Mclain Ward: True horsemanship

[HORSEBACKRIDER]

The fact that the suspension happened is true.

But the fact of the suspension of a trainer or a rider in these cases, under the rule of strict liabiity, tells you nothing about who actually did the bad act.

In some cases the absolute truth of the matter may be that the rider or trainer charged is the evil doer (whether or not there is evidence to prove it). And in other cases, the rider or trainer may be completely innocent of doing the evil deed but is still “responsible” under the rule of strict liability.

This kind of rule is used in other contexts, too, such as hazardous wastes. The harm is considered so great that a landowner is liable even if the current landowner had nothing to do with the depositing of the wastes.

It’s an allocation of liability based on the seriousness of the harm and not based on the culpability of the person designated as “responsible.”

[Pokey]

These aren’t discussions. Discussions are conversations where people give and take, attempt to understand others points of view, and are meant to be pleasant or educational.

This is nothing more than people spewing personal opinions ad nauseum with no intention of taking into consideration anyone’s opinions or thoughts other then their own. It’s stubbornness, willfulness and ignorance at a reprehensible level, on a BB for all to see.

No one is changing any minds here. It will go back and forth until it’s shut down too, and I hope that happens soon.

[Fairview_Horse_Cente]

@Pokey;3459009

These aren’t discussions. Discussions are conversations where people give and take, attempt to understand others points of view, and are meant to be pleasant or educational.

This is nothing more than people spewing personal opinions ad nauseum with no intention of taking into consideration anyone’s opinions or thoughts other then their own.

Ahh, so then political and religious discussions are not discussions either.

[HORSEBACKRIDER]

Regrettably too often they are not.

Most people are too defensive and insecure to actually discuss those topics and listen repsectfully to others’ points of view.

Which is precisely why good manners cautions about talking about them.

But, you knew that already, I’m sure.

[Pokey]

I’m trying to find the article that discusses “discussions”, but the bottom line is - people cling to their own beliefs, seek out more information to support their beliefs, and seek out people that will support them too.

So no - politics and religion and McClain discussions will never be settled.

[onthebit]

Some of our posters are so high and mighty they must be able to walk on water. McLain is not his father, and it would obviously take some horsemanship to keep Sapphire sound and happy at the top level for many years.

Doesn’t anyone remember when Nicole Shahinian-Simpson had a horse test positive for cocaine? It was when she still rode for the Gonda family and they had the $$$ to hire a high-powered lawyer and fight the findings. And it did come out that trace amounts on a groom’s hands could have caused the positive test. The groom wouldn’t even had to been using themselves, but handled money that had also been handled by a cocaine user. They won this battle and the ruling was thrown out.

I have no doubt that McLain has probably made some mistakes in his life, but no one is perfect. He lives under a microscope and has had a clean record for many years now. When is it enough for some of you?

[HORSEBACKRIDER]

[QUOTE=ridgeback;3458973]
. . . All I know the charges were filed he was suspended and fined…[/QUOTE]

That is all you know. Exactly!

Under strict liability you do not know whether MW, as the trainer and rider, had anything to do with the activities making the violation.

Are you getting this?

Under the rule he is a “responsible” party but that has nothing to do with “guilt” in the criminal law or even conversational sense.

[ridgeback]

[QUOTE=HORSEBACKRIDER;3459108]
That is all you know. Exactly!

Under strict liability you do not know whether MW, as the trainer and rider, had anything to do with the activities making the violation.

Are you getting this?

Under the rule he is a “responsible” party but that has nothing to do with “guilt” in the criminal law or even conversational sense.[/QUOTE]

Believe what you want you are entitled to that:) Like someone said we aren’t going to change anyone’s mind…OJ was found innocent so anything is possible:lol::lol::lol:

[kkj]

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3458781]
That was me. Thank you for noticing; no one else wants to consider any possibility other than the guy is guilty, guilty, guilty. Apple doesn’t fall far from the tree, don’tcha know. UGH! I suppose we should just have courts throw entire families in jail if one family member runs afoul of the law. I mean, if one did something, they must all be baddies, right? And actually, let’s not bother having trials or anything, because if someone alleges something, it must be true, right? Nevermind if they can prove it, or there is contrary evidence or mitigating circumstances.[/QUOTE]

Listen I will not normally blame the son for the sins of the father. A lot of us have not the best families and rise above it. However, McClain still credits his dad for his riding and calls him his coach. Even if he was not related to Barney Ward, this association is troubling. How many of you would employ a horse killer as your coach? I know the family dynamic is a complicated one and it is hard to totally distance yourself from your parents. However, giving Barney Ward credit on national TV is horrible and scary in my opinion.

To the OP it is because of people like you, young horse people who perhaps have not been so jaded yet, that we need to keep the bad deeds fresh in our minds. You had not heard any of the bad deeds and there are plenty of you out there who don’t know or can’t remember the sanctions, court cases etc. I don’t see anything wrong with informing those who don’t know or can’t remember. I do have a big problem with the past being totally forgotten.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=ridgeback;3459118]
Believe what you want you are entitled to that:) OJ was found innocent so anything is possible:lol::lol::lol:[/QUOTE]

No, OJ was deemed “not guilty.” Courts do not find people “innocent.” The state, in that case, failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that OJ was guilty.

By the way, there was NO finding as to McLain one way or the other. He SETTLED the matter with the USEF; the suspensions were part of the settlement arrangement, and the suspension period ran while he was still pursuing an appeal with the CAS. It appears that had he not settled, he might have been suspended for a much longer period while he tried to fight the allegations. And BTW, a one-month suspension for cocaine is a slap on the wrist; had the USEF really thought they had a strong case, I doubt they would have let him slide by with a one-month suspension.

And as someone else pointed out, the rule is a strict liability type of rule. If a horse tests positive, trainer and owner are responsible, even if they personally had nothing to do with it.

[nycjumper]

banging head

McLain. McLain. McLain.

If ya’ll insist on trashing him and dragging his name through the mud, at least spell it correctly.

Unless of course you are discussing someone else entirely.

[ridgeback]

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3459163]
No, OJ was deemed “not guilty.” Courts do not find people “innocent.” The state, in that case, failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that OJ was guilty.

By the way, there was NO finding as to McLain one way or the other. He SETTLED the matter with the USEF; the suspensions were part of the settlement arrangement, and the suspension period ran while he was still pursuing an appeal with the CAS. It appears that had he not settled, he might have been suspended for a much longer period while he tried to fight the allegations. And BTW, a one-month suspension for cocaine is a slap on the wrist; had the USEF really thought they had a strong case, I doubt they would have let him slide by with a one-month suspension.

And as someone else pointed out, the rule is a strict liability type of rule. If a horse tests positive, trainer and owner are responsible, even if they personally had nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]

Like I said believe whatever you want in the end it really doesn’t matter nor are any minds going to be changed. :no:

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=ridgeback;3459175]
Like I said believe whatever you want in the end it really doesn’t matter nor are any minds going to be changed. :no:[/QUOTE]

Fine, but at least make up your minds based on the actual facts, not on some manipulated rendition of the facts.

[HORSEBACKRIDER]

[QUOTE=ridgeback;3459118]
Believe what you want you are entitled to that:) Like someone said we aren’t going to change anyone’s mind…OJ was found innocent so anything is possible:lol::lol::lol:[/QUOTE]

The point is that I don’t have a basis for believing anything about whether MW did or did not personally do the acts complained of.

And (bigger point) neither do you.

Under the rule he is responsible for the result because he is the trainer in one case and the rider in the other. Not because he was proven to be the culprit. His settlement acknowledges only that fact – he is responsible because he is the trainer not because he actually did the deed.

Now, you can say that you are a firm believer in where there’s smoke there’s fire and that in your book everyone who is held responsible because of the status of trainer or rider is, in fact, personally guilty, too.

Or, you can say that you believe that a person’s parent’s bad acts prove that the offspring is personally guilty of everything said against them.

Or, maybe you can say that you know other facts that argue for the person’s bad character.

But, factually (and legally for what it’s worth) you aren’t justified in saying that the MERE fact that a person is responsible under a rule of strict lability based on the status of being the trainer or the rider proves that the person, in fact, did the deed.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=kkj;3459119]

To the OP it is because of people like you, young horse people who perhaps have not been so jaded yet, that we need to keep the bad deeds fresh in our minds. You had not heard any of the bad deeds and there are plenty of you out there who don’t know or can’t remember the sanctions, court cases etc. .[/QUOTE]

Because otherwise young people might not know that breaking USEF rules or the law is wrong? Give me a break.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=HORSEBACKRIDER;3459188]
The point is that I don’t have a basis for believing anything about whether MW did or did not personally do the acts complained of.

And (bigger point) neither do you.

Under the rule he is responsible for the result because he is the trainer in one case and the rider in the other. Not because he was proven to be the culprit. His settlement acknowledges only that fact – he is responsible because he is the trainer not because he actually did the deed.

Now, you can say that you are a firm believer in where there’s smoke there’s fire and that in your book everyone who is held responsible because of the status of trainer or rider is, in fact, personally guilty, too.

Or, you can say that you believe that a person’s parent’s bad acts prove that the offspring is personally guilty of everything said against them.

Or, maybe you can say that you know other facts that argue for the person’s bad character.

But, factually (and legally for what it’s worth) you aren’t justified in saying that the MERE fact that a person is responsible under a rule of strict lability based on the status of being the trainer or the rider proves that the person, in fact, did the deed.[/QUOTE]

True.

[justalittlex]

Until yesterday I didn’t know that cocaine was a drug that horses were even tested for. What effect would it have on a horse?

[ridgeback]

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3459181]
Fine, but at least make up your minds based on the actual facts, not on some manipulated rendition of the facts.[/QUOTE]

I have made my mind up…:yes:

[ridgeback]

[QUOTE=HORSEBACKRIDER;3459188]
The point is that I don’t have a basis for believing anything about whether MW did or did not personally do the acts complained of.

And (bigger point) neither do you.

Under the rule he is responsible for the result because he is the trainer in one case and the rider in the other. Not because he was proven to be the culprit. His settlement acknowledges only that fact – he is responsible because he is the trainer not because he actually did the deed.

Now, you can say that you are a firm believer in where there’s smoke there’s fire and that in your book everyone who is held responsible because of the status of trainer or rider is, in fact, personally guilty, too.

Or, you can say that you believe that a person’s parent’s bad acts prove that the offspring is personally guilty of everything said against them.

Or, maybe you can say that you know other facts that argue for the person’s bad character.

But, factually (and legally for what it’s worth) you aren’t justified in saying that the MERE fact that a person is responsible under a rule of strict lability based on the status of being the trainer or the rider proves that the person, in fact, did the deed.[/QUOTE]

I can believe whatever I want for whatever reason and I may or may not know things I wouldn’t put on this board…I think he’s a great rider I don’t believe he’s a good horseman…PERIOD end of story.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=justalittlex;3459205]
Until yesterday I didn’t know that cocaine was a drug that horses were even tested for. What effect would it have on a horse?[/QUOTE]

My guess would be that it would act as a stimulant; I really can’t imagine anyone thinking giving it to a jumper would likely enhance performance, but weirder things have occurred. There are more effective, less traceable, cheaper, and more easily procured meds that could be used if one wants to cheat (not to mention ones that don’t run the risk of a felony conviction if caught with them). I think it is much more likely that whoever was tasked with feeding the horse was a user or dealer ans residue transferred from his/her hands, or that there was lab contamination, but who knows.