Originally posted by Snowbird:
Does he have to prove he has reformed? And, how does someone who disagrees get the oppotunity to produce the evidence?
And how would he prove that? Just curious. 
While I agree that PV’s crime is horrible I also see the value in that through his cooperation he made it possible to take out the entire ring of conspirators. This does have value that many of you cannot appreciate if you haven’t seen how many times offenders get clean away with crimes because no one will do the dirty work of a CI.
Sorry, but this does not make my heart bleed in the least. He did this purely to save his own a<span class=“ev_code_GREEN”>$$</span>. Which by some of the other posts in this forum shows it quite clearly worked, for the man still has clients up the a$$.
It was all about the MONEY. It is still all about the money. MONEY FOR HIM.
What a world when a group of such purported high “class”/high dollar people are so eagerly willing & wanting to play with such ilk. 
*use of $$ signs is extremely intentional
Originally posted by Showponymom Aefvue Mid Atlantic Division:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>She never said that. She said he has the right to apply
I believe she has never said that he was wrong in what he did. It is obvious that when you stay and train with someone that has done this terrible thing, you are validating it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Huh? Chanda doesn’t train with him…what are you talking about?
Actually, the reason I asked Anthem (or anyone who might want to answer) about the checks is that…IF I’m reading this correctly…if a legal entity is the recipient of the checks (Acres Wild Farm II, for example), then neither she nor anyone is doing anything for the “credit/benefit/etc” of PV.
IF the bills and checks are not to PV, her support and money are going to a legal entity, which, as I read the rules, IS allowed to employ trainers, show, own horses, etc. Yes?
In that case, I can’t see that any of the riders who thank PV - in ads or articles - can be considered in actual violation of the rules. Now, can the legal entity be considered in violation, though?
I’m really NOT trying to pick on anyone, but to understand the legality of all of this. As I’ve stated, I don’t agree with the morality, but that is not something that is really IMO going to carry any weight. Just as PV has a RIGHT within the law (if not within some of our views of ethics) to apply for reinstatement, and others have the right to express their opposition, there may well be a legal right for him to work with other trainers if it’s structured in a way that is careful. If so, then there is no actual violation of the rules as they now stand, and if we don’t like that, we need to see about changing the rule.
The USOC is supposed to regulate the USEF as an NGB. The Congress regulates the USOC.
I know it’s hard to believe but it is a fact there are some very good people who hit on very hard times. Actually, someone stole a mongrel pup of ours and I was heartbroken and worried for him.
But, one day he showed up here at a horse show and someone found him when he was dumped on a highway and took him home and he was wonderfully happy and healthy. I was thrilled to know that was what happened and he wound up with horse people besides.
Originally posted by Snowbird:
As to the youngster who defends PV. All children especially college kids think they have the solutions all the questions of how the world should run and then by 40 they learn how much they don’t know. Time will solve that problem in it’s own time.
Youngsters are badically self serving and demanding so it is no surprise they prefer people who don;t make them feel inferior for not having a social conscience yet.
What an awesome post! My favorite so far. It is so SO true. We’ve all been there.
I do have to say though, reading posts by high school/college students just makes me fear for the future of America. Even though I thought I knew everything at that age…I thought I knew how to save the world, not how to destroy it quicker. I was busy being a vegitarian, buying everything from thrift stores and driving the smallest/most fuel efficient car I could find. I took all that 60s and 70s stuff seriously.
I can’t imagine supporting a horse killer and talking about how business rules and morality is out of date 
I want to add, I do know there are some great young people out there. I just can’t believe how much the money/power/greed/bling stuff is so pervasive though…It’s weird for this ex-hippy turned punk rocker who thought it was cool to be against the messed up “system”.
I’m pretty sure it varies by state as to whether or not chiros have to be vets.
Originally posted by Serah:
I promised myself i wouldn’t reply to your crap anymore, but this just made me laugh out loud…Big Dawg who are you to criticize someone for getting personal…Wasn’t it you making the “daddy’s money” and “public school” comments???
Another woman who can’t keep promises? On these chat rooms you should fit right in.
Barney Ward excerpt from UTexas Law…
In July 1994, Defendant and others were indicted by a grand jury of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois for crimes involving the killing of four horses in order to collect insurance proceeds for the horses. On March 19, 1996, Defendant pled guilty to one count of criminal conspiracy to commit wire fraud. Defendant admitted that he conspired with three others to kill a horse in order to enable one of them to file a false insurance claim as to that horse. Defendant further admitted that he told the horse killer to keep quiet about the people who hired the killer to slaughter the horses, and, if he kept quiet about Defendant’s friends and business associates, Defendant would pay him money. Defendant also admitted that he later spoke with the horse killer and that Defendant said that he would kill the horse killer if he did anything to hurt Defendant. Defendant was sentenced to serve 33 months in prison, to be followed by three years of probation, and to make restitution of $200,000 to one of the defrauded insurance companies.
Defendant was charged by Plaintiff with violating Plaintiff’s Rule III, Article 302.6 and Rule VII, Article 702(a), (d), and (f). Rule III, Article 302.6 provides:
Following a hearing, the AHSA's Hearing Committee may deny or suspend the privilege to participate in or go upon the grounds of Recognized competitions, and/or deny, expel or suspend the privileges of membership in the AHSA to any person, whether or not a member of the AHSA, whom an indictment, information or charge (criminal, administrative, or civil) has asserted, or whom any civil, criminal or administrative court or tribunal has found, to have committed or participated in any plan or conspiracy to commit, any act of cruelty or abuse to a horse, whether or not any such alleged or actual act, plan, or conspiracy occurred on the grounds of a Recognized competition, or was in conjunction with, or was an element of some other offense, actual or alleged. For purposes of this subsection, cruelty and abuse shall include, but shall not be limited to, any of the acts enumerated in Art. 302.4, and, in addition, killing, crippling, abandoning, mistreating, neglecting, or any other form of abuse of a horse. (See Art. 614).
Rule VII, Article 702 provides in pertinent part:
A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the AHSA, including but not limited to the following:
a) Violation of the rules of the AHSA.
....
d) Acting or inciting or permitting any other to act in a manner contrary to the rules of the AHSA, or in a manner deemed improper, unethical, dishonest, unsportsmanlike or intemperate, or prejudicial to the best interests of the sport and the AHSA.
....
f) Physical assault upon a person and/or cruelty to a horse defined in Art. 302.
A hearing was scheduled on the charges and held on July 10, 1996. Defendant did not appear at the hearing. Before the hearing, Defendant’s attorney sent a letter to Plaintiff stating that, in light of Defendant’s having pled guilty to one charge of the indictment and his admissions regarding his role in the death of one horse, Defendant was resigning his membership with Plaintiff, effective immediately. The letter further stated that Defendant did not intend to appear at the hearing or offer any evidence on his behalf. The charges were sustained by Plaintiff. Defendant was immediately expelled from his membership in Plaintiff, barred from competing in international competitions, and excluded from all competition grounds either as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. Defendant was given the right to apply to Plaintiff for reinstatement no earlier than August 29, 2009. http://tarlton.law.utexas.edu/dawson/cases/cruel/cruel.htm
Can Barney apply for reinstatement in 2009?
Originally posted by War Admiral:
Showpony - Don’t just send it to the equestrian staff at Ethel Walker. Go all the way to the top.
Sorry that wasn’t me, I was responding to their post, I believe it was ss3777
It is fine to be “against reinstatement for anyone convicted of X”
But if you think that is going to have any influence on the current 'suspended persons" you are living in a fantasy.
The FACT is that they were each suspended WITH THE RIGHT TO APPLY FOR REINSTATEMENT at a specific time. Much as we may wish that they had been given a permananet suspensiion, the FACT is that they have been granted the right to reapply.
The FACT is that specific criteria were given for applying for reinstatement. Much as we may wish the criteria were stricter, we can’t go back and change the criteria.
If you want to ACCMPLISH something, as opposed to blowing a lot of hot air that makes you feel better, you need to address EACH person as he/she applies for reinstatement. And you need to address it in terms of the STATED CRITERIA for reinstatemnt- not in terms of what you think the criteria should have been.
Originally posted by Snowbird:
I would like to hear how he justifies such a heinous act? As someone who struggles to support my poor string of lowly horses that no one wanted and the care for them until it’s their time and not when it’s convenient for me. I came close to bankruptcy and never considered killing my horses. I could have insured them and arranged for accidents, heck we have a lot of ice to slip on in the winter, I wouldn;t need a “sandman”.
I would like him to tell me why it’s different for him. Why is it different for expensive horses and rich clients than it is for me? Why wouldn’t he have given the kids in my barn at a horse like the one killed for free? Tell me why I should respect him and want him back judging the Maclay?
I think this deserves a response for sure…
But in all honesty, it will be very hard for one man to personally respond to all the inquiries posed here…But Snowbird, what can I do to help YOU?
I can offer you this–
I have been to your farm, showed at your show.
Had a great time while suffering the risk of making a tremendous fool of myself.
I am not anything other than a little person myself. I am certainly not a rich client.
I do not have a string of warmbloods. I have a plain ole’ QH.
While you may feel that he sees it differently, I can assure you that he does not. Expensive horse, cheap horse. He does not care. Just wants it to be the Right Horse.
I have said this before, and I will say it again.
There will be corruption at the top end of any game.
Politics, Religion, Sports.
I am happy that you enjoy your life and your wonderful farm, and have not felt the need to sacrifice yourself to produce only winners. Its a tough game to win.
But what does that have to do with respecting his opinion as a trainer?
I am not asking you to sponsor a class in business ethics with Paul as the guest speaker.
But even you agree, his expertise in the training arena is without compromise.
You do NOT have to respect his history, you should respect his opinion judging the Maclay.
But Sam has an assistant, Al (who is not yet suspended). Al signs the entry blank as trainer, and goes on the show grounds with the clients, rides the horses in the “pro” classes, and trains/coaches the clients.
I am gently sticking out my neck and asking doesn’t PV have people going to the shows and doing that. I thought I saw that David O. was hired to train PV clients at the shows and sign their entry blanks. If not him someone is.
I could be completly wrong and I apoligize upfront and will be like a turtle and put my neck back in.
I too would really like the answer to this:
GR702 Violations
- A violation is any act prejudicial to the best interests of the Federation, including but not limited to the following:
i. Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit , credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person.
What do you all think is TRULY the INTENT of this rule???
Anthem35 - Aren’t you claiming that you exhibit, and by stating that he is your trainer, and how wonderful he is, and that he is the best, are you not riding for the credit and satisfaction of a suspended person?
BTW, what did you say your name was?
Originally posted by xegeba:
So… based on this logic… let us now suppose that PV was a pisspoor money-manager and really, really needed the cash. What the hell… I’ve paid the ins. Co. gazillions of dollars over the years…I deserve this payout.
I suppose that goes with someone who thinks just because they want something they should have it. No matter if it belongs to someone else, is out of their price range, etc. It is also illegal- slaughter at this time may be many things but it is still legal. PV, I am sure is not the only person in the world who thought he deserved a payout- however he is one of the minority who actually went forward with it. Or does that not matter?
Good question Showponymom… i’ll have to refresh the cocktail and ponder that .
I would like to suggest that you all redirect your energies to basket weaving.
I was having problems with Internet Explorer and was recommended to Mozilla Firefox by a technician. It’s free and it works great. Don’t be afraid to try it. Just go to Mozilla.com.
We want every signature!
They are watching 12,640 views and only 340 posts. Considering that’s maybe 100 posters with 3 posts each; they are watching to see what we do! So let’s do it right! They need to know that the “little” people “will not take it any more”.
