Good Guinness Missing

[QUOTE=Watermark Farm;3950491]
Can I ask a dumb question? Is that a normal thing to take a Grand Prix horse who’s on consignment and show him in Children’s jumpers? Would they do that keep him busy but not put lots of hard mileage on him?[/QUOTE]

It is normal to evaluate a horse that has just arrived to determine what level it will be competitive at. I believe that the term “Grand Prix horse” has been thrown around loosely here. GG won 2 classes (one labelled a Grand Prix, one a classic) at Woodside, CA during the first two weeks of the summer series, while all the top West Coast jumpers were at Spruce Meadows in Canada. The barn I was at had our top 20 horses in Canada. Another top jumper barn had about 15, I believe, there. Other barns from California were also up there. On a regular basis, our barn alone had 3 or 4 horses placing above GG, regardless of what level he was being shown at. I watched the Grand Prix that GG won at Woodside. One of my barnmates, a very competitive amateur, was showing in that Grand Prix. She would have won had it not been for a slight bobble, dropping her a couple of places. (Yes, my barn was compteting simultanteously at two different shows in two different countries.)

These are facts, not speculation that a couple of recent posters have accussed those who post on the tread. Check out the results of the shows week to week.

Don’t forget, the horse at Gulfport showing under Kanye (sp?) was the real GG, was leased out, and was supposed to have been a horse taken in trade. The horse showing at WEF was actually Kanye (Con-Air) and not a horse that had been sucessful in ONE Grand Prix and ONE Classic.

I’d like to see if USEF cries foul.
This has been very public and a rules violation did take place.

GR907
3. Misrepresentation of a horse’s identity, name, height, age, eligibility for the class,registered or recorded number or other information on an entry blank for the class in question results in the exhibitor’s forfeiture of any ribbon, trophy, cash prize or other award won by such misrepresented or substituted animal. For Dressage Competitions, any documentation such as negative EIA certification that is required for entry to a competition must list the same horse name and description as is listed on the entry blank and on the USEF horse identification or recording documents. The exhibitor is liable for further penalty as described in GR703.

[QUOTE=S A McKee;3950978]
I’d like to see if USEF cries foul.
This has been very public and a rules violation did take place.

GR907
3. Misrepresentation of a horse’s identity, name, height, age, eligibility for the class,registered or recorded number or other information on an entry blank for the class in question results in the exhibitor’s forfeiture of any ribbon, trophy, cash prize or other award won by such misrepresented or substituted animal. For Dressage Competitions, any documentation such as negative EIA certification that is required for entry to a competition must list the same horse name and description as is listed on the entry blank and on the USEF horse identification or recording documents. The exhibitor is liable for further penalty as described in GR703.[/QUOTE]

If the competitors were acting in good faith based on representations made to them, should they be penalized? It wasn’t an issue of eligibility, was it?

Mistakes happen… sure they do…

When they happen in other lines of business we have ‘personal injury lawyers’ etc etc. The horse world seems to lack all sorts of accountability and thus attracks the wrong people.

[QUOTE=Dun Ciarain;3950982]
If the competitors where acting in good faith based on representations made to them, should they be penalized? It wasn’t an issue of eligibility, was it?[/QUOTE]

It’s an issue of IDENTITY.

But ‘acting in good faith’ is a great defense, right up there with ‘they switched the buckets’.

If your logic was used that could justify a lot of violations and no one would ever be guilty because they ‘acted in good faith’.

A violation took place. Period.

I would expect, at a minimum, some sort of USEF hearing or inquiry to determine if/that everyone was acting in good faith.

[QUOTE=S A McKee;3951003]
It’s an issue of IDENTITY.

But ‘acting in good faith’ is a great defense, right up there with ‘they switched the buckets’.

If your logic was used that could justify a lot of violations and no one would ever be guilty because they ‘acted in good faith’.

A violation took place. Period.[/QUOTE]

“Misrepresentation” is legally defined as an intentional act. If the lessee was told the horse’s name is “ABC,” signed a lease that represented that the horse’s name is “ABC,” and had no independent knowledge that the horse’s name wasn’t “ABC,” then it isn’t misrepresentation. The rule you cited refers to misrepentatation. If the rule stated “Any error” of a horse’s identity, name… I would agree with you.

[QUOTE=Dun Ciarain;3951029]
“Misrepresentation” is legally defined as an intentional act. If the lessee was told the horse’s name is “ABC,” signed a lease that represented that the horse’s name is “ABC,” and had no independent knowledge that the horse’s name wasn’t “ABC,” then it isn’t misrepresentation. The rule you cited refers to misrepentatation. If the rule stated “Any error” of a horse’s identity, name… I would agree with you.[/QUOTE]

The owner of Kanye on USEF’s records is M Ward. The owner of Good Guinness is R Konecky. If leases had been filed with USEF the owner name would equal the leasee. The ‘exhibitor’ is the owner.

We will need to wait and see what USEF does.

If they do nothing then there will be a lot ( more ) horses getting new ID’s, losing a year or two and becoming a first year horse all over again. Hey, if it was accidental it’s OK.

If I had a 29 page topic where 50% of the posts were about what a crook I probably am, I would complain about the gossip as well.

Sorry that the story, at this point, is not more exciting. It must be disappointing to many of you that the situation was unraveled as it did, with healthy horses and satisfied owners and a decent explanation. Life is not always a Dick Francis novel or a Black Stallion episode. Sometimes it is rather mundane and random.

[QUOTE=Dun Ciarain;3951029]
“Misrepresentation” is legally defined as an intentional act. [/QUOTE]

Not according to Black’s Law Dictionary.

“Misrepresentation. Any manifestation by words or other conduct by one person to another that, under the circumstances, amounts to an assertion not in accordance with the facts. An untrue statement of fact. An incorrect or false representation. That which, if accepted, leads the mind to an apprehension of a condition other and different from that which exists.”

Intent, in other words, doesn’t enter into it.

Black’s only mentions “intent” in the second paragraph, and only includes it in the definition “in a limited sense”… with regard to an area of law which we’re more accustomed to discussing on these threads - insurance… :winkgrin:

IMO: They all committed NEGLIGENT misrepresentation. Do I think they should all get fined and/or take vacations?

Yep.

Otherwise, it’s as S. A. McKee said: it’ll be happening a LOT more, and the “it was all a horrible mistake” defense is let loose upon the Hearings Committee, essentially rendering the whole process null and void.

Well, it all boils down to adjudicated cases rather than competing law dictionaries. The two horses in question were competing in Children’s jumpers, as I recall - not much, if any, money involved. However, I’d rather concede the point rather then read through a bunch of cases in a matter that I have no stake in. :lol::lol::lol:

I’ll accept your concession and, rather than citing specific prior USEF cases, will merely express the opinion that EVERY member of the U.S. Equestrian Federation very much has a stake in how this one is decided! Unless, of course, they wish to compete their genuine First-Year Greens against TENTH-Year (Ever)greens whose owners copped the “I didn’t know/it was all a horrible mistake” plea.

[QUOTE=War Admiral;3951179]
I’ll accept your concession and, rather than citing specific prior USEF cases, will merely express the opinion that EVERY member of the U.S. Equestrian Federation very much has a stake in how this one is decided! Unless, of course, they wish to compete their genuine First-Year Greens against TENTH-Year (Ever)greens whose owners copped the “I didn’t know/it was all a horrible mistake” plea.[/QUOTE]

Actually, I was referring to court cases, rather than administrative actions by the USEF.

[QUOTE=Dun Ciarain;3951217]
Actually, I was referring to court cases, rather than administrative actions by the USEF.[/QUOTE]

Quite honestly, you lose either way… USEF is incorporated under the laws of New York state, and actions are brought against it in that venue, where existing case law defines negligent misrepresentation as follows:

“The required elements for negligent misrepresentation are: knowledge that the information is desired for a serious purpose, knowledge that the person given the information intends to rely on it, knowledge that if the information is false or erroneous the receiver will be injured, as well as a “special relationship” between the parties.”
White v. Guarante, 43 NY2d 356 (1977)

Gotta get back to work at my BUSY law firm now, kthxbye!

[QUOTE=Dun Ciarain;3951140]
Well, it all boils down to adjudicated cases rather than competing law dictionaries. The two horses in question were competing in Children’s jumpers, as I recall - not much, if any, money involved. However, I’d rather concede the point rather then read through a bunch of cases in a matter that I have no stake in. :lol::lol::lol:[/QUOTE]

Actually the Real GG was competing in the Junior Jumpers and even won a classic and was also doing some open classes…Kanye was doing the Children’s Jumpers.

It really looks like a mistake from horses that were mixed up and surrounded by people who did not know them…as far as GG…how many horses have any of us tried that were represented as one thing and were something completely different? FM may have thought ok this horse isn’t quite what we thought we would get…and maybe have thought he had been sent a horse with his scope now behind him…he doesn’t know the horse…and BW may have never laid eyes on Kanye and thought they had the right horse…and wow it has a lot more scope then thought and the girl gets it and goes on to do the juniors…how many times has that happened where we get horses that people shold short or didn’t realize or were able to maximize their potential…

I just think the horse world is so many shades of grey that mistakes and oversights do happen…sometimes things are set into motion like this and just go along because no one realizes there is a mistake and thinks in terms of how the horse world is not black and white…the 3’ eq horse that becomed a high junior jumper…the working hunter who is now is a pre-children’s horse because the parents bought him for their child…

[QUOTE=Midge;3950947]
I was just wondering why back barn was in quotes in your statement when it wasn’t part of McClain’s quote. (Also probably not admissable in a court of law :rolleyes:) The sales barn I ran had an upper, lower and back barn. No one stayed over in the upper barn.

Since we aren’t a court of law, thank god, we have no reason to expect any statement from anyone. Since the law WAS involved, I am guessing the shipper did make a statement to those who matter in this situation.

Once again, I am astonished this sort of thing doesn’t happen more often. Like losing your luggage at the airport. The luggage is tagged and heck it’s even travelling with you and it ends up in another city. The number of times some shipper has walked up to me in the middle of the night, looking for so-and-so’s stall is endless. Shippers bring horses in (WHY always in the middle of the night?) find the empty stall waiting for them and put the horse in it. Often, no one is there the make sure it is the correct horse or even make sure the horse is healthy from it’s trip. Granted it is often the regular shipper of a big customer and he knows the horses, but just as often, it’s not.

Some of the things posted on this thread indicate a lack of mileage by the posters. That the lack of front teeth is something to be concerned about or even would require a special diet. The first time the teeth were noticed and maybe commented upon is when the groom put on the bridle. The trainer looked and said, ‘Huh.’ and that was the end of that. Missing front teeth is not that rare.

That the groom would somehow know he had the wrong horse and that they surfed the net looking for pictures of their charges, or as a friend said, "
I, too, laughed at the idea that the grooms would realize it was a different horse when the trainers didn’t know. I can just picture one of his guys walking up to Frank and saying, “Hey, Patron, we have the wrong caballo aqui.”

It also seems some people think Barney has been living in a state of suspended animation for the last 25 years. He had not. He has a rather large sale operation that has been very active for all of that time. He sells a lot of horses. It is completely possible he never saw the horse he took in on trade before it stepped off his van.

McClain’s quote also seems to indicate both horses were on the van at the same time and had already enjoyed a layover somewhere else. I am guessing the shipper was planning on dropping the horse at Ward’s then travelling on to Frank’s, but since no one had been checking up on the horse, he figured he’d hang with his friends a day or two. If someone called he could say, I had to stop, but I am on the way and will be at Frank’s in just a couple hours."[/QUOTE]

Me? You very well may be right. I have not been a groom on the A circuit in H/J since the 80’s. Back then we had 3-5 horses each in our charge and we actually knew then and cared about them. We considered ourselves part of the “team” and an important one. We loved horses. That’s why we were grooms. We were proud of them and liked to know about them as they were a reflection on us as well and the animal we spent 12 hours a day with and had our hands on more then anyone else in the team. The GP horses were the stars. We knew all about them and just like any other sports fans did not find it a bother to want to learn more.

When it became clear being a groom was not the most pleasant life, I would sometimes just go to PB for 1 month and fill in at barns who needed permanent help but hadn’t found it yet. While I will admit I called every big bay horse in my charge “Jasper” for some reason, I still knew their real names and histories, results, and every inch of their bodies. I was still interested and delighted to see their show results in COTH for years after they left my charge.

I barely remember the people though. I think I worked for a barn called Norwood with Tim Keen and Jeffery Wells and I worked at Sandron with some guys named Joe and Conrad in 1984-5. But they must have been low class or something since they were dong it all wrong. I did manage a barn for Susie Humes and we did hire inexperienced, not really interested in horses people, but that was because she was broke an cheap and was only doing local shows. But I can understand how people like her that are now in the top ranks may have caused the standards to drop so far that the idea of a mere groom actually caring about the horses and being as thrilled to be part of the team as anyone else is just silly now.

Somehow, due to youth and no particular need for sleep, I managed to both pay attention and care for the horses and get drunk and stay out all night having fun. Its quite possible in this modern times such multitasking is no longer the norm. And I still managed to read my copy of COTh every week and even the tiny print results. But yes, you-tube would be much harder then reading a magazine. I mean you have to click a button and all and have some kind of power source.

As for the teeth, I do not find that all common. A few months ago I posted pics of a similar mouth because it was as shocking. In fact, in the weeks before I posted 2 Vets and one dentists said it looked like the horse had mouth cancer. They had not seen such an unexplainable mess either. We did recently finally get a specialist in from another state to examine the mouth and decide what to do, so for him it was a common site. Of course that horse was a Hol. that hunts and was not for sale and never will be, not some GP jumper that was to be vetted out by potential buyers with a $200K price tag. Since I am an old school old timer, I know not to look a gift horse in the mouth, but I sure as hell would look a $200K horse in the mouth.

But from your comments it seems things have changed. You make it sound like a big show barn these days resembles a large scale poultry operation. The grooms are either minimum wage workers with no actual interest in horses or the have so many to care for there is no time to care about each one. That’s a shame, because back when I was a groom we were expected to know every detail about a horses in our charge since the riders and trainers actually did deal with 20-30 a day. But now its just an assembly line of horses who are either grey or chestnut or dark and why bother about details??? That’s a shame, but it does explain why some of us old foggies had to spend quite a long time explaining the use of a rub rag to many new fangled COTHrs.

Of course you might just be wrong and have no idea what grooms think or do or care about. Maybe you have never been one or do not take the time to know yours or respect their opinions? Maybe your grooms are just stall cleaners and not highly trained professionals who do a job they love and do it well? Thats a shame.

Even my neighbors who barely speak English still have 25 years experience with high quality race and show horses and our local trainers bother to learn Spanish because those guys will notice if one hair is out of place and be concerned. They take great pride in their jobs and are very well respected. But I suppose that is why the trainers sponsored their relocation and immigration expenses because where they came from working with horses is a highly respected and lifelong profession. In fact I think both sides of my street for 1/2 a mile each way are families originally imported by Sandy Cassett to care for is race, show, hunt and chasing horses. They say that their jobs are even easier and better then in the old days. 5 das work weeks, only 8-10 hours a day. That just may be a local thing though. Because, you know, some of the former grooms are now trainers who beat the pants off of the Dogwood horses last weekend, but, you know, you wouldn’t ask them anything important because they were just grooms and because hey have accents they must not know or care about anything to do with the horses they rub.

I did not work for BW. All I knew about him was that you should not work for him, that he hit a groom several times across the face with a whip and that he rode horses down icy roads to make sure they broke legs. That was before all the really bad stuff came out. So yes, he is on the list of people I do not even know. By choice.

I do not think he is guilty of anything here because there does not seem to be any real profit motive, not because I am sure he would never do something dishonest. But back in the 80’s times were tough and the horse markets were crashing. People did some really bad things out of desperation. In our current economic state I am sure there is no reason for anyone to feel pressure to go back to tried and true tricks for surviving in a business that gets hit pretty hard when people have less money to spend.

But of course I would not have any first hand knowledge about that at all. Things were so crooked back then I left the H/J world all together. Its nice to know that its all so clean and fine and dandy now. Because with grooms taking care of dozens of horses costs must be really low and maybe showing is less expensive? And I even hear the fences are low! They have classes for people who jump under 3 ft? So the horses must be really cheap too. Its like summer camp. That sounds so fun!:slight_smile:

[QUOTE=War Admiral;3951257]
Quite honestly, you lose either way… USEF is incorporated under the laws of New York state, and actions are brought against it in that venue, where existing case law defines negligent misrepresentation as follows:

White v. Guarante, 43 NY2d 356 (1977)

Gotta get back to work at my BUSY law firm now, kthxbye![/QUOTE]

GG is owned by a successful lawyer. Let him worry about any legal claims:D

[QUOTE=equinelaw;3951364]
GG is owned by a successful lawyer. Let him worry about any legal claims:D[/QUOTE]

Actually, I believe that we are debating the Lessee’s reponsiblities under USEF rules.

Love this post!

Remember, the answer to everything in the horse show world today is: “it’s a business, what are ya gonna do?” Too bad so many of these “business” forgot about their major products.

[QUOTE=War Admiral;3951257]
Quite honestly, you lose either way… USEF is incorporated under the laws of New York state, and actions are brought against it in that venue, where existing case law defines negligent misrepresentation as follows:

White v. Guarante, 43 NY2d 356 (1977)

Gotta get back to work at my BUSY law firm now, kthxbye![/QUOTE]

While I am more familiar with IP law, I think negligent misrepresentation by the Lessee is a bit of a stretch.

Fox v. Pollack (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 954, 962

“Negligent misrepresentation is a form of deceit, the elements of which consist of (1) a misrepresentation of a past or existing material fact, (2) without reasonable grounds for believing it to be true,…”

California case law is a bit different - the Lessee does have a reasonable basis for believing the horse’s name was horse name was Kanye - if the horse and lease was presented to them as such and they had no knowledge that it was something different. Of course, as you say, this wouldn’t be litigated in California.

Having said that, their best (and cheapest) course of action would be to claim they were duped and voluntarily return and prizes and monies won.