Reference to a crime which is a matter of public record is not an “attack”. Having and expressing a differing opinion is not an “attack”.
Be nice, be respectful, be polite… and no snarking allowed. That’s why.
Excuse me but we are the industry and the recreational sport activity. We are the Federation and if we have sat back and allowed people who take the industry in the wrong direction then we are responsible and need to take it back.
Simple life lesson if you make a mistake then you fix it! It is an insurmountable problem if you can decide on where to start.
There are people who in good faith believe that at an auction their horse will find a home. They try not to believe that no one else wants their horse.There are people who have died and left so future support for their horses or the relatives didn’t want to share with the horses.
I think the breeders hope that someone who will enjoy theri culled horses will get a bargain and buy the horses.
Don’t assume because we have so many selfish people that it is true of everyone but you.
[B]I didn’t get your order today for the bracelets…keep them coming.
I guess my rebuttal to your very well stated post is that PV has hasn’t had to start over. He just continued on and has thrived, even though he hasn’t been allowed at sanctioned shows. He hasn’t been hurt financially. Neither has he been hurt professionally, for the most part.
Yes, he helped put others away. But, as with the judicial system, that meant he helped himself as well.
Someone else said on another thread - that other professionals are NOT allowed to practice their profession after doing a like crime within their profession. PV has been doing quite nicely in his profession. He’s had limits put on exactly what/where he can do it. But, that’s all.
Personally, I would still feel better about his “rehabilitation” had I read/heard a statement from HIM about the horrific act he took part in, seen remorse, seen him not flaunt the sanctions, etc. That’s what some of us “outsiders” see or not see. I have to think those close to him have seen this non-public side - or they wouldn’t support him.
Sorry about the rambling…Please know that I’m one of those people who always thinks the best of others for too long. I’m one who has to be beaten over the head multiple times for me to not trust someone, etc. But, premeditated cruelty to a helpless animal or person is not something easily forgiveable in my heart and soul.
I would like to again bring your attention to page GR67 of the 2005 Rule Book. In the article labeled VIOLATIONS.
1.c. Penalization by an administrative agency, humane society, <span class=“ev_code_red”>or court of law for violation of Federation Rules. </span>
1.h. Exhibiting any horse while <span class=“ev_code_blue”>in the care, training or custody of a suspended trainer.</span>
1.i.Riding, exhibiting, coaching or training <span class=“ev_code_red”>for the benefit, credit, reputation or satisfaction of a suspended person.</span>
Therefore hiring a proxy is a violation by the proxy trainer on the show grounds. The rider is in violation of the rules. Speaking and coaching even if from your own land by radio is a violation of these rules. The fact that everyone knows Paul Valiere is suspended makes them equally an accessory to his violaion of the rules. The fact that everyone knows which are his students and which are the horses that he has in his care and custody is a violation of existing rules.
If people there on site do not care and have not filed protests then we have to assume they condone the violation of Federation Rules. Since we know that all the committees of USEF are populated only from the “elite” groups which participate in Wellington we have no reason to assume the Hearing Committee is impartial and will deliver a quasi-legal opinion to enorce their own rules. Further, it is directly true that the Stewards on those show grounds are not enforcing the rules of the Federation.
Yes, Scout, that is the case. Someone heard a rumor he had applied, but no actually knowledge. However, since Nancy Banfield reapplied and was reinstated ‘under the radar’, so to speak, it’s probably better that we get our ducks in a row regardless of the when.
Scout, I am sorry if I seemed to imply you didn’t know how to navigate through an on-line community. Since you were surprised at my statement of how the whole thing started, and since you didn’t know I had made a post asking if, in fact, we KNEW he had reapplied, I thought you might need a bit of help. My mistake!
I don’t think it is our place to suggest what may or may not be remorse. It is nothing we can recognize until after the fact and not a criteria we can validate. You say give away 5 horses to poor kids, take on students for free…then it is how many for how long and that is not our debate.
As to the youngster who defends PV. All children especially college kids think they have the solutions all the questions of how the world should run and then by 40 they learn how much they don’t know. Time will solve that problem in it’s own time.
Youngsters are basically self serving and demanding so it is no surprise they prefer people who don’t make them feel inferior for not having a social conscience yet.
Maybe I’m being daft, and maybe I missed a great deal of info (I find the details a bit overwhelming) How did the USEF come up with the 5,10, or 15 year suspension? Looking at the notice from the hearing committee, they all technically voilated the same rules, if I understand it correctly (I know some cooperated with government officials…but still 5 years seems like such a short time).
Are those “designated” minimum/maximum suspensions for such acts? Why not a much larger, more uniform, sentence from the very beginning? Wouldn’t that make them more of an example, showing that such acts will not be tolerated? I find it utterly disgusting that someone would have their horse disposed of in such a manner, but it seems the greater of the two evils in the eyes of the law is the fraud part of the scheme(or again maybe I missed something).
What would be considered sufficient proof of rehabilitation and effort in community service?? or…what shiloh said
How can it be assumed and/or proven that one can be rehabilitated when something like this is done? Is it assumed that because you have been convicted and “served time”, you won’t do it again, and so will be safe back in the industry, or is it due to a min/max suspension? I guess I can’t grasp or understand that part. I hope I’m not out of line with my questions, sorry if I am, I am sincerely trying to ask in the most tactful way possible.
Snowy I second harryjohnsons request I’d love to have a patch to put on my saddlepads…can you PM me with info or ideas on how to acquire some, or direct me to a link?? Thanks.
So, mwe - you get the question first: what number does your moral compass say is okay to kill? No explanation needed, just let us know where you stand. “It’s okay to kill x # of horses and be a member of the horse community in good standing.” You fill in the blank.
And, UB is correct: there were a number of horse people out there who were not caught, one of whom is currently on the USEF board. How do I know this? Because Tommy Burns shared it with me and several other people, including the FBI.
And, UB is also correct that killing horses happens in other areas of the industry. The Standardbred people are notorious for it. But if they are caught, they are set down for life with NO reinstatement possible and are not allowed on a track ever again.
Funny thing about those days: when the FBI started subpeoning people, many of those being investigated, those who made jokes at the in-gates and who talked openly about it started trying to cover their tracks. Nothing like being at the in-gate and having one of them come up, lean on the rail next to you and start the conversation with: “So, have you talked to the FBI yet? You know all those things I talked about, I was just joking right?”… Or,
you’re not planning to tell the FBI about those things we told you about what happenned to…"
Oh! Those were the fun days!
So, yes, my letter is sent too.
And, yes, Paul and the others have every right to apply for reinstatement.
And, yes, we are all entitled to our opinion. But, if everyone else wanted to jump off a cliff would you do it too?
And, yes, I ordered 3 shirts today and will be wearing them at Lexington next weekend.
I have to close by saying that when I read these defenses of the horse killers, I feel despair. I feel like those who would make our business an unclean, unsafe place might triumph. Maybe, even at my advanced age, I’m naive, but I’ve got to believe there’s still a place for goodness, for moral right in our world. Speaking out against reinstatement is speaking out for those who can’t speak for themselves. That’s the right, the moral and the good.
quote:
Originally posted by War Admiral:
Showpony - Don’t just send it to the equestrian staff at Ethel Walker. Go all the way to the top.
Does anyone know anyone “at the top”? It would be a better received if there was some sort of a connection with someone from the school. I would imagine anyone one on the board would be horrified to learn that a place of higher learning spends money (I love COTH but their ads are not free!!) thanking a convicted horse killer. I am more than willing to be the messenger but I am hoping to find the best way to get the message heard.
Thanks,
That’s okay Harry, I typed it and I don’t get understand it either. 
Originally posted by Erin:
I would imagine that you’re still a DVM even if your license is revoked. They can’t revoke your degree.
You just can’t practice veterinary medicine without a license… and chiropractic is not (in most states) considered veterinary medicine.
Yes you’re correct, they can’t take away your degree. 
As far as chiropractic work, I believe it depends on the state, but I do know that in the state of New York you are rerquired to be a vet…not sure about a license though.
That said, he was referred to on some of the pet sites as an “equine veterinarian”, and even though these articles aren’t dated, I’m assuming they’re fairly “recent”.
that seems high
That is a question for War Admiral and Snowbird, but I don’t see why not, as long as you send it to the proper place.
Originally posted by anthem35:
Erin, with all due respect, I have done nothing but play by the rules.
I have never been less than respectful or diplomatic, despite to personla attacks I have suffered.
And I never suggested otherwise. But I do find it… interesting… that you’re trying to make it seem as though there’s some sort of COTH BB conspiracy afoot here. I don’t appreciate that insinuation.
And as far as the embezzlement incident went, you personally e-mailed me to let me know you were withdrawing the thread at his request, despite the fact that you as well as the board had found it to be a rather intersting topic.
I don’t remove threads simply because people request that they be removed. I remove them because they violate the rules. If they break the rules, it doesn’t matter if they’re interesting.
If the embezzler you refer to was identifiable in your posts and had not actually been charged with a criminal act, the thread was against the rules.
slainte, I am SO sorry if my posts have made you ill. It makes me ill that such a travesty happened, and that people are so desperate to win a satin ribbon that they ignore the fact that it DID happen.
Originally posted by Snowbird:
I think what bothers me the most is that Barney said Tommy Burns was like his son and lived with him. I guess he taught him all his skills. And, the other thing was when McLain said if he got to Olympics he was going for himself because this country never did anything for him.
When this was all breaking i got a phone call from a Reporter in Chicago. I asked him why he was calling me and he said because he heard I was an hones horseman. I asked and you had to come all the way to New Jersey to find one?
Is the MW statement in print or video?
Janet, in response to your response to my post -the fact that each person will be judged on their particular merit does not have anything to do with my point.
Can we not discuss what the rules of merit might be/should be? How we feel about reinstatement without always, ALWAYS coming back to one particular person?
Anthem, you keep making the same point over and over again. We get your point. WE GET IT! The fact that some may not agree with it, does not mean they dont understand it. Can we move on now?
