She may have been “confident” of that but that’s not what she signed. That confidence didn’t hold up so well
1 Like
Re bold, How do you know?
2 Likes
I know! I used to tell one of my horses that if anyone offered me 10 bucks for him, he’d be in their trailer before the ink dried.
3 Likes
Because she wasn’t consulted about Jack as per the agreement she signed that was posted up thread and her horse is dead . Or did you miss that part
I didn’t miss that the horse is dead.
I still haven’t heard what happened between the time Pepe called her to say they wanted the horse to see the vet, and the horse arrived at the xties, collapsed, seized, and died.
I’m not willing to assume anything about the contract, consultation, or the events leading up to his collapse.
2 Likes
I had one I used to say,
“Free to a good home. I’ll pay you to take her to a bad one!”
6 Likes
If I were an owner with one of my first horses at this level I can absolutely understand signing.
Where I start to lose understanding is when you have owners who are regularly sponsoring horses at this level (thinking of McLain’s owners, Beezie’s owners, etc) who actually have the power and leverage to negotiate these types of contracts.
That is why I am surprised a lot of this language has lasted into present day.
ETA: To be very clear, I don’t blame any owner for signing, and I’m not trying to shift the responsibility for anything that happened into anyone who signed the agreement. I’m just expressing surprise that owner pushback didn’t cause some of these provisions to go away before now.
10 Likes
It is also ironic that the World Cup Final is the least “teamy” of the big championships. It is every man/woman for themself, not a national team score. Y’all might be stabled together but no other US rider’s result hangs off the effort of anyone else’s horse. So it is even less obvious that care & custody has to be bestowed on the USET.
15 Likes
I would guess two things:
-
A lot of people, even pretty savvy people, don’t read contracts all that closely. Especially if told this is the same contract that every other savvy person whose horse has represented the team has signed already.
-
There may have been informal verbal assurances that the vet provision was intended for emergencies, during which it would not be unreasonable for the vet/team to want to provide treatment without delay.
Between those two things and the fact that this hasn’t happened before (as far as I know), I’m not that surprised there hasn’t been pushback.
6 Likes
It was mentioned earlier that the “call owner first” courtesy has been extended to bigger name owners who had more clout and this owner assumed the same courtesy would be extended to her when she signed the contract.
1 Like
I’m not sure that was stated as a fact. I think it was a supposition. Mainly because Lee McKeever would have just ignored them.
9 Likes
@Midge is correct - that conversation was all theoretical, assuming Lee would’ve told them to kick rocks until the owner said otherwise.
It would be clarifying if we were told the other two horses treated the same as Chromatic. I doubt that will happen unless it comes up in a lawsuit.
6 Likes
Now that you say that, we don’t know what anybody else’s contract looks like. We’ve only heard about the one for Chromatic from his owner.
Strictly supposition, but maybe some other owners take a big red pen and cross out the parts they don’t like before they sign it.
4 Likes
Let’s not forget, KC said in her first statement that she was already working with USEF to alter the contract. Frankly I’m surprised they got to it that quickly after Chromatic died - maybe she had already expressed her frustration when she signed it and they told her she had no choice?
6 Likes
Very true!
I am not surprised. USEF can’t really come out with an apology if there is the potential for litigation, because that could look like they are admitting fault. What they can do is work with the owner to try to make sure the situation does not happen again by reworking the agreement, without ever admitting the agreement (and the injections resulting from it) contributed to the horse’s death.
6 Likes
I just don’t even think it gets to that point. Lee, McLain and the entire usef team probably have all these details ironed out long before the horse ever sets foot on the grounds of a show that falls under this criteria. And I’m sure that’s equally true of beezie, Kent, Laura, and so on. I’m also pretty certain, that the owner isn’t really ever consulted in that part of the program. Those horses are absolutely within the care, custody and control of the rider. So I can see where throwing an owner who is a decision maker into the decision-making process, especially when that owner is NOT the rider can really mess with the system.
2 Likes
But in this case the CCC is with the owner. It doesn’t really matter that she is the owner. She is the person in charge of the horse on the ground. She’s not some random LLC. I am not of the impression that the rider was consulted, either. No one was consulted on that horse’s team. The owner was there and had asked to be consulted. She shouldn’t have been treated any differently than those in charge of any other horse.
11 Likes
Its interesting though because while I agree the owner isn’t likely to be consulted for daily horse care/management, the owner is the one who has to agree to loan the horse and sign the agreement turning over those decisions to USEF.
4 Likes
I think too there are very different types of owners out there. Some are incredibly hands on like in this case. But from what I’ve seen riding with a trainer who had an owner who also has horses with Kent and Henrik… many don’t even know the groom’s name, let alone what happens at the barn. They just care about results.
I can imagine that the protocol for who to call and when probably varies widely. It’s no excuse of course, but I can see things devolving into a game of who’s on first at exactly the wrong moment.
4 Likes
I cannot imagine all the pertinent information is not readily at hand. I would hate to think at that level there is confusion about who to call. In this case, it appears no one was interested in making that call.
11 Likes
