Re: re:Tevis Post Clarification

["superpat" <superpat@ccountry.net>]

Gee,
I have tried to "keep my dog out of this fight" as my dad would have said,
but I will add only this. I do not know either party to this issue but I do
know that if I had offered a horse for sale and taken a deposit on him, and
if for any reason whatsoever, the prospective purchasers chose not to close
the deal, so long as they had not taken possession, (maybe even if they
had), I would have readily and happily refunded the deposit. Why in the
world would I want to force the sale of a living, breathing horse on someone
who does not want him? I care too much for my animals and want them to go
into homes where they will be wanted and appreciated and cared for.
Whether the horse was damaged as a result of the way he was ridden is an
entirely other issue, it seems to me, and the prospective purchaser should
not have to prove or disprove anything. How sad if that were truly the case.
Pat Super
----- Original Message -----
From: <guest@endurance.net>
To: <ridecamp@endurance.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 11:49 PM
Subject: RC: re:Tevis Post Clarification


> Mike Sofen msofen@pacbell.net
> So Nancy, since you've chosen to be spokesperson for the horse's owners,
> let's shift the focus of this discussion slightly, away from a "deal gone
> bad" slant.  Is the horse still competing, is he still healthy and sound?
> Was he unaffected by his ordeal at Tevis, or did he, as my vet was
> concerned, suffer permanent damage?
>
> If he's still competing in 50's and 100's with great vet scores, then my
> vet was wrong, and I was wrong, and I will apologize to ridecamp for
> troubling them with such a trifling issue.
>
> However, if his health or endurance career has been blemished or
> compromised, then it would be appropriate for you to say so.  You know the
> horse's name - look up his ride stats and tell us how the horse is doing.
> And tell us about his health history since that Tevis.
>
> Mike
>
> >>
> Let me clarify my previous post.
> My point is that "deals gone bad" have 2 sides, usually with credible
> "witnesses" on each side. Such arguements generally have no place on
> ridecamp.
> In this case, the implication was made that this horse was knowingly
> trashed. IMO there was no indication during the course of the ride this
> horse was being over ridden.
>
> Nancy Mitts
> <<
>
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>