Yeah…I realize I’d be the first one tearing everyone’s head off that wandered my way during a horse show…but a LITTLE of the “Dog Show Hospitality” could serve as a lesson to us bitchy old horse folks…especially the champagne servers!!! Yahoo!
If anyone has any doubt about whether or not all of PV students who are presenting his proxy as their trainer are violating the rules everytime they sign their entry form.
I’m tired of re-typing for your information just go to page GR67 and read what is a violation.
Remember PV has to prove he deserves to be reinstated due to the fact he has reformed his evil ways.
jetsmom, it is apparent that the only thing that matters is how well connected you are. If some no name trainer that didn’t rub elbows with the hoi polloi did the same thing, well gee, he would be drawn and quartered. But because it is someone that buys and sells horses with the hoi polloi, has students winning at the big shows, we need to look only at the welfare of horses in the present and future. DAMN, we better let Scott Peterson out of jail, he killed his wife a couple years ago. Oh, and maybe Charles Manson too - that had to be 30 years ago, and they are both very sorry, they feel remorse every day.
Are posters boberry and broberry related? broberry seems to be pretty sweet and is into tack, while boberry seems a bit obsessed with PV…and lately, oxer and C.Boylen…definitely exhibiting stalker tendencies. 
But I do think that those who feel passionately about it should keep tabs on PV and his comings and goings, documenting violations when they occur.
Good heavens, just how would you suggest doing that? 
Letter of the suspension is one thing, but I would think repeated blatant violations would catch up with a person. Please note: I did not say they are happening, because I have no idea if they are or are not.
I think trying to understand issues and facts is one thing, but I think some of this speculation needs to stay a bit more grounded.
JMHO of course…
What Snowy said; LEGALLY, I don’t think show managers could refuse any non-suspended or reinstated party’s entries even if they wanted to.
BaliBandido is correct that the fact Ms. Banfield has already been reinstated COULD BE ARGUED to set a legal precedent for the rest of them to be reinstated as and when each becomes eligible to apply. That’s pretty much how this whole ball got rolling.
However, as discussed very early on in the thread, each suspended party was given a different suspension term because any “mitigating” factors were taken into account. Each suspended person has to INDIVIDUALLY prove to the satisfaction of the USEF Hearings Committee that s/he has been “rehabilitated” - by meeting “criteria” (I use the word with reservations) that are clearly subjective.
In short, there are a lot of loopholes which the Committee could interpret either way, pro reinstatement or anti reinstatement.
Nothing whatsoever prevents people from writing letters to the Hearings Committee to attempt to persuade the Committee one way or the other. In fact, I encourage EVERYONE to do so, whether you be pro- or anti-reinstatement.
It’s no secret that USEF has never been a democracy, but I would like to think that as a “corporate entity” they are still nonetheless willing to acknowledge the opinions of their “shareholders”, so to speak.
Now, to Erin’s question: has this thread reached the point of no return? My sense is that it may very well have. Thoughts??
[QUOTE]Originally posted by anthem35:
PLease feel free to PT me for any or all information you would like from me.
I would be more than happy to offer any details about my life that you feel necessary.[/QUOTE}
Please feel free to PT me as well.
I do not believe any supporter has said what was done was right.I know I did not.
Folks, if you want this thread to stay open, you need to CHILL… BIG TIME.
You’re welcome to discuss what appeared in Sidelines because it IS in print. You are welcome to discuss the USEF rules and whether or not certain actions COULD BE in violation of them, as long as it is a discussion that is clearly based on opinion, and not assertions of fact. (Unless anyone posting here is a steward, but I doubt that is the case.)
But, frankly, spouting off conjecture is really not productive to anything and is going to get this thread closed.
Posted Dec. 14, 2005 01:22 AM
I think the SI artticle was about the mess coming out and people getting prison time. This is about reinstatement. Letting the fox back into the hen house is against mainstream mores. Sponsors don’t like to be associated with that
One would think that sponsors would be more apt to pull the bucks then… but hey… I’m sure that the Average American would really be twisted over the re-instatement.
Originally posted by xegeba:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>But it’s safe to assume he will
Why? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
why? is right. why should he even bother? you are all so insistent that he’s training/schooling/coaching from the parking lot (i’ve never seen it, so wouldn’t know, nor do i care to know) so why should he even bother applying for reinstatement?
The USEF is not the general community. They are in the general community.
They have however violated the basic premise of the very association, now federation, that supports showing of horses. That is the issue.
People in other sports violate the code of conduct or sportsmans charter or rules of their governing board and they get permanent life bans from their sport or at least participation at the highest levels. Two that come to mind are Pete Rose and Tonya Harding. Same thing different venue, although no being died in either of those cases. Pete Rose pretty much hurt only himself, but he violated the code of conduct of his sport.
Membership is a privilege not a right.
Anthem, here is where I have to disagree with you, as we both know that the letter of the ruling is being adhered to, but in what I feel is unremorseful fashion, the spirit of the ruling is being ignored. As one of the other PV supporters said ""I like his “stick it to you attitude”. “”. I can’t help but feel the very same disregard I have come to expect after the many years I have seen his actions speaking louder than his words. This again is something we will not agree on, thank goodness we can agree to disagree.
Originally posted by harryjohnson:
Sarah, when someone goes to prison, they often lose other rights and privileges when they get out of prison. For instance, someone incarcerated for over a year loses their right to vote. Someone convicted of drunk driving, even after serving time in prison loses their license. Professionals lose their right to practice when convicted of certain crimes. The signatures on the petition will not bar reinstatement, it is going to be decided on by the USEF. They at, at their option, have the ability to reinstate or take public sentiment into consideration. At the same time this petition is being circulated, I am sure Mr. Valliere is taking action to present himself to the USEF in a favorable way.
All those things you say happens don’t necessarily happen–all that stuff varies by state or federal law–depends on the jurisdiction of the crime as to what the law provides. The professionals losing their license thing is not a legal result, as it too depends on the Hearing Committee of the Agency/Association that oversees licensing and depends on the nature of the crime…the losing the vote depends state by state.
This is not a parole hearing…PV and all the other suspended individuals, just like any other sports athlete–remember the USEF now has to answer to the USOC and the IOC–have rights to reinstatement under the Rules. You all have a right to file a petition, if you are a USEF member, or to just send a letter if you are just an incensed animal lover, or whatever. Those petitioning reinstatement have the right to have all of their supporters, including USEF members as well as members of the public at large write letters and appear in support. [What I don’t understand is why some of you on this thread are so vindictive towards anyone who is opposed to eternal damnation of these individuals.]
Hopeful Hunter: BRAVA! Exactly.
Snowbird: my own first rule is that one should never never never trust organizations, even when they are made up of individuals that you trust. Organizations will always behave in a way to protect themselves, save themselves work and grief, and minimize input from troublesome outsiders. To be effective in this, our attitude has to be “We cannot be shuffled aside, we will not play nice, we will not go away, and we will remember who in the organizations obstructed us when we are able to make our voice heard.” That is the only approach that works. When those of you interact with people from USEF or other equine organizations, start taking reporters with you.
No reinstatement, and no prisoners, either.
Originally posted by Snowbird:
Big Dawg! I think we’ve alled learned our lessons no one will respond to your outrageous posts and Erin will have reason to shut this one down.
Mind your manners children!
Quit being disparaging about someone posting who has a point of view that isn’t just like yours…read the post about the Congress slaughter bill–I did not post it–just replied…
Duffy (who is smart and reasonable) just finished explaining how she doesnt get it.
I’m not too sure you do either.
Erin- I understand this thread needs to stay tame…you are the moderator…hopefully unbiased, I will not say anything insulting to anyone that has posted…but I do take offense to your comment abt not training with"someone who made it a habit of disposing of unsuccessful horses"… I do not believe their is any proof of certain people discussed here “making it a habit”. One horse, one insance does not constitute “habit”
Amen! Virginiabred
I believe you can buy and own stocks but you can’t be a broker or an agent for stocks. As to the banker, I doubt once one is convicted of embezzelment he gets many job offers in the industry. I doubt he could open his own bank either or be bonded so he could work in the industry.
We don’t say he can’t own a horse, ride a horse or sell a horse just he cannot be a Federation Member in Good Standings with the opportunities that offers.
Someone said earlier that Paul has become the “poster boy” for no reinstatement and I think that’s true. I oppose reinstatement for ALL of them. Paul is getting the focus here because he’s eligible to apply soonest. If and when Barney comes up - well, don’t get me started on THAT one because Erin will be throwing many buckets of cold water on me!
At any rate the point is PRECEDENT.If Paul is reinstated, the door is opened for Marion, Barney, George Lindeman and everyone else, including Tommy Burns to be reinstated. It would be very difficult for USEF to argue a degree of evil or a degree of popularity as their yardstick for reinstatement. (We like you - you’re in! We don’t like you - auf weidersiein!)
Two points:
- We need to keep up the public pressure against reinstatement on USEF and make it embarassing for Paul to even think about applying.
- We need to pressure USEF to pass new rules about setting people down for life for convictions regarding horse industry activities. Insurance fraud, cruelty to animals, fraud, theft by deception - all sorts of nasty stuff.
There is no reason BoBerry except if we let them manipulate us and make us feel guilty for being moral. If they make morality and integrity a passive ancient philosophy then they are right and we are wrong.
If the finality of contemporary thinking is a tolerance for abuse of the law then they are right and we are wrong. If killing horses for a profit is a tolerable idea then they are right and we are wrong.
My point is if we are right then what do we do to make the whole situation right? We can feel good if we Memorialize the horses that died but how do we change what is acceptable to unacceptable?
It would seem since she came up first for possible re-instatement that what she did was less heinous. Was it only because we didn’t know? Probably.
