IMO you need a GED
Well said Harry. Has anyone heard back from the Ethel Walker School regarding the ad that was taken out? It would be interesting if they place an ad denouncing the first ad.
jetsmom, given the near rabid nature of internet BBs, I can’t think that would be at all productive for anyone.
But I do think IF Mr. Valliere chose to apply for reinstatement, it would be an exceptionally good idea for the USEF to have publicly held hearings, where interested parties could speak, or have letters formally read for the record, and Mr. Valliere would have an opportunity to respond, for the record.
Originally posted by spina:
Someone leasing or buying a horse from a suspended member is not violating the law, or even the rules. A suspended member is not violating the law or the rules by leasing or selling a horse to someone.
I agree with that, provided it is a real transaction, not one that is done with the purpose of getting horses owned by PV into the ring. I mean I make money selling horses, usually I have a Jr rider or AA show said horse because that is the type of horses I make- so they need to go in those divisions. However, I sign my name on the dotted line. If PV has ‘sold’ or ‘leased’ these horses for that, then if does violate the rules. If he does do that, that means he knows it violates the rules and he has found a way around it.
I agree that it is a violation of the INTENT of the rules to sell someone a horse for a dollar so that they can show it - but that’s what happens when rules are made and worded a specific way to try to create organization amongst chaos - people will find ways around them.
I am right with you there, I agree. However one of the conditions of reinstatment was for him to abide by the terms of his suspension (not on grounds, no horses owned by him etc etc)his doing so would have shown that he knew he did a very foul and wrong thing and his actions would be above reproach becuase he genuinely understood what he did was wrong. Being clever enough to circumvent the letter of the suspension is not something that I am impressed with, in fact it scares me- because it shows that he still is willing to play fast and loose as long as he can point to the verbage and be clear according to that verbage. He is intellegent and has found a way around it- this is a good thing in terms of USEF wanting him back? That he is clever enough to find a loophole and dirty enough to use it? He knows it violates the rules and he has found a way around it. Much like when he knew it was illegal to kill a horse and file for insurance, so he tried to find a way around it by hiring someone, establishing his own alibi, lying etc.
Violating an intent is not viloating a rule or law - and if you don’t like it, figure out a way to get the rule rewritten so it doesn’t happen again. Running through the town with torches yelling “monster” not only doesn’t work, it only applies to one monster.
I agree again. I know some are over the top on both sides of the argument, however my only interest is my deeply held belief that someone who has the ability to do what he did for the reasons he did should not be allowed to be a part of an association like USEF. So no monster yelling from me.
I am not sure why people have a hard time beleiving he has violated the intent of his suspension, he violated the law in having killed for insurance money.
I am truly amazed and a bit sickened that so many people are spending so much time and energy berating one person for something he did 10 years ago that was horrible and criminal - which he admitted was horrible and criminal, and has apologized for, and paid for as best he can according to the standards set by the organization that suspended him - as well as through community service.
This is an interesting thing for me- I might be sickened as well if I believed as you and many others seem to that he had admitted his acts were horrible and criminal and had paid for it the best he could. However, I truly do not feel that is the case in this situation. To me paying for it the best he could would not be someone coaching from the sideline, or knowing what the intent of his suspension was but violating it while still keeping with the letter of the ruling. That does not show me true remorse or a willingness to take a deserved punishment. If he truly wanted to demonstrate his remorse and pay for his actions I think he could have remained in the business of teaching- surely he has much talent and could share that with others, where are the clinics he has given for no charge except for his expenses? When has he gotten up publicly and spoken about the infractions he committed and maybe the pressures that led him to do so in the hopes of preventing others from following that path (they make drunk drivers give speeches in high schools in hope that they will relate to their peers and their story will help others) Where has he volunteered his time and knowledge to help those that would never have the chance to learn from someone who competed at such elite levels? To me these things show someone who wants to do good things to offset the bad. I have not seen evidence of this except when he feels it will benefit him, which is not true remorse.
But the real witch hunt is the going after the people who have leased his horses. They are not criminals - they are not engaging in criminal activity - and if they choose to deal with someone with a suspended membership and a dark past then that’s their perogative.
I agree that if they are unaware if they are part of a criminal action they should not be held responsible, however if they are and do so willingly then they should be. Much like aiding and abetting.
This whole discussion reminds me about the Clintonesqe debate about what ‘is’ is- Is it considered cheating on your spouse if you only perform certain acts? Some say yes, some say no. My thoughts on that are probably different than others- i think if you think about cheating, maybe flirt a little or get a little suggestive that is not cheating- however the second that turns to any contact of an intimate nature from kissing to anything else- then the line is crossed. Some think the minute you seriously consider stepping out is cheating. Maybe that is the real problem with a lot of posters- all seem to agree that what he did was way wrong- but they differ on whether he has shown and done the appropriate measures to be reinstated.
I just don’t feel someone has truly gotten the message when they continue the same behavior only on a lesser scale. JMHO
Well taken Uberraschung. He has the right to apply, and he has all the support in the world, HOWEVER, even if the efforts I extend on behalf of any horse he has killed or abused make no difference at all, I feel, after seeing the results of his work that someone needs to speak for the animal who cannot. If that one person is me, so be it.
Haven’t read the whole thread (YIKES!) but,
Dana (Tripp) Waters did lose her lisence, and to my knowledge it was permanent (or at least I hope so).
She was supposed to go to jail but instead was sentenced to house arrest for several months and had to wear an ankle bracelet. (I believe she avoided jail because she was pregnant). Like the others, she was sentenced on mail fraud, etc. instead of other charges because it almost guaranteed prosecution.
I came very close buying a horse from Dana and Chuck, but nixed the deal when the horse vetted with SERIOUS issues that I am sure they both already knew about before I paid big money for the vetting. When I brought the issues up to Dana as my reason for not wanting to buy the horse, she assured me that she “was a vet,” the horse would be fine, and to “just buy ir anywasy, use it for a good year, and then get rid of it.” Go figure. 
Chuck shows in professional divisions to campaign horses, while she shows in the low A/Os in the midwest on very nice horses. They also have a daughter that shows in the ponies, and is a very nice girl and quite capable rider.
Chuck and Dana sell A LOT of horses, and there is no doubt that a lot of them are really nice horses. They are good business people in the sense that they make good money, but they will also do almost anything to make a sale even if it isn’t right for the horse or the rider. People must be either ignorant or don’t care when they choose to work with Chuck and Dana; I know I was the former. 
Originally posted by big dawg:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by Limerick:
To add to TWF’s post about lifetime bans in other sports-Ben Johnson, the Canadian sprinter, was banned for life for testing twice for illegal substances (steroids).
I think this reinstatement petition needs to let the USEF know that a ten year ban is not sufficient
And Eric Lamaze has been caught three times for cocaine, and he is still in the sport–once he was either going into or coming out of Australia, I think, to/from a competition. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So, big dawg, do you think EL should or should not be banned by the Canadian Federation. He was barred from participating in the Olympics.
DISCLAIMER: POSTED WITH NO JUDGEMENT OF OR PERSONAL ANIMOSITY TOWARD ERIC LAMAZE, SIMPLY ASKING B.D.HIS OPINION.
Originally posted by SGray:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by 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.
surely the thread about the folks (I’ll go look for it to get the names) that are going to work for PV would indicate that a) PV is planning on applying for reinstatement soon and b) the soon-to-be employees are assuming that he will be reinstated - otherwise, under the rules that went in to effect in Dec. '05 these folks would not be able to go to rated shows while working for PV (or am I misreading the rules?) </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
the name that I was looking for is David Olynik from this thread back in November
Please take just this phrase to your English teacher and ask for comments? Then explain why I should understand this?
ise@ssl
Grand Prix
Posted Feb. 01, 2006 11:29 PM
ise… Honestly… your nitpicky comments make you look nitpicky…and nitpicky is not attractive.
No kidding, Yours Truly. Trust me, my joke recognition skills are just fine…a lot finer than most. 
Also horse-popor I have checked through my post and including this one I have mention NB twice. Don’t think that consitutes being her agent either.
Originally posted by War Admiral:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by big dawg:
let’s get t-shirts, ball caps, jackets and coffee mugs–just like Rush Limbaugh does.
…And the difference between that and the supporters of the horse-killers taking out trade ads supporting their position is…??? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
there isn’t one–get it?
meadowlark please feel free not to tune in if you don’t like the subject.
Originally posted by Erin:
I’m pretty sure it varies by state as to whether or not chiros have to be vets.
I’m sure your right.
That is our paradox to solve. It’s why we keep going round in circles.
-
We know there is a wrong that’s been done. (Persons indivually not important.
-
The Rules imply that innocent people who have been used by the guilty one can be penalized even thought it was not their intention to do wrong.
-
The Federation is an Educational NonProfit Corporation does anyone know the responsibilities of such under new York Law in a situation like this?
-
We are aware of the fact that MONEY matters; how can the vast majority who cannot be described as the “money” class be protected under this Federation?
One thought would be if those who sponsor and supply the money were equally unhappy because their image could be tarnished. SO! how do we reach them and make them care?
Chanda, would you agree that not allowing someone to be reinstated to USEF, might be a deterrent to those that might consider doing what he did in the future?
Seriously? I highly doubt that. I think the penalties for insurance fraud are a much greater deterrent than anything the USEF could impose.
Chandra, you have the wherewithall to take these comments and these emotions people have back to the USEF and do something positive and constructive with it.
Why can’t you see that?
I see it just fine. I just don’t agree with most of the comments and emotions represented here, and I do not care to be their proponent. I am entitled to my own opinion as a person, no matter upon which committee I sit.
huh… harry? and are you still maintaining that you are “ambivalent” on this particular issue? 
slainte! It’s not unusual for two farms to have the same name. The Acre Wild Farm in Rhode Island not Massachusetts is owned by Paul Valiere and is in good standing in spite of the fact that he is suspended. Many farms have two locations. The one in Wellingon is not listed as a registered owner of any horses.
I have been away for a bit and I am someone who as many know, had and have a personal relationship w/ PV. (tear me to bits here) 
This question is out of curiosity as I have tried to catch up by reading all the posts on this topic but at some point it strayed and then veered back on path so again I am sorry if it was answered and I missed it. I was curious if all the marketing and products that are being developed to ban reinstatement mention PV specifically or are targeted towards all those that were found guilty? I was curious and it also might temper Schuyler to know that it is targeted at all and not just one individual.
Helloooooooooomeadowlark - Insurance Fraud is FELONY - covered by FEDERAL LAW. Helloooooooooo!!
YEAH!! sheila - I LOVE YOUR POST ABOUT GM 
The USEF is still incorporated in NY - that’s why they maintain a small office there.
