Mitt Romney sold a drugged horse

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you ignore the reporters, and read the actual complaint yourself? Where the expert witness shows how Ann Romney's story is full of holes, in 21 pages? Here's the link to the court document http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/an...eys-high-horse

Yes, you provided that link in your initial "Romney is scum" rant. I read it, and the NYT article provided within it. It provides the testimony of the expert veterinarian, not the entire complaint, and no other testimony. Perhaps other testimony and evidence would provide clues to why the Ebelings and Romney were dropped from the complaint before it was settled, and why Dr. Herthel paid no damages when it was settled.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Yes, you provided that link in your initial "Romney is scum" rant. I read it, and the NYT article provided within it. It provides the testimony of the expert veterinarian, not the entire complaint, and no other testimony. Perhaps other testimony and evidence would provide clues to why the Ebelings and Romney were dropped from the complaint before it was settled, and why Dr. Herthel paid no damages when it was settled.

Who were all those folks direct employees of? Who pays their salary? Who owns the farm - the property and land - the trainer works upon and lives upon? The farm the horse lived upon?

Why did the settlement include getting Ann Romney's name off all the legal documents? Because "I'm gonna be running for President, for goodness' sake!"?

I have zero tolerance for scum that dope and sell lame horses. The owners knew the horse was useless and lame. This was an ongoing, multi-year problem. The horse was doped and sold for quite a profit. It's outrageous fraud and deceit.

But it's good to know that if Michelle Obama ever defrauds someone for $125,000, you guys won't associate it with, or blame the President

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

Who were all those folks direct employees of? Who pays their salary? Who owns the farm - the property and land - the trainer works upon and lives upon? The farm the horse lived upon?

Why did the settlement include getting Ann Romney's name off all the legal documents? Because "I'm gonna be running for President, for goodness' sake!"?

I have zero tolerance for scum that dope and sell lame horses. The owners knew the horse was useless and lame. This was an ongoing, multi-year problem. The horse was doped and sold for quite a profit. It's outrageous fraud and deceit.

But it's good to know that if Michelle Obama ever defrauds someone for $125,000, you guys won't associate it with, or blame the President

Ann Romney's name didn't "get off all the legal documents." It's right there on the first page. She was dismissed from the complaint before it was settled. Why, if the case against her is as solid as you say, did the plaintiff dismiss her? Why did she dismiss the Ebelings? Why didn't the vet have to pay? I'd really like to know. Perhaps part of the answer is in the other proceedings. If you have a link for them I'd like to read the rest of the story.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Ann Romney's name didn't "get off all the legal documents." It's right there on the first page. She was dismissed from the complaint before it was settled. Why, if the case against her is as solid as you say, did the plaintiff dismiss her? Why did she dismiss the Ebelings? Why didn't the vet have to pay? I'd really like to know. Perhaps part of the answer is in the other proceedings. If you have a link for them I'd like to read the rest of the story.

'Nine days after ending her case against Mrs. Romney and the Ebelings, Ms. Norris settled with Dr. Herthel. The veterinarian’s lawyer, Mr. Schwartz, said his client paid no money. “They did not have a viable case and they quit,” he said.'

it sounds like the case must have had no merit. but hey, that doesn't matter-it's an easy way to attack someone who isn't even mentioned in the original suit, and whose spouse wasn't in the final resolution. but considering who started this three page line of bs, i can't say i'm surprised that it's been brought up.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

This whole arguement is ridiculous and your comments are insane.

No, they are not.

First, the involvement of the Romney's is what it factually is, no matter your characterization of my comments.

Secondly, yes, when you have a horse vetted in a different location, you use a local vet (if you cannot fly a vet you know there) for the initial rads and blood draws, and no, you may not know that vet. This isn't the race horse world where trainers know a variety of vets at the tracks they frequent, and some vets will travel north and south for summer/winter. That's why you get 2nd or even 3rd opinion purchasing a sport horse. As this buyer did.

All horses have problems. The suitability to work here was a big, direct lie by the sellers.

Yes, the vet said he screwed up the drug screening - or was it deliberate? Because then he said he gave another, third, drug that was found, but he did not note the third drug in the medical record. Then that leaves one more drug, a fourth. The trainer - Romney's agent and legal representative at the sale -is suspected of giving that drug.

The vet wasn't incompetent, as much as he was trying to sell a horse he knew was lame. The vet was complicit.

The buyer had to get another vet to get the previous x-rays and history on the horse.

A simple flexion test cannot diagnose ringbone - you need rads for low ringbone, as it's within the hoof, and yes, she had rads taken. The buyer was told that huge exotosis was always there, but that turned out to be a lie, when the second vet obtained the old x-rays for comparision, the old medical records, and went over the dressage scores the horse got in the past.

The presence of ringbone is an immediate killer to 100% of sales for horses intended to work. It was not mentioned by the seller or vet at the time of sale. Then the found presence was attempted to be "explained away".

Did anybody actually READ the expert testimony? All these details are in there. The horse was demonstrably lame for some time. Not just "problem on xray" or a "little deformity".

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.

Has zero to do with my political views. Sorry.

As I have said, yes, I have great anger at incompetent and cheating veterinarians.

But I also have great anger for cheating trainers and owners that dope and sell lame horses.

But this horse, again, was lame with ringbone - treated repeatedly for ringbone - for 2 1/2 years before the Romney's sold him. Ann knew she couldn't ride her horse, and knew why. For 2 1/2 years and multiple steroid injections.

Then suddenly the horse, who cannot be shown by Ann in lower level dressage for 2 1/2 years - is for sale as a serviceably sound, capable upper level horse for $125,000?

Baloney There is zero scenario where the owners of this horse they knew was lame and not showable in dressage, do not know how the horse was "made sound" to pass the prepurchase.

Especially when the vet called the owner agent - and not the buyer client - to discuss those nasty positives that were "found".

The argument that the Romney's didn't know Ann's horse was lame and it's career was over for 2 1/2 years - before they doped it and sold it as sound and $125,000 - is beyond absurd.

And after that doping 4 years ago, the Romneys choose to be still with the same trainer. The trainer that doped a horse they were selling, and caused a lawsuit.

[wiphan]

Originally Posted by Riot

No, they are not.

First, the involvement of the Romney's is what it factually is, no matter your characterization of my comments.

Secondly, yes, when you have a horse vetted in a different location, you use a local vet (if you cannot fly a vet you know there) for the initial rads and blood draws, and no, you may not know that vet. This isn't the race horse world where trainers know a variety of vets at the tracks they frequent, and some vets will travel north and south for summer/winter. That's why you get 2nd or even 3rd opinion purchasing a sport horse. As this buyer did.

All horses have problems. The suitability to work here was a big, direct lie by the sellers.

Yes, the vet said he screwed up the drug screening - or was it deliberate? Because then he said he gave another, third, drug that was found, but he did not note the third drug in the medical record. Then that leaves one more drug, a fourth. The trainer - Romney's agent and legal representative at the sale -is suspected of giving that drug.

The vet wasn't incompetent, as much as he was trying to sell a horse he knew was lame. The vet was complicit.

The buyer had to get another vet to get the previous x-rays and history on the horse.

A simple flexion test cannot diagnose ringbone - you need rads for low ringbone, as it's within the hoof, and yes, she had rads taken. The buyer was told that huge exotosis was always there, but that turned out to be a lie, when the second vet obtained the old x-rays for comparision, the old medical records, and went over the dressage scores the horse got in the past.

The presence of ringbone is an immediate killer to 100% of sales for horses intended to work. It was not mentioned by the seller or vet at the time of sale. Then the found presence was attempted to be "explained away".

Did anybody actually READ the expert testimony? All these details are in there. The horse was demonstrably lame for some time. Not just "problem on xray" or a "little deformity".



Has zero to do with my political views. Sorry.

As I have said, yes, I have great anger at incompetent and cheating veterinarians.

But I also have great anger for cheating trainers and owners that dope and sell lame horses.

But this horse, again, was lame with ringbone - treated repeatedly for ringbone - for 2 1/2 years before the Romney's sold him. Ann knew she couldn't ride her horse, and knew why. For 2 1/2 years and multiple steroid injections.

Then suddenly the horse, who cannot be shown by Ann in lower level dressage for 2 1/2 years - is for sale as a serviceably sound, capable upper level horse for $125,000?

Baloney There is zero scenario where the owners of this horse they knew was lame and not showable in dressage, do not know how the horse was "made sound" to pass the prepurchase.

Especially when the vet called the owner agent - and not the buyer client - to discuss those nasty positives that were "found".

The argument that the Romney's didn't know Ann's horse was lame and it's career was over for 2 1/2 years - before they doped it and sold it as sound and $125,000 - is beyond absurd.

And after that doping 4 years ago, the Romneys choose to be still with the same trainer. The trainer that doped a horse they were selling, and caused a lawsuit.

SO why would a buyer spend $125k on a horse that hasn't shown in 2 1/2 years? Doesn't seem to add up at all. If you have $125k to spend on a horse you can spend money to find a reliable vet that you trust to do a pre-purchase exam.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by wiphan

SO why would a buyer spend $125k on a horse that hasn't shown in 2 1/2 years? Doesn't seem to add up at all.

Yeah, how about that ... when the buyer showed up to try the horse, was the buyer TOLD the horse couldn't be shown? Was the buyer TOLD the horse had ringbone, which eliminated it as a dressage horse?

Any buyer will walk away immediately from any horse with ringbone. Everyone knows that.

Nope. A horse, drugged up to pass for sound, was introduced as horse who was capable of doing upper level dressage. here you go, try the horse! And they accepted the check for $125,000.

I can't believe you are trying to defend these low life scum horse dealers, and trying to blame the victim of their fraud and deceit.

If you have $125k to spend on a horse you can spend money to find a reliable vet that you trust to do a pre-purchase exam.

Buyer did get a second opinion, after being defrauded by the first veterinarian - unexpected, I'm sure - and that's how this scam was exposed. Of course, the Romney's had no idea!

Okay, guys, your turn: Let's hear the plausible way this went down, consistent with the findings and dates in the expert witness statement, that shows the Romney's could not have know their lame horse was sold as sound. For $125,000. Explain how the Romney's are innocent and unknowing.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by wiphan

SO why would a buyer spend $125k on a horse that hasn't shown in 2 1/2 years? Doesn't seem to add up at all. If you have $125k to spend on a horse you can spend money to find a reliable vet that you trust to do a pre-purchase exam.

wiphan, none of that matters. all that matters is that mitt romney is scum. you shouldn't let yourself be sidetracked by any of the minutiae regarding the case-it's irrelevant.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

'Nine days after ending her case against Mrs. Romney and the Ebelings, Ms. Norris settled with Dr. Herthel. The veterinarian’s lawyer, Mr. Schwartz, said his client paid no money. “They did not have a viable case and they quit,” he said.'

it sounds like the case must have had no merit.

No. It sounds like Mitt Romney got Ann's name off the court case, in exchange for a refund of the $125,000 plus expenses for what is an unrideable pasture ornament, and no charges filed for fraud, because he was running for president even then.

but hey, that doesn't matter-it's an easy way to attack someone who isn't even mentioned in the original suit, and whose spouse wasn't in the final resolution. but considering who started this three page line of bs, i can't say i'm surprised that it's been brought up.

Romney is the landowner of the farm mentioned in the suit, the trainer is his express employee on that farm, and was Ann Romney's direct agent.

And I'm not surprised at those here who are insisting the Romneys were not shocked that Ann's chronically lame horse, with ringbone, that couldn't be shown because it was lame, was magically sound one day, sold as an upper level dressage horse, for $125,000.

Because that's just ... normal. It was all the vet's fault according to those here. Not the trainer (who gave another painkiller on his owner as the owners legal agent).

Owners were clueless but thrilled they suddenly made such a windfall profit on Ann's lame, useless horse. One man's lame, useless, former dressage horse is - with the magic of four sedatives/painkillers - suddenly an upper level dressage horse again, and expensive! Horayy! Business deals are great!

Seriously? You guys expect the world to buy this fantasy defense of the Romney's selling a drugged-sound horse for big bucks? Of course ! The trainer and the Romneys are completely innocent. The vet did it all - in secret? - and the buyer - the victim of this fraud - well, it's her fault for getting taken for $125,000! The only people at fault here on Derby Trail are the vet and the purchaser. Why, if the Romneys and trainer had known someone was trying to buy their lame, ex-dressage horse they would have stepped in and prevented it! They knew the horse wsn't lame.

Please. I'm ROFLMAO at the Romney defenders. The sad thing is I know may of you guys like horses.