[QUOTE=findeight;6753526]
PONYMOM 67 is her old tag but it’s not an active username so old threads can’t be found by user name…but the Bedazzled one comes up by title and it’s a whopper of a read.[/QUOTE]
Someone should email the link to that thread to the NY Times reporter! That story leaves no doubt about EM’s delusions. I read it last night and, while it is funny, it is also really disturbing.
[QUOTE=amberhill;6753152]
6 vets/pathologists did not think these were excessive and neither did the USEF or they would have enjoined the protest.[/QUOTE]
One does not enjoin an action or a thing. One enjoins a person from performing an action. One obtains an injunction from the Court by filing a Petition for a Writ of Injunction.
If the Judge believes that the Petition has merit, he will grant the Writ.
Ms. Mandarino, using legal terminology when you do not understand it just makes you look silly (and I use that term in the legal sense.)
[QUOTE=findeight;6753526]
PONYMOM 67 is her old tag but it’s not an active username so old threads can’t be found by user name…but the Bedazzled one comes up by title and it’s a whopper of a read.[/QUOTE]
That’s right! For the life of me, I got the numbers at the end mixed up. Entertaining thread that was. Fancy pony for sale, she offered to do a lease or a lease to buy and the owner and/or trainer said no and she started throwing sand. http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?154439-Need-to-find-out-who-the-owner-trainer-is-for-Bedazzled-(large-pony-hunter)
I am wondering if Mrs. Mandarino would like to comment re: the drug list, especially concerning Cyrus. According to your website he is a ten year old equitation horse, and I was just wondering your reasoning for giving such a young horse legend, adequan, estrone, depo, banamine (x2), robaxin (x2), and dex (x2) all within a two day period. Thank you and happy new year.
[QUOTE=Kadenz;6753518]
Sounds to me that even in EM’s own scenario, she’s a pretty poor excuse for a “trainer”. Horse had such terrible lung disease that he literally DROPPED DEAD in the crossties, yet was well enough to be leased for Devon? [/QUOTE]
Yes, her spin (apparent lung disease) on why he died doesn’t really make it any better for her does it. 
I’d like to know if Ms. Williams did ultimately get her money back. The rest of the case is just so beyond crazy that my head spins.
[QUOTE=M. Owen;6744347]
I am glad to see this topic getting attention from the mainstream press. I think it is swept under the rug too much within the horse show world. I agree there are lots of people who do the right thing, but it is up to us to clean house before outside influences do so, and hunter/ jumper competitions end up with a black eye with regard to how it is viewed by the outside world. How can we ever hope to attract sponsors with that kind of press? .[/QUOTE]
AQHA finally got motivated to stop the drugging and resultant awful droopy look in the Western Pleasure because of possible outside interference and publicity by animal rights activists, not because it was the right thing to do for the horses.
[QUOTE=Daventry;6753605]
Yes, her spin (apparent lung disease) on why he died doesn’t really make it any better for her does it. ;)[/QUOTE]
I’m not sure if the correct question here is “how dumb does she think we are?” or “how dumb is she?”
Man, do I feel sorry for the kid. :no:
It is my understanding that elevated eosinophils are indicative of a parasite load and/or allegies. Those allergies could be of the COPD/heaves (old school word to describe the same) variety which fall under the broad diagnosis of “lung disease.”
FWIW the use of Azium (dex) to manage COPD in horses in not unheard of. The use of dex would suficiently supress the symptoms of a low grade or on going lung disease such as the aforementioned “heaves” or a seasonal allergy. (Banamine would likely have a similar effect on any symptoms.)
Eosinophilia is not a common finding in RAO (heaves).
[QUOTE=amberhill;6752953]
Ms. Pam Mahoney, Are you accusing me of posing as an attorney? You must know as an atty yourself that this is against the law. That is quite the accusation. I suggest you IMMEDIATELY retract the accusation unless you have proof to support your claim. You have been so advised.[/QUOTE]
If you will carefully reread my post, you will see that I did NOT accuse you of being an attorney.
In fact, I did not accuse you of doing anything. I expressed a belief that Tamara might not have written the language which was attributed to her. At no time did I state that I knew who did write that post. For all I know The Hon Rutherford J. Humperdink III wrote it. But I made it clear that I did not know anything for a certainty.
[QUOTE=figure8;6753592]
I am wondering if Mrs. Mandarino would like to comment re: the drug list, especially concerning Cyrus. According to your website he is a ten year old equitation horse, and I was just wondering your reasoning for giving such a young horse legend, adequan, estrone, depo, banamine (x2), robaxin (x2), and dex (x2) all within a two day period. Thank you and happy new year.[/QUOTE]
And, according to the list, Humble - a 9-year-old small pony - was getting all those medications except it was getting Banamine 4 times and Robaxin 3 times, plus Arquel, in a three-day period :eek: That’s how they came up with the “15 separate drug treatments” 
[QUOTE=Discobold;6753682]
And, according to the list, Humble - a 9-year-old small pony - was getting all those medications except it was getting Banamine 4 times and Robaxin 3 times, plus Arquel, in a three-day period :eek: That’s how they came up with the “15 separate drug treatments” :([/QUOTE]
Sounds like one sore Pony to me.Poor thing.
Probably should let this lie but…wasn’t their something about puppies in past train wrecks engineered by this poster under the old screen name???
Here’s to hoping those 9 attorneys bleed you dry.
[QUOTE=findeight;6753705]
Sounds like one sore Pony to me.Poor thing.
Probably should let this lie but…wasn’t their something about puppies in past train wrecks engineered by this poster under the old screen name???[/QUOTE]
Yup. :yes: :lol: Someone needs to dig that one up.
Another question I have is when did EM make the switch from pony mom to trainer? Sorry, but I don’t think watching your kid do the pony hunters for a few years imparts enough knowledge and wisdom to buy up 100 horses and start running your own barn. That’s another issue here—in my experience, the good trainers (with years and years under their belt) don’t need to give 15 injections every horse show. But if you don’t know how train or ride, you just might need to. :no:
[QUOTE=findeight;6753705]
Probably should let this lie but…wasn’t their something about puppies in past train wrecks engineered by this poster under the old screen name???[/QUOTE]
Diva Pup
[QUOTE=amberhill;6753355]
Regarding the NY times… here is the correspondence proving he had an agenda and did not report our statement or the truth for that matter
-----Original Message-----
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
To: mccrad <mccrad@nytimes.com>
Sent: Sat, Dec 29, 2012 12:31 pm
Subject: [FWD: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino]
Mr. McGraw,
I am not in the office due to the holidays and do not have a full list of the inaccuracies and omissions contained in Mr. Bogdanich’s article. Just to give you a flavor of Mr. Bogdanich’s communications with me regarding the reporting of this story, I am forwarding you a series of emails with Mr. Bogdanich. These emails followed a phone conversation wherein I attempted to give Mr. Bogdanich information regarding the lack of credibility of his “sources,” the identities of whom were obvious by the uneducated phrases and accusations he was parroting. I tried to explain that these “sources” were all defendants, potential defendants, or their counsel in a case pending in New Jersey and had underlying personal animus towards my client. I was told that he was “not interested in hearing about that stuff.” At that point, it was clear that he had an agenda other than reporting accurately on what occurred at the Devon Horse Show and the subsequent actions taken by USEF.
Most troubling is the fact that I sent to Mr. Bogdanich a prepared statement (see below) refuting Mr. Long’s assertions that my client did not cooperate with the Federation. Unless I missed something in the article, and please correct me if I am wrong, the only “fact” reported was that Ms. Mandarino had refused to comply with the Federation’s requests for documentation and information. Mr. Bogdanich had a prepared statement from me with an email from General Counsel of USEF confirming that statement and USEF’s “misunderstanding,” and he intentionally chose not to use it. I found his antagonistic manner unprofessional, and his reporting to lack integrity. It is also worth noting that one of the Jane Doe defendants in the pending litigation was posting on an unseemly anonymous gossip website as early as June 4, 2012 that someone “should get the NY Times reporter that did the racing article” to do an article on Humble. I am surprised that a publication of the NY Times’ stature would allow itself to be used to advance personal agendas, but in my opinion that is what has happened. Had the article focused correctly on the drug use in our sport, and on the people who actually have been suspended or otherwise punished (as opposed to Ms. Mandarino who has never been charged by USEF with a medication infraction despite dozens of random tests on her horses and ponies), it might have had some credibility. I will be in touch to discuss this further but would ask that the statement I prepared below be published immediately by the NY Times as a follow-up to yesterday’s story.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
From: “Bogdanich, Walt” <waltbog@nytimes.com>
Date: Thu, December 06, 2012 5:47 pm
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
I thought you said you were not going to communicate with me further?
Since you have apparently changed your mind, please know that I remain open to discussing with you my request to interview Ms. Mandarino. Rest assured that I will be very careful in what I report.
Thank you.
Walt Bogdanich
From:XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 5:32 PM
To: Bogdanich, Walt
Cc: Purdy, Matt
Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
Mr. Bogdanich,
Once again you are making a knowing misstatement of fact. My client proposed to produce the necropsy and toxicology to the NY Times with restrictions on its use and dissemination, and you declined because you didn’t want to adhere to the proposed restrictions. That is the full truthful statement on what happened and is evidenced by your own email. Anything other than that statement is false and misleading.
And again, your statement that I “have decided to deny [my] client, Ms. Mandarino, the opportunity to present her side of the controversy” has no basis in fact and I have already brought that to your attention. If any of these untruths are published, we will seek any and all appropriate remedies.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
From: “Bogdanich, Walt” <waltbog@nytimes.com>
Date: Thu, December 06, 2012 5:00 pm
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Cc: “Purdy, Matt” <purdy@nytimes.com>
XXXXXXXXXXXXX
You are incorrect. Your client DID offer me the necropsy and toxicology report. I’m sorry that you have decided to deny your client, Ms. Mandarino, the opportunity to present her side of this controversy. If you change your mind, please get in touch with me.
Thank you.
Walt Bogdanich
212 556-5881
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 3:54 PM
To: Bogdanich, Walt
Cc: Purdy, Matt
Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
Mr. Bogdanich,
My client did not agree to give you the necropsy and toxicology, and you are aware of that based on the attached email. As is shown by your own email, it was offered to you with certain restrictions on use and dissemination because it is a private document. You declined to accept it with those restrictions. You should be aware that there was a lawyer other than myself present with Mr. Mandarino during your phone call last night. You should also be aware that your statement that I am refusing to allow Ms. Mandarino to grant an interview has no basis in fact.
Based on your deceptive conduct, my client has decided that she will not communicate with you further, and I have decided that I will not communicate with you further.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: Elizabeth Mandarino
From: “Bogdanich, Walt” <waltbog@nytimes.com>
Date: Thu, December 06, 2012 3:05 pm
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Thank you for your email.
Please send me the full and final necropsy report, plus toxicology. If you choose not to – even though your client had already agreed to send it to me – please state your reason for denying my request. Also please state your reason for not allowing your client, Ms. Mandarino, to grant me an interview.
Please call me if you wish to discuss this further.
Thank you.
Walt Bogdanich
212 556-5881
From: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 2:41 PM
To: Bogdanich, Walt
Subject: Elizabeth Mandarino
Mr. Bogdanich,
In follow up to our conversation of last evening, please find the following on-the-record statement and an attached pdf of an email exchange with Sonja Keating of this morning showing the accuracy of this statement.
Ms. Mandarino provided the Interim Client Report with the findings on necropsy as well as toxicology tests conducted by New Bolton to the United States Equestrian Federation on June 19, 2012 as part of a motion made pursuant to GR617, which allows the CEO or Executive Director to dismiss a protest if it is unsubstantiated. General Counsel for the Federation acknowledged receipt of the motion in an email, with the CEO copied, on June 27, 2012. The report provided was deemed “interim” because additional toxicology testing for over 1100 different substances was ordered. That testing was performed by the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, and the results were received by Ms. Mandarino on June 28, 2012. I forwarded those results on June 29, 2012 to both General Counsel for the Federation and the Secretary of the Hearing Committee. On November 26, 2012, General Counsel for USEF contacted me to request a copy of the Final Client Report from New Bolton, and I immediately provided it to her. The findings in the Final Client Report were identical to those in the Interim Client Report that had previously been provided to the Federation. All of these results were also provided directly by New Bolton to the mortality insurer that provided coverage for Amber Hill Farm. I trust that the NY Times will ascertain the accuracy of all factual statements it chooses to publish regarding this tragic event.
Thank you,
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX[/QUOTE]
Didn’t have time to read now, but 2 questions, did anyone say why Humble, or best guess why Humble dropped dead so quickly at that time, something acute happen? And why did it take so long to admit the injection was just legends? As there wa so much speculations in the begining that could ahve been put away? Thanks
The Necropsy, Toxicology and accompany letters have been released as I have nothing to hide. To be clear, I am not on the defense as I am now the plaintiff… I have nothing to hide. The USEF did not join Williams in her protest nor bring their own charges up against me. They had that power and authority and declined to do so. You can find the reports and letters on my webpage.
http://amberhillponies.com/Amber_Hill_Farm/Necropsy_and_Toxicology.html
[QUOTE=Discobold;6753682]
And, according to the list, Humble - a 9-year-old small pony - was getting all those medications except it was getting Banamine 4 times and Robaxin 3 times, plus Arquel, in a three-day period :eek: That’s how they came up with the “15 separate drug treatments” :([/QUOTE]
This is probably what I found the most shocking of the whole saga. Even without receiving anything illegal and even with keeping within “allowed” limits per drug, I really wonder what kind of a toll it takes on the body to have THAT many substances (legal or not) injected very closely together and for a prolonged time (assuming that the list was a fairly “normal” routine for her ponies at shows).
[QUOTE=amberhill;6753755]
To be clear, I am not on the defense… [/QUOTE]
You’ve heard of the Court of Public Opinion? Each and every time you post it’s been, for good or bad (hint, they’ve mostly been to the bad), toward your defense. Why else would you post so much personal information as “evidence”?
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use