With both my parents coming frm Ireland I’m ashamed to think that you might be Irish but Im guessing you are a honorary member of the Welly World Yenta contingent in which case that would negate you being Irish 
Sounds like a great place! Reminds me of a similar “institution” in Toronto- The Brunswick House! Any U of T student knows it, as do their ancestors!!
Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by anthem35:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
For those of you claiming that PV doesn’t own any horses that are showing during his suspension, this comes DIRECTLY from Mason Phelps…
"Winter Equestrian Festival Week 7 Wrap-Up, March 9-13, 2005 CN Finale, CSIO-US 4*, ‘AA’
Contact:
Mason Phelps, Jr. of Phelps Media Group, Inc. at (561) 753-3389 or at
The R.W. “Ronnie” Mutch Scholarship winner, Cathy Rolfs, placed eighth in Section A of the ASPCA Maclay and had scores of 80 in both the hunter and jumper phases of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Zazou Hoffman, the R.W. “Ronnie” Mutch Working Student winner, placed ninth in the ASPCA Maclay and also received a score of 80 in the hunter phase of the WIHS Equitation Classic. Both girls were graciously loaned wonderful horses to compete on. Rolfs rode Aristocrat, who is owned by Paul Valliere, while Hoffman rode Missy Clark’s Long Island. "
I believe that this was a wording error on Mason’s part, to which he has subsequently corrected. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Jeez anthem35…you’ll say anything to defend your guy 
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>
No, this is actually the truth.
Paul is NOT my guy, and he has a lovely girl of his own.
I am not defending anything other than what I believe.
Why do you feel the need to discredit me for standing up for someone I believe in? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I provided information that proved that a horse owned by PV WAS used at a recognized show-a Press Release put out by a well known “horsey” public relations company. Why don’t you show us where this information has been “subsequently corrected”. Don’t forget to include the date of its publication.
SCRM: nice, polite, respectful, adult discussion. No snarking.
I get tired of deleting very quickly and will just hit the “ban” button if it gets too tedious.
I can still remember going to look at a horse that was stabled with Beth Underhill. We were more than welcome to visit and pet her beloved Monopoly while there. (My daughters were in awe!). We did end up buying that wonderful mare, too! It is truly a breath of fresh air to come across the “big names” and their “big horses” an to be treated like equals. Horse people. Plain and simple.
Originally posted by Yours Truly:
I have a couple of question, some of which may have been answered already, so bear with me. Also, I’m ignorant of USEF Rules on this matter, so forgive any goofy statements on my part.
-
If PV is currently in violation of the Rules, can any USEF member lodge a complaint? Has this been done?
-
Is there a mechanisim to monitor who is applying for reinstatement? (Does USEF post this on their website?)
-
Once someone does apply for reinstatement, can any USEF member submit comment? What is the comment period?
the answers to your questions, are yes you can file a complaint, but he is not in violation of the rules–and the hearing committee has the sole right to decide who is readmitted [not a few members]
I haven’t posted on this thread because, well, I know what my position is and so do those who matter to me. And, frankly, as with so many polarizing issues, neither side in this one will sway the other. It is just not going to happen.
I’m not sure PV owes me, personally, an apology. But he owes the industry one, and he hasn’t given it. He and the others involved gave all of us a nasty black eye and as far as I can tell, they really don’t see that as being a problem. If they did, they’d take out an ad that, instead of touting their recent good works, would say something along the lines of, “I was stupid. I was wrong. I apologize.”
For cripes sake, Pete Rose is still banned from baseball nearly two decades after he was found to have gambled on sports. When he finally made a huge mea culpa in 2004, it went a long way toward re-establishing the momentum to get the ban lifted and make him eligible for the Hall of Fame. The ban is still in place and he’s still not in the Hall of Fame because of the illegality of his actions and, yes, the shame he brought on his sport.
For gambling. It’s not like he had any players killed.
No sir! I am Sainted and Venerable! But, I’m not rich just honest. Like Jesus said it’s easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than a rich man to get into heaven.
Now it’s been a standing joke that at Snowbird there might be classes for one hump Camels and two hump Camels. You bet if there’s a market I’ll have them. I love mules and donkeys and think it a shame they’re not allowed to compete becaue some horse not properly conditioned will have a fit. We had a mule here and during shows and not one horse was upset when he did that weird thing that’s a cross between a bray and a whinny.
No different than spanish people speaking spanish and americans speaking our version of english.
He does have a right to apply for reinstatement. Many of us hope that his application is denied.
Instead of little people, how about “most” people. Like most people believe a person who “put down” a horse to falsely gain insurance money should not be allowed back into the USEF. And most people think it’s disappointing some people would still support a person who committed these crimes. It’s only a matter of time before most people will express their opinion to the satisfaction of some people and the rules will get enforced. I think this is what most people would agree to be the right thing to do for the welfare of horses.
Originally posted by sarabeck:
1.Paul valliere does not own a horse business and has not owned one since 1994 So he has not employed anyone.
-
This sounds like you are after one person and given the fact his 10 year suspension was up in august of 2004 andhe has not tried to come back you are going after him & even though we have freedom of speech there is a liable problem here that you are walking right into because he has’nt tried to apply.
-
He does own a horse business and employs people as well as trains them and sells horses. he has a barn in grand prix village in wellington and one in mass.
-
the reason he hasn’t tried to apply is because even though he is allowed to be reinstated, believe it or not he HAS decided to not reapply as he does not want to do that kind of stuff anymore nor does he want to deal with the politics. benefits of knowing him: asking him stuff. still convinced that knowing him is not beneficial ise?
Originally posted by Sherry3313 Groom of Winners Aefvue Farms:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by anthem35:
If that is your definition of ‘the purpose’, can you at least acknowledge the fact that PV did spend weeks and weeks in Louisiana after the hurricane to help rescue horses and other pets?
Can you at least recognize what, in your own words was ‘an attempt to contribute in a way to show remorse’?
Many people helped with the animals (and people) in LA and MS after Katrina. Most did it because it was what we wanted to do and didn’t want (or care about) any publicity about what we were doing. Yes, PV did help out but it makes me wonder if he did it for the same reason many others did it or did he do it just to “score points”? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Please see both sides…maybe he DID do it just to help out…?
I will admit, I did have the chance to speak with him while he was in the rescue process…And I do have to say, it was a most life-altering experience for him in many ways…
I’m sure all will find some way to attack both of us for this comment, but it is the truth.
Not at all NEVER TOO LATE. I have 200 bracelets in hand; red with white letters in silicone. They are two sizes, large and medium there is one inch difference is size. So keep the orders coming. We can easily print more.
I’d love to see a few thousand out there being worn at all shows especially. And, don’t forget the red ribbons idea at shows it’s great conversation starter.
Agree, Race - it would be nice if someone from the USEF could answer Erin’s question.
Also agree that I could not, in good conscience, NOT sign and support the non-reinstatement position. But, it was a much easier decision for me as I did not have any close ties to any of the convicted horse killers.
Okay, I have a question that I am not sure has been asked yet. What would have happened with these horses (killed for insurance), had they not been insured?
Obviously it was felt that for whatever reason the horse was not living up to its billing, or was not performing well enough for a certain rider or whatever reason that made killing them seem to them like a viable alternative. If they had not been insured and therefor no way to recoup the costs, what would have been done then? Would they still have died mysteriously because they were an embarrasement (percieved) or as a way to hide the fact that they were not as good as buyer had been led to believe? Would they have been sold down, given away, what?
What made me think of this question is that we say the horses were killed for the insurance- but they were not- most of the owners of the horses did not need the money so really they were killed because they did not meet expectations and the insurance money was a way to not have a big financial loss or to have the trainer have to do alot of explaining.
I think this is where the real issue is for me- I have had horses that I just couldn’t get to do the job I wanted them to do, but I found them other jobs and other people. I agree that re-homing or grooming these horses for a different job was not exactly what I had planned but have accepted that sometimes my crystal ball is on strike and I still have to find something for those horses to do. It has made me extra careful about horses that I buy for clients because when it comes right down to it, they look to me to be the final decision maker on suitablity.They rely on my professional experience to guide them in the transaction. So when I give my go ahead I do so after really checking the horse out, checking out the horse/rider match and all the other myriad details that go into making the new horse work out for what we want and need, that is my job. I do this because I know that if I pick the wrong horse, ultimatly I have to explain my mistake and then deal with the consequences whether that be I lose the client or I have to now find a suitable job for that horse and resell it at a price that comes damn close to the price paid by my clients or I am up the creek and out of a job. So for me the consecquences of a bad decision have a very real effect on my life and my livlihood.
Perhaps if PV et al had done the proper homework prior to having their buyer purchase a horse- this would not have happened. Why did it happen, surely PV et al were good enough horse trainers to evaluate an animal properly? What would they have done if the ‘easy way out’ was not available?
Dear God!!! Since WHEN have morals and ethics been expendable??? If this is the kind of society we’re raising these days, God help us all.
On the other hand, maybe I’ll give up morals and ethics for Lent. I can screw everyone I do business with, and actually start making some real money for a change. And they’ll have no grounds to complain, as its obviously not only acceptable, but expected!
I have looked at this thread for the last time. The supporters of PV have convinced me to sign the no reinstatement petition, which I have done.
Whether or not PV would do this again, is not for me to say. Reinstatement sends the message that someone CAN do this again and come back to play another day. Both the attitude of his supporter’s that it is just one dead horse, and a long time ago at that, and the fact that they have convinced me that he is flagrantly bending the rules is cause enough to sign. No need to come back here.
N&B&T- of course you can use it!
Now if I could just put it into practice more often!
You are right TWF in that case none of my horses have died naturally.
Would someone please post the link to the Providence Journal. I hear I have been quoted and I like to know what I’ve said when it’s in print.
…
