This thread is pretty intense. As it should be. The subject is controversial, and is a perfect illustration that deeds once done can’t be undone, and will follow the doer throughout life, and beyond.
That in itself is a pretty intense statement, and is one reason I’m ambivalent about reinstatement.
Reinstating these individuals within the parameters of the rules of the NGB isn’t an effort by anyone to negate what they have done in the past. That will ALWAYS hang over them, and those who associate with them. They have been judged according to the rules; the suspensions they received are drawing to an end. So in this sense, I can’t see a reason that those who have sat out their time shouldn’t be readmitted, not with a clean slate, but on a probationary basis.
However, it can be argued, and should be, IMO, that certain of these individuals have adhered to the letter, but not the spirit of the parameters of their suspensions. Insofar as this is an indication of a lack of respect for the NGB’s rules, a failure to accept the gravity of their situation, and has not resulted in as severe a level of punishment as was intended by the original period of suspension, I would support an extension of the suspensions in these cases, even by several more years.
<<The credibilty of the NGB will be seriously damaged both domestically and internationally if the reinstatement is allowed. If the mainstream media got a hold of the story, should it happen, you can kiss any future horse show coverage by any major network goodbye.>>
Statements like this bother me, alot. Neither “coverage by major networks” nor our NGB’s credibility is hanging in the balance here. If as much effort as planned by those on this thread were directed toward petitioning the networks FOR COVERAGE, instead of aiming at a few individuals whose fate should PROPERLY rest with the committees within the NGB whose job it is to deal with them, we might actually get coverage.
Then again, I’m not sure a cyber mob of overexited ladies bent on exacting their own brand of vengence would fit any particular sponsor’s demographic.
To clarify, I am on the fence here. The question that is facing the NGB on these people is NOT about whether what they did is right or wrong-it was very wrong, as wrong as it can get. And I don’t agree with those who continued to do business AT THE HORSE SHOWS, or on the immediate periphery of the horse show grounds with these folks.
But our rules don’t allow for the NON-consideration of these people for reinstatement–they must be allowed to ask for consideration. If the rules don’t allow for an extension of their suspensions, then they must be readmitted. I’m betting that it won’t be so black and white in some cases, and that a probationary status will be devised, as it should be.
But however well-intentioned, the mob mentality gathering steam here should not influence the process one way or another, and should not be the basis upon which the hearing committee makes their decisions.
