impartial advice.<<

The topic is horse show judging and I fail to see the relevance horse show judging in what you have posted above regarding the American system of justice.

[dkcbr]

>>>>These are the same people who are totally competent riders who are grossly over mounted by often times FEI level horses costing them nearly 6 figures or more because that is what they need to “win”. I have seen the tears in the barn when all that money and talent can’t get the rider past 1st or 2nd level, because the horse is simply too big and extravagant for the rider (who could easily be at 4th level on skill on a suitable, smaller, a little less fancy horse).<<<<

Please point to the place in the article where Ms. Sydnor suggests riders buy over-big, extravagant horses that they cannot ride just because they need to win.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

@dkcbr;2883600

>>Under the Rules of Judicial Conduct in most jurisdictions it is per se unethical for a judge to comment on something that will come before them in the future. They are supposed to judge only based on what they see before them in that particular case- not preconceived notions or biases. Secondly, judges are supposed to recuse themselves from any matter in which they have a conflict of interest. When you have an interest in selling horses, then telling people to take out a loan to buy one is a conflict of interest. Period. It is not, and cannot be, impartial advice.<<

The topic is horse show judging and I fail to see the relevance horse show judging in what you have posted above regarding the American system of justice.

If you read the thread, you will see that I was defending myself against slc’s comments, that’s all.

And you are right, that was exactly my point. Horse show judges are NOT bound by the same rules of ethical conduct. Positively.

[Eclectic_Horseman]

@dkcbr;2883610

>>>>These are the same people who are totally competent riders who are grossly over mounted by often times FEI level horses costing them nearly 6 figures or more because that is what they need to “win”. I have seen the tears in the barn when all that money and talent can’t get the rider past 1st or 2nd level, because the horse is simply too big and extravagant for the rider (who could easily be at 4th level on skill on a suitable, smaller, a little less fancy horse).<<<<

Please point to the place in the article where Ms. Sydnor suggests riders buy over-big, extravagant horses that they cannot ride just because they need to win.

As many, many posters have pointed out–Sydnor says buy the best horse you can afford. Not buy THE MOST SUITABLE horse.

[dkcbr]

>>>>>And you are right, that was exactly my point. Horse show judges are NOT bound by the same rules of ethical conduct. Positively. <<<<<

So what? I confess that I seem to be missing your point.

Unless your point is that because horse show judges are not bound by the same rules as the U.S. judicial system , each horse show judge is automatically suspect.

[dkcbr]

>>>>>As many, many posters have pointed out–Sydnor says buy the best horse you can afford. Not buy THE MOST SUITABLE horse.<<<<<

But, the most suitable horse IS the best horse you can afford!

The most suitable horse for each of us is the one that can go with us to wherever our goals are, to the degree of success that each of us will define for ourselves.

Don’t we all understand that?

[Sandy_M]

[QUOTE=dkcbr;2883645]
>>>>>As many, many posters have pointed out–Sydnor says buy the best horse you can afford. Not buy THE MOST SUITABLE horse.<<<<<

But, the most suitable horse IS the best horse you can afford!

The most suitable horse for each of us is the one that can go with us to wherever our goals are, to the degree of success that each of us will define for ourselves.

Don’t we all understand that?[/QUOTE]\

Yes, but Ms. Sydnor seems to feel that such horse does not exist under $20,000.

[Perfect_Pony]

@Eclectic Horseman;2883627

As many, many posters have pointed out–Sydnor says buy the best horse you can afford. Not buy THE MOST SUITABLE horse.

Thank you! That is exactly what she is saying…

If you want to win, you need a horse with incredible talent and gaits
These horses are expensive
You might need to go into debt

I have seen a lot of this around here. I have seen plenty of people grossly over mounted on these horses.

I have seen the people and the horses suffer because of it.

Thing is, these people ARE the ones she is addressing, and that’s what bugs me. These are people that are above average ammy riders who really do want to move up the levels, and they are fed hook, line and sinker by their trainers (making huge commissions btw) that they need to go out and buy the “best” the “fanciest” and the most spectacular horse possible to reach their goals.

There seems to be no gray area here. There are plenty of horses out there that are completely suitable but maybe not the biggest, or the fanciest, or whatever. Everyone on here seems to be talking about the extremes, but look around. I bought a horse with good breeding, above average gaits, and a mind worth millions for 8k because she is 15.1. Never mind that she has the stride of a much bigger horse, and gets 8s on her gaits — she was cheap because she was plain and small and not a trainer on the planet would look at her.

Anyway, I think it goes both ways, and if people actually took the time to look, and trainers cared as much about their clients pocketbooks as their own, it would be a much different sport.

[lizathenag]

[QUOTE=canticle;2881860]
poor excuse for a horsewoman [/QUOTE]

No need to be nasty. . .

I have ridden the same OTTB for the past 6 years and am happy with my progress and am a better rider than I was before. Those are my goals.

My cousin has a very fancy WB and has won Grand Prix at Wellington.

There are many paths up the mountain and the goals are not always the same.

[canticle]

[QUOTE=dkcbr;2883645]
But, the most suitable horse IS the best horse you can afford!

The most suitable horse for each of us is the one that can go with us to wherever our goals are, to the degree of success that each of us will define for ourselves.

Don’t we all understand that?[/QUOTE]
The best horses I ever bought were for $750 and $3000. Since it happened twice I know it wasn’t a fluke!

[Donella]

Unfortunately, that expensive horse IS a big part of quite a few goals. I think part of the angry reaction comes from that myth that all horses can achieve any goal the rider may have, if the right person just loves them enough - and that all expensive horses are just overpriced cheap horses, and no different athletically, gait wise or balance wise

Yup. If this really wasnt true we would see a tonne of “off” breeds ect at the top national/international competitions. Everyone likes to save money. Really. I also find that there is a strong theme on this board that “any horse can do dressage competatively” and “my qh/walkaloosa beats all the big time imported horses all the time”…yeah…well, only if the individual riding that horse is not suited to the horse. If you get two comparative riders…there is no contest. Sorry, that is reality. You can’t say “ohh well, my cheapy horse is just as competative because I can beat the AA that can’t actually ride the horse she bought”. That is winning by default. I just don’t buy it.

I ride a somewhat “off” breed…ie a friesian. She is modern and has exceptional movememt for the sport but there is STILL a big difference in ability (especially at the canter) than a top class wb bred for this sport! If you want to be competative, and it is a huge priority in your life, you need to equipt yourself with the tools to do so and a horse that CANNOT collect, or a horse that has no rideability ect is going to hamper that. Horses with ability are expensive. As soon as you want to get competative in any sport, the expectations go up. You don’t try to ride a horse that cant collect if you ambitions are FEI. Just like you don’t try to run a marathon if you have a heart condition. Just doesn’t work.

And on that note…this whole “all the people who ride expensive horses cant ride thing” is baloney. It’s just like when people make it seem like you can’t be smart and super beautiful at the same time. They are totally unrelated factors and how we assume one goes with the other is beyond me. There are LOTS more people bouncing around on rescue type horses than there are people who are serious enough about riding to seriously invest in a top mount. And that correlation makes more sense.

[NOMIOMI1]

.

Its offensive that people automatically assume that because your horse is under 20k he/she is downhill and has no overstride. When you spent the time to find one that is built well and has great gaits but was out of practice its almost insulting.

[dkcbr]

>>>>>If you want to be competative, and it is a huge priority in your life, you need to equipt yourself with the tools to do so and a horse that CANNOT collect, or a horse that has no rideability ect is going to hamper that. Horses with ability are expensive. As soon as you want to get competative in any sport, the expectations go up. You don’t try to ride a horse that cant collect if you ambitions are FEI. Just like you don’t try to run a marathon if you have a heart condition. Just doesn’t work.<<<<<

YEP!!

Well said!

[Ridge_Runner]

@QHDQ;2883546

I think what Cindy is really saying is that a GOOD RIDER on a GOOD HORSE will score better than a GOOD RIDER on a NOT SO GOOD HORSE and a GOOD RIDER on a GOOD HORSE will be able to advance faster in training than a GOOD RIDER on a NOT SO GOOD HORSE.

But in the world of competition, the best horse wins (not that that’s all there is by any means). Sometimes, the best rider is on an inferior horse and doesn’t win. She doesn’t understand why, because she has watched fancier or better quality horses being ridden less well, and she still loses to them. It begs the question : “Isn’t it all about the training?” Well, yes, it is about the training, but it’s also all about the gaits, the case of movement and how coordinated, balanced and athletic and dancer-like the horse is.

No go back and reread and I’ll put it there for you to save you going back. She is saying that a less able rider on a good horse will outscore the good rider on the lesser horse because of movement and quality. It is not as much about the training as it is about the quality of horse. I think that is what is upsetting so many people who were deluded into thinking that training is important also.

[quote=QHDQ;2883546]About taking out a loan. Taking out a loan is different than going into debt.
[/quote]

Come again? How do you figure that? If you take out a loan you have gone into debt. You have to pay it back and don’t think for a minute that a collaterized loan is a guarantee that you are off the hook. Someone I knew could not make her car payments so she let them come and repossess it thinking it was all she had to do…WRONG. They (the car dealer who sold it to her) got less than half for the car at auction than she owed on it and she still had to pay back the balance of the loan.

I personally do not care if Ms Sydnor reads this. She should know how people feel about her article. I personally am very disappointed in it.

[Fence2Fence]

@Daydream Believer

Come again? How do you figure that? If you take out a loan you have gone into debt.

I don’t really give a rat’s tail about this topic, but the train wreck is amusing.

To address this statement:

If you have $100,000 in the bank and you take out a $50k loan, you’ve taken out a loan, not “going into debt.”

“Going into debt” is taking out a loan when you are qualified by your yearly income/collateral to cover said debt.

Like a prior poster stated, I’d much rather keep my $20k stashed in the bank and take out a loan. Probably a fixed rate equity loan on my house and then write off the interest on my taxes.

C’mon to thnk of it, the article was so persuasive, I think I’ll go do that.

I’ll be posting pics of my Japanese WB imports here in a second, begging for critiques.

[slc2]

But this is absurd, it’s ridiculous! Not everyone who gets a loan defaults on it !

How many people here are over college age and have ever gotten a loan for something other than college? And of those of you who have gotten a loan, how many of you have defaulted on that loan?

[dkcbr]

As someone else mentioned, obtaining a loan is not the same thing as going into debt.

I obtained a loan to help pay for a $3,000 horse in the 1980s. Although I didn’t have the money to pay in full at the time of purchase, I was perfectly able to pay the ~$60 per month. Thus, I don’t believe I “went into debt”, which (to me) implies not being able to keep up with payments.

I obtained a loan in 1999 to pay for my Ford Explorer . I did not have the thousands of dollars in my checking account to pay for it, so I took out a loan, which I did pay back month by month. I don’t consider that “going into debt” so much as it is “getting a car loan.”

I obtained a loan in 2001 to pay for my house, too. I don’t have enough ready cash to pay in full for a house, but I can make my monthly payments. Thus I don’t believe I “went into debt”’; rather, I am carrying a mortgage.

I truly don’t think anyone is saying people should ruin their financial situation to pay for a horse – only that a loan is one option for a horse, just as it is for a house or a car. The key here is to figure out how much you can afford, to buy whatever horse you believe suits your goals and financial situation.

[dkcbr]

>>>>>Yes, but Ms. Sydnor seems to feel that such horse does not exist under $20,000.

Why are you letting someone else define your goals?

[Ridge_Runner]

No one said that slc…I just pointed out that even a collateralized loan does not necessarily get you off the hook if you default. Go back and reread for comprehension this time and lay off the Nyquil.

Debt/loan whatever you want to call it…it takes resources to pay it whether you have it collateralized by other assets or not. So you have 100 k in the bank which very few people really have…and I wonder why if you have that much you would not just outright buy the horse…anyway…you buy a horse for 50,000, you are out of 50,000 no matter how you twist it and you have an obligation to pay back every penny even if your collateral is not worth what you owe on it.