Ok. I did it again. Did not join USEF last year because I had heard about Nancy Banfield getting back in. The USEF just sent me another letter to re join and I replyed that I did not want to be associated with a group who supports any person who is convicted of killing horses for profit. Ooops, I mean convicted of horse abuse.
Originally posted by Snowbird:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Thanks War Admiral for the clarification but what your saying is that paul valliere was suppose to stop trianing on his own property just because the horse show years later came out next door to him.
No what War Admiral and everyone else is saying is even though is next door and so tempting the rules clearly say that PV as a suspended person may not particpate in said show.
1.h. Exhibiting any horse while in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.
1.i.Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person.
Any horse which is boarded on his farm and is cared for by him may not compete in said show. It is devious to hire a proxy trainer for the purposes of them being allowed to show. It doesn’t matter if he uses a cell phone or a radio he is directly communicating and the success of said competitor increases his reputation. He may not benefit from any horse show while suspended and all who participate with him are in violation of the Federation Rules and should be penalized as well.
That does not sound correct or a fault of valliere’s also how is it you know for sure about the walkie talkies. You must have an inside source to be able to think you know about someones telephone conversations.
If that is supposed to be a secret it is without a doubt the worst kept secret in the business. There are threads out here listing HIS equitation riders who are doing well and HIS horses that are doing well and the fact that he cleans stalls in his barn makes every horse there in his care and custody. He has been quoted as bragging that his business has never been better.
Isn’t that illegal? Is your source going to go to the usef and testify in front of the hearing panel and show proof that your petition is correct. That’s going to be hard .
Not when you can document it in written form.
And if paul was eligible almost two years ago and has no plans of trying to get back in why are you not going after people who abuse live horses to stop them.
I think that was the year he planned to judge the Equitation Finals an unrecognized class and he was compelled to change his mind do to public scrutiny.
Even though the class was unrecognized the grounds are USEF sanctioned for 24 hours a day. We know they won’t change that and risk letting someone new get a show date.
I think you would better serve the horse world that way instead of trying to get people excited about something that isn’t really happening. i am still trying to understand all this.it sounds like you are not servng your readers well or the horses that are alive right now that desperately need our help.
Well, you see legally until the horse is dead there is no crime! I think you need to understand that PV has confessed and admitted guilt so there is no question. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
the fault of your statement is in the interpretation of the rules. they are meant as the trainer may not be at the show ring, on the show groungs, or on the phone coaching the rider through a course while showing in a recognized class, he also cannot be riding, etc. yet he IS allowed to send a trainer employed by him to train his riders which he trains at home (mass or FL) under his own roof(s)
Originally posted by Limerick:
My husband commented to me this morning as I sent off the cheque for my horse’s insurance policy that I probably have PV et al to thank for high insurance prices. That may be true. I know it’s an absolute truth, however, that insurance companies now go to extremes to ensure that proper procedures are taken when a horse needs to be euthanized in case of insurance fraud.
Unfortunatly this isnt true either. I was involved in a specific example in which I knew of a horse that was put to sleep for insurance money. The owner was offered many free homes for this horse who was lame, as a result of OCD. She only had mortality insurance. The argument was that this horse would eventually die or have to be put down because of the OCD…Funny that the horse was sound to walk and light hack, however he couldnt jump big jumper courses like he had previously. The horse got put down, and she claimed the money… My friends and I went ballistic and went directly to the Insurance company with evidence of her saying that she had to put the horse down, because she couldnt afford to buy another horse if she didnt. The insurance company was surprisingly rude to us, considering we were trying to save them money. Eventually they gave us the number of the investigator and we gave her the info, but nothing was ever done… She got her money. I’m sure there are people on this BB that know exactly the story im referring to and seeing as how my name isnt exactly ambiguous, im sure i will catch some opposition to this post, but my main point is this. IT DOES HAPPEN. We sit here and still argue about the 90’s indictments…but it is still happening, we need to be looking more into that, instead of still chasing after people who have been punished. (I’m not saying they deserve to have all their rights back, simply saying we need to move our focus to preventing this from happening)
This is the most controversal post i have written…but i feel strongly about this topic and this example especially, seeing as I knew the horse and he was a great great horse with the kindest disposition… Here goes.
Wow Varsity, Nice comeback!
I wonder what other training “techniques” were used on these horses before they were given up on and murdered.
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
I don’t have time to read 18 pages, and find out if there is such a thing as an online petition??? Put the link in the first post, and change the heading to say that there is one there, and I bet you will get a lot more…
The link is in the first post. It’s in my sig. So here it is again.
BTW, might I encourage some of the rest of y’all to put it in your sigs as well? 
I’m not fixin’ to play with these trolls at all, I’ve got no time for 'em. And anyway I’ve been called worse things than “liberal” in my day!
To whoever it was that wanted to know when this will be presented to the Powers That Be: I envision around March 06 or thereabouts, to maximize our chances of collecting as many sigs as we can, and also to make sure it’s officially in their hands before Mr. Valliere becomes eligible to apply for reinstatement.
Unofficially, you can bet they’re all watching these threads too.
We’re up to 526 signatures BTW. Or thereabouts. There are some “bad” ones that I’ll have to toss out. Please DO NOT just put your first name; that does no good at all!
Thanks so much to all who have signed. Please keep crossposting the link both in the USA overseas!!
Well said, as usual, BaliBandido.
I feel a little entitled to hear this other side too, after reading 133 pages. Please, share!
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 jn1193:
I am wondering for the show managers (Snowy) if it is possible - should more folks be reinstated - to refuse their entries. I know Dolores Swan wouldn’t have a problem with it. But would any other show manager step up and be willing to make that kind of stand. I mean, WEF is refusing entries from an “R” judge who complained about them putting up new stabling tents behind her property! (It’s on another thread.) Does that even compare to this? Could we (the No REIN people) lobby them? Just a thought.
Why do you say that Dolores Swann wouldn’t have a problem refusing the entries? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
jn1193…Maybe you didn’t see my question so I’m repeating it - Why do you say that Dolores Swann wouldn’t have a problem refusing the entries?
Those are the things which sold people on horses, taking lessons and being involved. We have let it slip by the wayside. Now more than ever, we need to get back to that.
Its easier at Devon to walk about, look at the horses. See the big names. Stabling isn’t blocked so you don’t enter or a guard standing there demanding who are you? I understand security, but like all things our pendualum has swung the opposite way.
Oh and the answer to your question Aunt Esther is yes, I did.
That is absolutely true and we are required to look at the updated Suspension List. We are also required to post in the prize list the terms of entry as not accepting entries.
There are qualifying shows where entries are limited by points acquired and most of the rest of us select “First Come” as our preference.
A horse has to have an ID number if the horse is not registered. However, so far the system is flawed because as a show manager I have no way of knowing what is true or not on such an application for an ID.
I have for years been proactive on the issue to the effect that person who is suspended and lies and attends should be the one responsible. I dislike the idea of being listed in violation of a rule when I have no way to verify the information.
It would be easily possible for the horse of a suspended owner to be issued a new ID with a different owner and even a different name. I have no way of knowing to a certanty that this is so.
That’s why it is so strange that Mason Phelps would publish the information as to which are Paul Valiere’s horses when there is no record of them at all. So PV could be tecnically legal by getting a new ID but with falsified information or even go to the trouble of transferring ownership for the run of a show for $2.00 and then accepting the horse back at the end of the show by returning the $2.00. I think Mason Phelps was using PV as the owner because he knows it’s true and he could give his friend some good PR.
That is technically legal but morally corrupt.
lol Paul doesn’t even knows how to turn on his computer, Fairview. Paranoid much?
Looks to me like a good percentage of names on that petition aren’t even USEF members. As such, I don’t see how the petition represents members of the USEF community…it just doesn’t fit for me.
In light of previous posts. When the FBI was investigating at the horse shows my opinions of trainers/coaches/friends began to change. Maybe my heroes and mentors were not worthy of the pedestal I had them on. At the shows I schooled in the same rings as MW and watched his classes. He really worked hard and then this came down. Even though I was upset and confused about my own loss of innocence I always thought of how he must have felt. But in the years since I am not sure what if anything was learned from his plight. From the press I have seen, the chips in the boots abroad, his and his father’s forgiveness of Paul, I feel now that I was wrong to feel sympathy for MW in an environment where peer pressure and money makes some things seem okay.
I watched the debacle first hand. I live with awful feeling knowing what these people did was true. I also know of people who did not get convicted. I thank the FBI for getting convictions. It wasn’t any easy process and took years to get. I feel some people today who support PV or any of those involved are either affected personally by client of family relations or in fact are guilty in some ways themselves by action or their lack of action. For this BB, I am not talking about the right to be reinstated, but for those if they should “happen” to be reinstated. Anyone should have the right to be reinstated. I am talking about standing next to or being judged by a person convicted of these crimes. I would also like to send a message to those who are guilty but were not convicted that these actions result in a life ban from the NGB going forward.
If this is about press,Broberry… than why waste time with the organization that handed down the suspension? Call Greta, Rita ,Bill and Geraldo… this is something the American Public can really sink their teeth into.
93 signatures in 24 hours, nice job y’all!! 
If we keep it up at that level until April 06, that will be… a LOT of signatures. Keep circulating this thing.
We are having an ice storm here and I expect to lose power very shortly (it’s already flickering, and my puter has rebooted twice!) so I may not be around today as much as I would like. But you can still PM me w/ any questions/comments & I’ll pick 'em back up when I can…
This is kind of off topic a little, but one of the things that I found so horrific, is that when the authorities were “on” to what was going on, they heard about a horse that was “scheduled” to be killed. They sent people to stake out the barn and videotape what went on. The video showed a horse having his legs being broken with a crowbar and turned loose so it would look like an accident. THe authorities did not intervene, because they needed to actually catch them filing an insurance claim in order to get them for more than a misdemeanor. After the “perps” left, a vet came out and put the horse down which was truly suffering and going into shock. This video was one of the most horrible things I have ever seen, and I think of it everytime the name of one of those involved is mentioned. I find it somehow equally troubling that what they did to that horse was allowed to happen because in the eyes of the law, torturing an animal is somehow a lesser crime than ripping off an insurance company. That seems so wrong to me.
Did anyone else see the video to which I am referring?
Thanks, Janet.
So…I guess the answer is a resounding “dunno.” sigh If I understand - and I’m far from sure I do - one would need to know who controlled the corporation/firm/etc to know if the rule was being violated or merely neatly circumvented. Confusing…
Sticking a toe in here (but not to debate the should he or shouldn’t he) as something struck me while I was reading PV’s commentary in one of the recent media articles. Would being interviewed for an article like that not have been an opportune time to start an apology if he wanted to open a dialogue? Instead to me he sounded as if he were saying, “geez, isn’t it enough already?” That surprised me given everything that’s been said here recently about his (potential?) desire to atone publicly.
Originally posted by Silk:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by meadow lark:
<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:
Many businesses keep 2 sets of “books” (financial records). One set is the actual financial records of that business. The other set is the not-so-actual financial records.
The USEF would have no way of knowing for sure which set of “books” they were seeing, should they ask for financial records. I’m sure they and their legal team are well aware of this practice.
I think someone has been watching too much television… </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Nope…not too much TV. It does happen. Same with truckers - they keep two log books - one for their boss, the other for the state </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
But not as much as you think—I have a transport business, and I don’t know of anyone who keeps two log books…fines, etc. are too high if you get caught…same is true for your “two sets of books” thing. that may happen at some low levels of folks who aren’t borrowing money or filing any taxes, but among the regular business owners, you are really misrepresenting things by the above statements. Might as well say ‘everyone’ is doping their horse, don’t ya know…
Janet both you and I know it would be one helluva fight to see those records. And could go on for years. Or if they decide to show them, who’s to say they are accurate? The legal eagles at the USEF aren’t extremely happy with circumstantial evidence. They know the percentages when it comes to court hearings on those. Documented facts are what’s needed.
