[QUOTE=vineyridge;8529000]
If hearsay were rumor, it would not be allowed so often in legal (and arbitration) proceedings–which it is. [/QUOTE]
I certainly hope you don’t plan to take a bar exam anytime soon.
[QUOTE=sixteenhands;8529228]
Here we go again, did the FEI Steward tell you this directly or is this another rumor? Just because you read it on the Internet (or COTH) that does not mean it is true.[/QUOTE]
There was just a thread like this about Ann Romney in the dressage forum and many people weight in on their opinions of her ethics, riding, treatment of horses, etc. I just think a HUGE dose of “well… maybe, but …” is important here.
Do people have first hand knowledge of these events? were they there in person? Even then, we also have threads like the college riding thread that remind us there are three sides- your side, my side, and what really happened.
I have an opinion about the photos themselves, but anything else? who knows?
I’m not in a spot to look it up, but just as a comment to all the “rumor” vs “here say” stuff–she was yellow carded by the fei at least once and I believe twice for having an unauthorized treating veterinarian in her stables outside of allowed hours. I’m sure it can be found on a he FEI site. Point being, this issue with the FEI stewards and her Vet is not just a rumor. It’s been documented by the FEI.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;8529294]
Watch list; https://www.usef.org/documents/disciplines/eventing/EWatchList.pdf[/QUOTE]
Dangerous riding is not too much bridle.
[QUOTE=PhoenixFarm;8529291]
I’m not in a spot to look it up, but just as a comment to all the “rumor” vs “here say” stuff–she was yellow carded by the fei at least once and I believe twice for having an unauthorized treating veterinarian in her stables outside of allowed hours. I’m sure it can be found on a he FEI site. Point being, this issue with the FEI stewards and her Vet is not just a rumor. It’s been documented by the FEI.[/QUOTE]
It looks like the list posted on the FEI site only goes back two years–but she has a verbal warning (for excessive use of the bit) and a yellow card (for leaving after a fall without an EMT check) from 2013 listed.
I just have trouble believing that a horse that went around like this with a prior rider, needs the kind of bit setup seen here. It’s keen, and certainly doesn’t go like a hunter, but it looks enthusiastic and forgiving of some wonky distances.
[QUOTE=PhoenixFarm;8529291]
I’m not in a spot to look it up, but just as a comment to all the “rumor” vs “here say” stuff–she was yellow carded by the fei at least once and I believe twice for having an unauthorized treating veterinarian in her stables outside of allowed hours. I’m sure it can be found on a he FEI site. Point being, this issue with the FEI stewards and her Vet is not just a rumor. It’s been documented by the FEI.[/QUOTE]
And this stuff isn’t what a red jacket should be doing. My USEF/USEA $$ don’t belong going to this type of character. I do not endorse it. She’s been lucky this far but luck runs out.
In other words - Would GM do it?
There is a tab marked “Older Sanctions” back to 2006.
[QUOTE=goodmorning;8529336]
And this stuff isn’t what a red jacket should be doing. My USEF/USEA $$ don’t belong going to this type of character. I do not endorse it. She’s been lucky this far but luck runs out.
In other words - Would GM do it?[/QUOTE]
GM has his own history–I’ve never quite gotten over the metal pole/horse impalement from a few years back although I have always respected his general statements on horsemanship…
[QUOTE=Belmont;8528573]
Not saying ML is a great person, but not every horse (UL or LL) can go in a snaffle. Each horse is different. Only the rider/trainer would truly know what it needs. These 7 pictures out of ______ show a horse in a snaffle. I’m no eventer, but my friend photographs a ton of eventers every year. From what I see, ML is NOT the only eventer that goes in bigger rigs, and she certainly isn’t the only show jumper to do so either.
However, if you know the horse and it was going around in a snaffle before Marilyn got it, but now he rides in the hack-a-bit combos and such… Maybe you have an argument about how strong ML’s horse is or isn’t.
You couldn’t pay me enough money to take my horse around a cross-country course in a flash and snaffle. That would be a death wish.[/QUOTE]
Sure thats very true, but its not so much the bit that is making the horse bleed but the hands connected to the bit. Any bit can be harsh and draw blood on a horse lets face the fact its a piece of metal in a horses mouth. Now the more leverage and gizmos and gadgets you add to it the chances go up. The bit itself wont cut up the horse someone needs to pull on the thing. Quite hard and way over the top IMO. I find it funny how eventers always complain about how jumpers use those combo bits that look like computers started to their horses faces are cruel ect. Given I don’t like them either, but then some of them, more well know faces, make their horses mouths bleed on course. What would horses be without drama right 
[QUOTE=Raymundo;8529352]
GM has his own history–I’ve never quite gotten over the metal pole/horse impalement from a few years back although I have always respected his general statements on horsemanship…[/QUOTE]
[sarcasm]Yes, because GM went out that morning and thought to himself, “let’s use this metal pole that will freakishly land in such a way if it’s knocked that it will impale the horse. That will show it not to knock rails.” [/sarcasm]. :roll eyes:
[QUOTE=RugBug;8529543]
[sarcasm]Yes, because GM went out that morning and thought to himself, “let’s use this metal pole that will freakishly land in such a way if it’s knocked that it will impale the horse. That will show it not to knock rails.” [/sarcasm]. :roll eyes:[/QUOTE]
Hey RugBug–thanks for the sarcasm “warning,” but if you’re trying to say that GM has a squeaky clean history of always doing the right thing for the horse, this was one example of NOT. Bad things are done to horses all the time to get them to the ring jumping brilliantly and this was one of them. Roll your eyes all you want, but I bet you wouldn’t sharpen a horse up with a metal offset after this, would you?
Not trying to say he’s squeaky clean, but maybe pick something that was intentional.
[QUOTE=meupatdoes;8529279]
I certainly hope you don’t plan to take a bar exam anytime soon.[/QUOTE]
Clearly you don’t understand the hearsay rules. Hearsay is still hearsay, even when it’s allowed under all the exceptions to the hearsay rule. Rule 801c defines it.
© Hearsay. “Hearsay” means a statement that:
(1) the declarant does not make while testifying at the current trial or hearing; and
(2) a party offers in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted in the statement.
The exceptions don’t change the character of the testimony as hearsay; it just means that the testimony is admissible not inadmissible.
Federal Rule 802
Rule 802. Hearsay Rule
Hearsay is not admissible except as provided by these rules or by other rules prescribed by the Supreme Court pursuant to statutory authority or by Act of Congress.
And the Federal Rules provide a residual exception besides the specific ones:
Rule 807. Residual Exception
(a) In General. Under the following circumstances, a hearsay statement is not excluded by the rule against hearsay even if the statement is not specifically covered by a hearsay exception in Rule 803 or 804:
(1) the statement has equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness;
(2) it is offered as evidence of a material fact;
(3) it is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can obtain through reasonable efforts; and
(4) admitting it will best serve the purposes of these rules and the interests of justice.
(b) Notice. The statement is admissible only if, before the trial or hearing, the proponent gives an adverse party reasonable notice of the intent to offer the statement and its particulars, including the declarant’s name and address, so that the party has a fair opportunity to meet it.
A huge amount of hearsay is admitted in federal courts under all the exceptions to its inadmissibility.
[QUOTE=Equibrit;8529343]
There is a tab marked “Older Sanctions” back to 2006.[/QUOTE] Not in my browser. The FEI Documents Library isn’t open to the Public.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;8529574]
Not in my browser. The FEI Documents Library isn’t open to the Public.[/QUOTE]
No, there is a second tab in the Excel document for the Eventing sanctions labeled “Older Sanctions.” Check on the bottom of your Excel sheet. It is for the public.
I’m kind of shocked that so many people are defending bloody mouths on horses as “maybe they’re just strong”.
When did it become okay to make a horse (or multiple horses) bleed from the mouth while riding? When did it stop being an example of bad hands, bad training, and bad horsemanship?
Ditto. This part also caught my eye and was a red flag of the intent of the article:
“…weekend in Wellington, in which Little jumped the WEF Challenge Cup on Thursday, competed in the highly popular $75,000 Wellington Eventing Showcase on Friday and Saturday…”
The Eventing Showcase is “highly popular” ?? Take a peek at the threads on the eventing forum. “Highly controversial” may be a better way to describe it. 
In my jurisdiction, even when hearsay it admitted, it is then weighed by the judge for its value. Being admitted doesn’t mean it is proof of anything.
[QUOTE=Mardi;8529800]
Ditto. This part also caught my eye and was a red flag of the intent of the article:
“…weekend in Wellington, in which Little jumped the WEF Challenge Cup on Thursday, competed in the highly popular $75,000 Wellington Eventing Showcase on Friday and Saturday…”
The Eventing Showcase is “highly popular” ?? Take a peek at the threads on the eventing forum. “Highly controversial” may be a better way to describe it. :)[/QUOTE]
Well, actually, they are very popular. My trainer was down there helping out a few people (um, including ML- oh noes!!!) and he said it was packed. The forums aren’t necessarily always the best place to go for factual information, in case anyone was wondering.
