Mitt Romney sold a drugged horse

[Antitrust32]

you should put a Mrs. in front of the Romney part because you make it seem like Mitt sold the horse.


Why would the buyer not use a vet they trusted for the pre purchase exam?


This whole thing is very very shady, but it doesnt seem to have anything to do with Mr. Romney.

The vet should lose their practice.

[Antitrust32]

also the buyer needs to take it up with the vet they hired.

[Antitrust32]

i just read the whole report.


This thing has 100% absolutely nothing to do with Mitt Romney.

The Dr. Doug vet seems pretty much entirely at fault. Plus this was Ann Romney's horse, not Mitt Romney's horse.

I dont see how any individual could read that report and reflect poorly on Mitt Romney, unless there is an agenda to fill.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you should put a Mrs. in front of the Romney part because you make it seem like Mitt sold the horse.


Why would the buyer not use a vet they trusted for the pre purchase exam?


This whole thing is very very shady, but it doesnt seem to have anything to do with Mr. Romney.

The vet should lose their practice.

based on the nyt article, several questions come to mind.
one, why would anyone shell out six figures on a horse when you're told there is an issue with the ankle up front?
why would you keep said horse over a year before raising a stink?
why would anyone suggest mitt was at fault, when his wife was removed from the suit and he wasn't even named in it to begin with?

more than anything, this seems an incredibly convoluted attempt to besmirch a candidate. surely there are enough bona fide bones to pick without making this reach-and it is quite a reach.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you should put a Mrs. in front of the Romney part because you make it seem like Mitt sold the horse.

Naw. Mitt just got Ann's name taken off the complaint at the settlement, and used the deduction on his tax return.

The owner's legal agent was fully complicit in this fraud. The Romneys knew the horse was lame. The Romney's knew the horse couldn't do upper level dressage any more. The Romney's sold the lame horse for $125,000 as an upper level dressage horse, after it was drugged to go sound.

Why would the buyer not use a vet they trusted for the pre purchase exam?

When you fly in to look at horses, you have to use local vets for the intial stuff (blood draw, rads, etc). The vet screwed her, and yes, he should be held responsible for his gross ethical breech he participated in - with the owner's agent.

The buyer did the wise and common thing, and had a second opinion back home. Good thing,too, as it caught the fraud.

This whole thing is very very shady, but it doesnt seem to have anything to do with Mr. Romney.

Except he writes the checks. I'll guess that $125,000 profit on the lame horse Ann couldn't ride any longer helped offset the farm business deduction losses (like that $77,000), to make one of those 2 out of 7 years profitable on Mitt's tax return. So he can continue to claim the horses as a business, rather than an unprofitable hobby.

[Antitrust32]

maybe Ann used her husbands money to buy the horse, but it was Ann's horse, not Mitts. It even says in the report that the insurance policy for the horse was in Ann's name.

this just doesnt have anything to do with Mitt himself.

The vet? Yes.

Like I said, no different than Obama's cousin raping somebody and blaming Obama for it.

[Antitrust32]

you should be outraged that there are people like Dr. Doug in your profession. Unfortunately, he's not the only shady character in that business.

I dont see where the outrage for Mitt comes from, except you dont want him to be the next President. (I dont want him to be either)

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you should be outraged that there are people like Dr. Doug in your profession. Unfortunately, he's not the only shady character in that business.

I most certainly am outraged. I grew up riding in the era and location of George and Si Jayne. Shady is familiar to me in the horse business. I've bought and sold horses my own horses. Buyer beware 100% of the time.

I dont see where the outrage for Mitt comes from, except you dont want him to be the next President. (I dont want him to be either)

My outrage with the Mittens and Ann show over this has zero to do with Mitt's political views and job aspirations.

Mitt is the man who writes the checks, owns the land, barn, the farm business, takes it on his tax return, wife doesn't work, he's sole breadwinner, he rides his own trail horse at times, although he's not as horsey as Ann.

Owner's agent here was a disaster, colluding with the vet. That means the owner - Ann Romney, if you will - colluded to defraud.

Her name was taken off the suit in the settlement, but they forgot about the document statement from the expert witness tearing her story to shreds. So dang - Mitt is running for President, and the press still dug up this story - even though they settled out of court in exchange for removing Ann's name from the court records to try and hide the lawsuit - because the trainer got named to the Olympic team and Romney can't mix with mortals well.

This happened a couple years ago - but the Romney's still employ this trainer? This known cheater?

I cannot make any scenario whatsoever where any rational person - Mitt - could know they have a horse that could not be shown for 2 1/2 years because he is lame and done, knows he has ringbone, has paid multiple vet bills on this $125,000K horse that can't work (including insurance policies) - and suddenly the horse is sold as sound for $125,000 for a job it can no longer do?

And they don't think that's weird?

This has nothing to do with Romney's politics, but everything to do with the morals and business ethics of a man who wants to run this country. This isn't Mitt's first case of "money before living creatures".

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

I most certainly am outraged. I grew up riding in the era and location of George and Si Jayne. Shady is familiar to me in the horse business. I've bought and sold horses my own horses. Buyer beware 100% of the time.



My outrage with the Mittens and Ann show over this has zero to do with Mitt's political views and job aspirations.

Mitt is the man who writes the checks, owns the land, barn, the farm business, takes it on his tax return, wife doesn't work, he's sole breadwinner, he rides his own trail horse at times, although he's not as horsey as Ann.

Owner's agent here was a disaster, colluding with the vet. That means the owner - Ann Romney, if you will - colluded to defraud.

Her name was taken off the suit in the settlement, but they forgot about the document statement from the expert witness tearing her story to shreds. So dang - Mitt is running for President, and the press still dug up this story - even though they settled out of court in exchange for removing Ann's name from the court records to try and hide the lawsuit - because the trainer got named to the Olympic team and Romney can't mix with mortals well.

This happened a couple years ago - but the Romney's still employ this trainer? This known cheater?

I cannot make any scenario whatsoever where any rational person - Mitt - could know they have a horse that could not be shown for 2 1/2 years because he is lame and done, knows he has ringbone, has paid multiple vet bills on this $125,000K horse that can't work (including insurance policies) - and suddenly the horse is sold as sound for $125,000 for a job it can no longer do?

And they don't think that's weird?

This has nothing to do with Romney's politics, but everything to do with the morals and business ethics of a man who wants to run this country. This isn't Mitt's first case of "money before living creatures".

This whole arguement is ridiculous and your comments are insane.

First of all if you are spending $125,000 for a horse and you are doing a pre-purchase exam (which I have done on any horse I spent $10k or more on) you should dam well know who the vet is that is doing the exam. The drug screening should be done properly and immediately before doing anything else. If they did X-rays etc why did the buyer not become aware of any of these issues? A simple flexion test (which should have been done prior to x-rays) and with X-rays wouldn't some if not all of the lameness issues have shown up? Seems like the buyers vet was completely incompentent. Also when did these issues arise from the horse was it within 30 days? Most sellers of a $125k horse would take the horse back if such issues arose immediately. Also I know from doing these exams that my vets always tell me absolutely worst case scenarios and are extremely careful at what they tell me and always error on the side of caution. If you were spending $125k (which I can never imagine spending on a horse) I would think you would be able to find a competent vet to perform the exam and provide you with accurate information. Riot as a professional in this area I think your anger should be at your collegue and not the seller because you are making assumptions about the seller from your own political views. Many times owners of horses ride the horses, show the horses and are unaware of many issues that the horse can have because the horse may not show these issues. As one vet told me you don't ride x-rays and many horses can tolerate things that show up on x-rays.