Well, everyone knows who I am and where I live. If I say I know someone who is against reinstatement, I say their name.
Originally posted by scout33:
I had thought this was a forum to discuss things whether we shared the same opinions or not without being patronized or attacked verbally at all turns. Maybe that was my mistake, amazing how people respond when there is the element of anonymity.
Funny that, we could say the same thing about you? It appears you joined 2 days ago only to defend PV - who exactly are YOU?
Amazing how some people don’t have a problem defending someone who lied, cheated and murdered a horse when there is an element of anonymity.
AFFIRMATIVE PROOF of radical change and benefit to the welfare of horses, NOT being able to contribute to the HORSE SHOW community by one’s knowledge, for a fee.
Yup - this is the really interesting part of the language of the HC decision. And it’s a part I feel a lot of people are missing the point of.
It says the welfare of HORSES, not of the equestrian industry.
Will you all just lay off already? Chanda was correcting a factual error. That doesn’t mean it’s open season for you all to debate her recollection of events.
Snowbird, where did all of the songs go?
Janet, I do understand how frustrating it is to feel the need to repeat things. I’m just going to quote myself and edit. 
Originally posted by N&B&T:
…NAMED PERSON is hereby expelled from membership in the AHSA and denied all the privileges of membership including the ability to hold or exercise office in the association, attend or participate in association meetings, hold license(s) as an AHSA or FEI official, compete in international competitions or receive AHSA automatic insurance coverages or participate in AHSA group insurance programs and is found not in good standing and he and all horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his are found not in good standing and are suspended from competing or taking any part whatsoever in Recognized competitions and he is excluded from all competition grounds during Recognized competitions as an exhibitor, participant, or spectator. The panel members also directed that the Hearing Committee retains jurisdiction over this matter, and NAMED PERSON may not apply to the Association for reinstatement any sooner than XX years from the date he first became suspended by the Association on account of his indictment for the crime in question and then only based upon affirmative proof of total rehabilitation, including proof that he has taken steps to reform himself and has performed community service to benefit the welfare of horses.
.
The language is interesting; and somewhat vague and conflicting: ie, expelled vs suspension; and the implication that he may not apply for reinstatement without affirmative proof etc. At least that is how it reads.
“Community service to benefit the welfare of horses” is IMO different from “contributing to the horse community”.
Also notice indictment vs. conviction.
Reinstatement includes a lot more than being at the ring with his students…
Repeat:
- expelled vs suspended
- that EVEN APPLICATION, NOT REINSTATEMENT, is CONTINGENT upon AFFIRMATIVE PROOF of radical change and benefit to the welfare of horses, NOT being able to contribute to the HORSE SHOW community by one’s knowledge, for a fee.
- indictment vs conviction
Regarding “mob mentality”, I define it differently than you do in your earlier post.
If even the right to apply is not a given and requires so much proof, then actual reinstatement AFTER application, should require MORE proof. Of course, if the Hearing Committee would like to deviate from what you and Yours Truly point out are the existing conditions, well, heck…
More later…
Why are you guys wasting so much time and energy with this “No Reinstatement” campaign and harrassing those who don’t happen to agree with your tactics, if you’re all so convinced PV has been bending the rules left and right? I mean, if it’s that obvious and blatant to people who have no first hand knowledge of how he runs his business, then surely the USEF review board would have the same (if not more detailed) info, then there is no worries that he will be reinstated, in the event he decides to reapply, is there?
All of us know what he does is within the letter of the ruling, and not the spirit, indeed his own clients allude to that, how can one be trained by said individual and be showing with yet another trainer’s name and signature on your entry blank
Simple, lots of people train with more than one trainer within the same barn. 
Racetb- coming from you I am honored!
Just trying to be helpful 
You rock Erin! I was sizzling at the callousness of the comments made about the murder of VB’s horse.
Erin can check their ISPs and stuff and discover that they are sending from the same computer as their original screen name…Take Centennial Baby, for instance 
Thank you, Mr. Harry. You taught me well.
I’m number 421!
The farm in MA is Acres Wild Inc, owned by the previously mentioned Ms. Hill. None of the horses owned by it are suspended.
Most of the horses owned by Acres Wild, RI are suspended. A couple are not, and I presume those have been leased out to the satisfaction of the USEF, or are no longer competing, or there is some other circumstance of which I’m not aware.
Anthem, seeing as you ride and train with PV, I am sure you have the answers, or at least the ones you want, to all of your questions. As far as I am concerned, he can judge any show he wants to, I would hope never a USEF rated one, but that is not my decision to make. He can conduct business anywhere he wishes, again, hopefully not at a USEF event, but again, that is not my decision. I personally do not care where he gets the money to pay his bills, as long as it is not my money, which it never will be. As far as the advertising goes, many of us do good things, but we do not take out advertisements to brag about it, and would be embarassed to market our good works. Again, if he needs public record he helped an old woman across the street, someone will sell him advertising space to showcase this, that is his business and theirs. As far as speaking to the man goes, I knew him before this happened, I do not care to know him now, I will say hello, that is it. In this equation, that is my right, just as he has his right to advertise, run a stable, judge a show. Sorry, but some privileges are still available to those of us who are not big name trainers/customers.
Me too… Play on McDuff!
Jane, I don’t wear Chico’s clothing.
Originally posted by grey mare:
Personally, I could care less if he’s sorry. This is about his possible reinstatement, which I do not believe would be a good thing for the horse show industry. It is up to the governing body to set and uphold ethical standards, for the best of all.
Absolutely! The cold callousness of killing a perfectly good horse because it does not live up to expectaions, to pamper the ego, and be greedy enough to lie about it to get money for the killing, is to me someone we should never have to breathe the same air as. Anyone that has ever been that cold hearted, comes from their very core - not something that changes. I have no doubt they are sorry - sorry it didn’t work out for them, sorry they got caught, sorry they have to live with the mess they created, sorry everyone knows what they did, etc.
Sorry they made a mistake because they really do value a horse’s life and honesty? The “what was I thinking? I can’t believe I impulsively did that horrible thing to an animal I love and to a group of people I respect?” Nope, don’t buy it in anyone over the age of 16 - and certainly not in an educated, mature adult.
Originally posted by C.Boylen:
My memory is quite accurate; the conversation happened in my driveway. Paul lived across the street at the time.
Te fact that this was discussed in front of a ten year old makes me very uncomfortable, and has me questioning the ethics of this whole debacle even more. Not, of course, that any ethics were involved, obviously/.
I doubt anything was as black and white as you want to make it for any child at the time who grew up in the industry and knew everyone involved personally.
I agree with whoever stated that it IS a black and white issue: kill an innocent horse or take the financial loss (and perhaps the loss of a wealthy client - OMG!!!)?? Yeah…pretty black and white to me.
It’s genetic you know; we Hungarians can’t help exageration and the use of extravagant analogy. It is in the blood we all inherited from Attila the Hun. Personally that was my favorite as well. You know one time in the New York subway I did just that. This creep was sitting next to me and hiding his activity behind a newspaper.
I grabbed his newspaper and ran as fast as I could leaving him sitting there exposed to the world. So in essence it was not an exaggeration but a truism.
Just don’t lose your SHIFT key…(applies in life too!)
