The "NO REINSTATEMENT" thread.

[FuzzyLogic]

Originally posted by Saddlebag:
I have tried to stay away from this thread, because it seems to me that what the “No Reinstatement” faction really is about is to discredit the “A” Circuit competitors and unilaterally assuming that anyone who competes on the "A: level of showing condones killing horses for insurance money. So now, you are seeking to piggy-back your cause onto the upcoming Animal Planet series on the Maclay Finals by implying that the kids who are the stars of this series, and who have expended the work and dedication that goes into preparing for this national championship, are the budding young horse killers of the future. I’m sorry, but I find this type of “Yellow Journalism” extremely distasteful and yes, harmful to the sport.

I know of no-one who supports the actions of Messrs Lindeman, Ward, Valliere, et al that occured ten years ago. I certainly am apalled by what they did to those horses. But, I am also outraged when I read the vicious verbiage that this mob visits upon anyone who says, "Hey, I have faith that the USEF Hearing Committee will listen to the reinstatement arguments fairly and dispassionately, and will come to a just decision as to when or whether the miscreants may be reinstated as members of our Federation.

And,by the way, the whole notion of the petition flies in the face of a fair judicial procedure. Juries in criminal trials are often sequestered so that they can’t be tainted by public emotions and swayed by lynch mob histrionics. Your actions, despite what you say, amounts to an attempt at “jury tampering”, and last time I heard, that is against the law!

As someone mentioned earlier, “Get Over It!” And, by the way, the letter that was sent to Animal Planet stated ( as fact) that the USEF was “one by one reinstating” those who had been found guilty of insurance fraud". That just isn’t true…the USEF is beginning to conduct hearings on reinstatement…which is not the same thing as granting reinstatement. Please…when you set out to ruin a sport that others have worked very hard to develop…at least, get your facts straight!

Well said, Saddelbag, and please know that unlike members of the lynch mob, there are people reading this thread who can actually read for comprehension and not put words in your mouth.

[Serah]

Dawg…Do YOU have anything serious to contribute??? If not why dont you get on your merry little way???

[Jane]

Harry, now you’re getting dramatic. I have not read any posts, especially recently, that stated PV should be reinstated. What I read were people defending PV’s right to reapply, SHOULD HE DECIDES to even go there, as well as those who know him challenging the alligations that he’s been breaking rules, nothing more.

[War_Admiral]

Thank you Hiddenlake. Very well said indeed.

[harryjohnson_Aefvue]

Race, horse shows have changed since you have graced the grounds. We DO have champagne now.

[Racetb_Aefvue_Farm_B]

…and why would you know “more than all of us put together”? I grew up with these folks, rode with most of them…I make no bones as to who I am and where my farm is located. I admit to mixed feelings on this issue, friendships with PV, BW etc… and WAS THERE, SHOWING, when this sh*t started going down. Put your money where your mouth is…or don’t expect to be taken seriously as to your opinions and “immense knowledge” of every BNT’s situation.

[ss3777]

Susanna A. Jones (Head of School) From Ethel Walker School called me at home today. She wanted me to know that she was sorry about the ad in the Chronicle and that it did not reflect the school’s thoughts on PV. As a result there will be a change in the procedure for placing advertisements. She would like to focus on the accomplishments of Julie Welles, etc. etc. They will not be placing another ad discussing the above because they feel it would bring even more negative attention.

It was nice to receive the call. Maybe a small victory for the little people?

[harryjohnson_Aefvue]

Snowbird, I indeed did see the special about Pope Joan. It was fascinating, and has prompted me to order one of the books about it. The Catholic church has, for centuries kept many things hidden (in the name of Divine Mystery).

[HHG-N]

Originally posted by Flipper K.:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”> Originally posted by Oxer:
my horses have never gotten better care.

Yeah, it’s all great until that morning you get the call that your horse is dead.

Unless you think something would prevent him from figuring out a way to do this again.

That’s why I couldn’t keep my horse there. I’m positive they all receive top-notch care while they are ALIVE, it’s what could happen to them if they are not performing “up to par” that scares me.

But that’s just me.

-Flip </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

He probably TOLD her he would not do it to her horse, so, therefore, it is true

[Showponymom_Aefvue_M]

Originally posted by xegeba:
as long as you ponder my question. I promise to be nice and concise.

I am not after PV personally, it all of the people that were banned and will come before the committee if they choose for reinstatement.

I really don’t think that we can give absolution, that to me is something you show and give to yourself. You have to live with what you have done and make peace with yourself. I really don’t think alot of people have made this personal, it just happens that he is the second (the first got by us) to come up for reinstatment. If it was someone else I think the same would happen.

So have you pondered my question?

[xegeba]

is a whole lot different than the mindset of a breeder that sends his culls to auction where they are bought for slaughter. At least at the auction, they had a chance

Yes… this makes total sense. The breeder that culls…cherrypicks … has his feet firmly planted on the higher moral ground. Damn this filly is ugly… off she goes.

[Janet]

Originally posted by PineTreeFarm:
But doesn’t 704.5 spell out exactly what needs to be done to turn clients over to another trainer without a violation?
And Snowy don’t jump on me, I’m on your side,I’m just asking a question.
Yes it does, and 704.4 basically says that the new trainer can NOT be paid (directly or indirectly) by the suspended person.

The statement on the other threads certainly make it sound as if PV is paying them. Someone would have to file a protest, and the USEF would have to invoke 704.6 to see the financial records.

[Racetb_Aefvue_Farm_B]

Kudos War Admiral!!

[harryjohnson_Aefvue]

I do not think I have endeared myself to either of them. With that said, I think the USEF has made its position clear.

[buryinghill2]

Who said anything bad about Paul helping around the barn? I didn’t, I just said I had never seen it. Anyway, whether he helps around the barn or not is totally irrelevant. Everyone has his or her job in the barn. Mucking stalls was not Paul’s job, teaching was. I wasn’t passing judgement on Paul based on whether or not he mucks stalls! I don’t know any BNT’s that muck, they have their own job to do. I worked for Geoff, Timmy and Leslie for years, they worked harder than any three people I know. None of the work they did had anything to do with taking care of the horses.
Actually, a MILLION years ago, I can remember Paul and Jamie (I said it was a long time ago!), cleaning tack at the end of very long days. Most nights in those days they did not leave until the grooms left.

[Kap]

So far you have not been able to spell xegeba’s name right, you know. The last time I noticed this was when you called her “xebra”

[ponybreeder]

MWE, you certainly are entitled to your privacy. My point is just that it is meaningless to me when a person, who withholds his identity,then goes on about all the other unidentified BN People he knows are in agreement with him. It reminds me of my daughter saying, “But Mom, All the other kids are doing it” I find it humorous.

[Snowbird]

Exactly War Admiral, that’s what Pwynn meant. We have to start to be proactive if we don’t want that kind of environment in our sport. And, we have to be as diligent in following through as they are in being delinquent in their attitudes.

[N_B_T]

Originally posted by meadow lark:
yes, but also some of us grass roots folks believe in forgiveness and reparation and further believe in second chances

[B]You are welcome to believe in whatever you like. Everyone may choose to assess and analyze situations and draw their own conclusions. If you express an opinion, people may voice disagreement with you. That is true of any issue, anywhere, yes?

I agree with the language on the website, and the language of the petition. That’s why I signed it. Anything other is my personal feeling. I don’t owe anyone an explanation of my personal feelings.

Perhaps you should create a petition. But only if you include a description of exactly what happened to the horses. And see below.[/B]

–those who committed these crimes have already served their society penalties…they deserve to be able to get on with their lives

One more time–6 months probation and $5k fine from the courts, and suspension from AHSA/USEF. Has never been prevented from teaching, training, sales etc. To me, he has long ago gotten on with his life. However, while the terms of his suspension allow him to apply for it, reinstatement is not an entitlement. Poeple are free to be opposed to it and to make their views known to whomever they choose to share them with. Deserving chances falls into the same category as entitlement IMO.

without the singular view-point folks chasing them around forever…

[B]What does that mean, “singular view-point folks”? No one is chasing anyone around, simply expressing opinions, positive and negative, on reinstatement.

There are MANY people on this thread. Not everyone agrees with every post, in either camp.[/B]

at some point, some of you need to find a new cause celeb, so to speak.

A question for those who feel that PV is somehow being done wrong by the petition…are you all in favor of all the suspended parties? Or just PV? Is it possible to forgive PV-or the others-without reinstating him/them? How does he suffer immoderately by not being allowed on the showgrounds?

[Janet]

What about this situation: Someone is on parole for committing a crime; let’s say murder for example. His parole comes up, and he is allowed his prior freedoms. Man’s neighbors said he was in violation of his parole x number of times. These accusations become relatively insignificant if there is no proof that he has in fact violated the terms of his parole.

Similar case with Paul. Everyone in the world can say he’s been on the showgrounds, etc., but if the person making final decisions doesn’t have evidence as to whether or not it is true, it really doesn’t have any effect. In the worst case, USEF might request a hearing of some sort to examine his time of suspension, just like a man being accused of violating parole might be brought to some sort of trial.

Parole is a good analogy. But you seem to have a couple of details wrong (and I am sure our lawyer members will correct me if I get it wrong too).

Typically, when someone is convicted, they are sentenced to a term of X years, with the posibility to apply for parole. This is analogous to a suspension of X years, with the possibility to apply for reinstatement after Y years.

When someone applies for parole, MANY things are taken into consideration (not just whether or not he has violated the terms of the original sentence). This often includes testimony by the victims, and other members of the community. This typically includes some people supporting parole, and others opposed to granting parole. Parole can be denied, even if he has been a model prisoner, and complied will all the terms of the original sentence.

This IS analogous to the application for reinstatment. Complying with the terms of the original suspension is “necessary but not sufficient” for reinstatement. They can deny reinstatement, even if he complied with the letter of the terms of the suspension.

In the criminal justice system, when someone is granted parole, there is a list of things they must do (such as reporting their location) and a list of things the must not do (such as committing even a misdemeanor). There are periodic procedures to check that he is complying with the terms of his parole, and if he violates those terms he goes back to jail. For THOSE hearings, all that is needed is that he comply with the terms of the parole previously granted. (Neccessary AND sufficient.)

This is the process you seem to be referring to. But THAT process is NOT analogous to applying for reinstatement.