I’m pretty sure purple has been used…something about illiteracy I think? I think every color has been used, so we can just pick whichever we like best. 
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 Coreene:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by big dawg:
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.
Oh please, like a little tootage is the same thing. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
It amazes me that some of you think that breaking some laws are o.k.–but others are not…he got busted [arrested] 3 times. cocaine is a big problem in this and other countries…the USEF has suspended people because their horses tested positive for the drug and it is a prohibited substance.
Wow, you just want it Your Way, and have no logical point of view it appears. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Hey, airhead, do not put words in my mouth. If you would read for comprehension, you would see that my opinion is that snorting coke is not the same as having horses killed for insurance $$. Nowhere did it say that I thought it was okay to break any law.
Originally posted by Jane:
Oh for crying out loud, must you people piss in every pot?
There’s finally going to be a show (series) on a major network on the sport, which will be an introduction to the h/j world to a good percentage of its viewers. It’s not bad enough that we’re hoping the show will focus more on the sport itself, the love of horses, without making it appear to be too much of an elitist sport, but you want to go and bring more negativity to it? 
I highly doubt the No Reinstatement campaign is responsible for any “negativity” as regards equestrian sport.
These people get all the credit for that.
Originally posted by Limerick:
<BLOCKQUOTE class=“ip-ubbcode-quote”><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-title”>quote:</div><div class=“ip-ubbcode-quote-content”>Originally posted by anthem35:
and 2, that the ‘public story’ is not entirely the truth, and the media has taken control and sensationalized the story tremendously.
There are facts that have been left out, and untruths been inserted.
It is not my business to disclose anything about what I have learned, as I’m certain there is considerable legal counsel involved.
But what I will say is this…I am intelligent and successful person who has been blessed with a compassionate soul. All truths considered, I forgive this man.
You must realize anthem that it would be in PV’s best interest to disclose facts of the case that haven’t been revealed. Although I realize there might be legalities to consider, surely it is his right as a human being to get the true story across. I mean, people, including his friend Mason Phelps are comparing his past actions to the actions of a rapist or murderer. Surely, he can hire some lawyers who can help him air the true story if the facts demonstrate that he didn’t do such a heinous thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
I would imagine that at some point, this will happen. 
Originally posted by big dawg:
I cannot believe you folks have this much free time on your hands to be doing someone’s else’s job…must be a lot of lefties living off your dad’s trust funds…
This tickles me.
If you think these people have big trust funds, how big must yours be, since it allows you time not only to follow what they’re doing, but to comment on it?
Duh…never mind! That was your point, wasn’t it? I am tired this morning
OMG!!! Hey gang…Your next platinum CD is posted on the PV thread. This guy is GOOD.
Lori B - excellent post. You said it all.
Are you people going to make me shut yet another thread because you can’t simply IGNORE the trolls who are trying to get a rise out of you?
Originally posted by BaliBandido:
Do you think he would have sent the horse to the killers and take that big loss? Wouldn’t sheer greed make him find an excuse to sell him down the road for maybe less than he paid but surely more than a killer price, or would ego have been to much for that?
How about if it was a client horse? How does one explain that decision to someone who has paid big bucks for a horse that now is only worth killer price?
I don’t understand why you’re asking xegeba or other posters these questions. I’d call that speculating, because the only person who can give you the real answer would be PV himself, and as far as we know, he doesn’t read this BB.
Bump!
Oh dear God. Are we really going to do the whole “slaughter” scenario again? As Yogi Berra said. “It’s like deja-vu all over again.”
Notice that many of the specific clauses only went into effect at the beginning of December 2005. But if he continues to “do it”, then yes, he would be in violation.
What I didn’t make bold origninally is a statement that says that “intent counts”.
It is not intended to anticipate every
potential circumstance in which the intent of a suspension may be frustrated, and the
Hearing Committee shall have the power to determine whether the facts and circumstances
peculiar to any particular case compel a finding that there was or is a violation of the rules
Originally posted by mwe:
I have to admit I have not read all 120+ pages word for word, but I absolutely believe in Paul’s right to apply for reinstatement. I think commenting on a subject when you only have a little information is a bad thing. Many people posting have never been to a horse show, nor know what goes on at the upper levels of horse sports (racing, as well as showing)
I think you are overstating your case here. MOST OF THE PEOPLE POSTING HERE have been to many horse shows. SOME of them have been involved at the upper levels, and many of the rest have at least a peripheral understanding of “what goes on” at the upper levels.
Growing up in New England, showing at the same shows as Acres Wild students, I was nothing but impressed with Paul, his horses and riders. I would feel extremely privileged to ride with Paul then or even now. I would ABSOLUTELY trust him with the care and custody of my horse. When these ”instances” occurred, believe what you want, it was not uncommon at the time.
Two comments here. A person’s ability as a trainer and rider, and the level of care they provide is really quite a different issue from “insurance killings”. If he had been acused of allowing a horse to starve to death, or of neglect, then comments about the quality of care you observed would be relevant. But “providing quality care” is neither here nor there in the issue of whether he (or anyone else convicted of killing horses for insurance) should be re-instated.
Second, yes, I agree it was “not uncommon at the time”. I was only peripherally involved with the show world at the time, but I ceratainly heard 3rd hand stories about horse being killed for insurance (by some of the people who WERE later convicted) some 10 years before the “insurance fraud cases”. Since it was hearsay, there was nothing I could do about it except decide never to do business with them. But that doesn’t make it “right” and it doesn’t mean that that those who were caught and convicted should be reinstated.
Today, “useful” horses are still killed, put down, sent to slaughterhouses when the owners no longer find them useful. Horses are donated, for tax deductions when people aren’t willing to accept the financial losses. That is the business.
I am absolutely sure that “useful” horses are still being “disposed of” by various means when they bcome an economic burden. While those of us for whom horses are an discretionary expense instead of the source of our income may deplore ALL of those methods of “disposing of” a horse, the fact remains that SOME of those means are legal, and some are not. However much we may dislike the legal means, we can only expect the USEF to take action against the illegal means.
Targeting Paul is not the solution. If you are trying to teach the young trainers. Making money is still the priority in the horse business, always was, always will be. I don’t know of any trainer that does not send their students to the shows with a “stand in” while they are suspended, unless their “vacation” occurs after the indoor shows before Florida. Again, this is common practice. It is done by the majority of trainers, not just Paul. Do you think your customers would stay with you if they had to stay home too?? Nope, they would be out the door, riding with someone else.
I am sure that it IS common practice for suspended trainers to use a “stand in” trainer during the suspension. But that doesn’t change the fact that there are now very specific rules about how the relationship with the “stand in” trainer must be conducted.
As I understand it, the INTENTION of a long term suspension is that the suspended trainer SHOULD lose their riding clients. Just as the intention of suspending someone’s real eatate license is that they SHOULD lose their real estate clients.
I can certainly understand the suspended trainer’s DESIRE to retain clients, but that doesn’t mean they have a RIGHT to retain clients.
I commend Paul’s ability to produce riders with the confidence and ability to go to the ring with out him. I have been to far too many shows that are willing to hold classes- even under saddle classes so the trainer can watch their horse go around in circles.
I agree that is highly commendable. But that isn’t what the suspension, or potential reinstatement, are about.
I know 99.9% of people on this thread feel what Paul did was wrong and he should suffer forever. I do believe he has a tremendous amount of knowledge and expertise and is an asset to the horse industry. He does have supporters that are just as willing to work hard on his behalf as those working against him
I can only speak for myself. While personally, I might want him to “suffer forever” (there are several other people I can think of that, IMHO, deserve to “suffer forever”, but that is not a relevant issue), that is NOT the role of the the USEF. The role of the USEF is to determine whether, considering the initial hearings, and activities since then, he should be reinstated. My personal opinion is that, in large part because he has continued to subvert the INTENT of the original suspension, and because of the seriousness of the original conviction, he should NOT be reinstated. But he is certainly entitled to apply.
There are plenty of people in jail for various things that have “a tremendous amount of knowledge and expertise” in their particular field. But I don’t think THAT carries a lot of weight with the parole board.
edited for typos
Originally posted by Fairview Horse Center:
Doesn’t the rule banning him from showgrounds do just that? Why add all this if they can just make them not be present?
I am pretty sure that this rule is intended to address the “surrogate/assistant” trainer situation.
For instance, “suspended person” Sam runs a training business , but doesn’t set foot on the show grounds, nor does he sign the entry as “trainer”.
But Sam has an assistant, Al (who is not yet suspended). Al signs the entry blank as trainer, and goes on the show grounds with the clients, rides the horses in the “pro” classes, and trains/coaches the clients.
The intent of 702.1.h and i (IMHO), as expanded in 704, is to say that Al is in violation if he has ANY kind of financial realtionship with Sam.
Single digits by the weekend , Harry. All the Pabst Blue Ribbon in the world won’t get me there!..
Ditto what FHC said. I am fairly new to the H/J world, and I wasn’t aware of what had happened until I read this thread. I agree with the message, and will keep reading although I have nothing helpful to add to it.
C.Boylen Thank you I had forgotten that page in fovor of GR67. This book for this new corporation is very clear. Hiring a proxy and paying them is a violation. His interpretation of the rules is putting a lot of people at risk if this Federation stands by it’s rule book.
My point is that, while you may perceive it, from afar, as “hiring a proxy”, there is no clear indication that that correctly describes the arrangement in question. Unless you are personally familiar with the books and finances of everyone involved you cannot know who has hired whom or what anyone’s official business involvement actually is. All you are doing is speculating with no actual proof of any facts.
I am sorry the other thread degenerated into a nasty mud-slinging mess.
I signed the petion. I don’t know Paul V but from all I hear, he is an incredibly gifted horse trainer. However,the crimes he was convicted of & his culpability in Roseau Platiere’s death supercedes his training abilities (IMO). I believe that allowing him back into the USEF as a member in good standing would make the USEF mission statement a farce. And I think this holds true for everyone convicted in this case.
Also FWIW, I have lots of problems with people screaming at those who choose to train with PV or defend him. I don’t & wouldn’t but that’s my CHOICE. And other people have the right to make their own decisions on the subject. Calling them nasty names isn’t going to change their minds & it completely discredits the petition.
i’m sure we all understand that people have different points of view. We have to remember that Miss Boylen is on the horse welfare committee. Given the importance of the position, I’'m sure that she can see issues from all sides, and in every shade of grey, and that re-instating anyone involved in the horse killings will impact how the protection of horses in the show community is viewed.
