Mitt Romney sold a drugged horse

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

The statements of the horse owner, and of her lawyer, and of opposing lawyers, publicly, combined with what ultimately happened to the horse.

Continuing to say, "Ann Romney wasn't involved in the suit" shows undeniable ignorance of how the lawsuit, after 18-months of going through the court system, and days from going before a judge with a jury trial, was settled.

Where are these statements published? I would like to read them so that I might be "ignorant" no more.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Where are these statements published? I would like to read them so that I might be "ignorant" no more.

Good grief? why start now? You've already offered your opinion, apparently before reading what has been publicly available on the subject. As have many others on this thread

I posted a couple links with link-throughs and detailed info at the start of the thread, and a simple google gives much information. The expert witness testimony, and parts of Ann Romneys deposition.

You know - for those folks that want information before they make up their minds

Maybe one of the highly-educated lawyers around here could offer an opinion on what the "Defendant Sanctions" the judge placed upon Romney and her trainer could involve? I seriously don't know - what type of stuff gets a judge angry enough to sanction the defendants before the jury trial occurs?

Why did the defendant's lawyer try to get the suing party to sign "keep silent" agreements? (refused)

Or, we can discuss what Thoroughbred racing and sport horse owners should do, when they have a lame horse, uninsured for that lamness, that can no longer do their job, and their trainer/legal agent sells the animal for them as "sound", but then the owner is sued as the horse actually was not sound, ends up not being able to do the work as alleged when sold, and was found to be loaded with multiple painkillers during the sale. What should that owner do? Should they stick with that trainer? Enjoy the $20K profit and say "suck it, buyer" and settle out of court? Fire the trainer and make the sale right with the buyer?

[Clip-Clop]

Caveat Emptor.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Caveat Emptor.

That's how and why the seller got caught drugging the horse

How about this situation?

A race horse owner has a $100,000 allowance/grade 3 level horse. It has developed a coffin joint abnormality that had made it chronically, worsening lame (cannot be "fixed). That lameness has decreased it's performance, caused tendon problems in the other front leg due to the horse trying to avoid the sore foot. It has required regular steroid injections into the joint to keep the horse sound, but it's performance has deteriorated as expected with that problem, and it hasn't been able to run for a year. It's clear the horse has ringbone in the lower coffin joint. The horse isn't insured for loss of use due to ringbone. As the ringbone worsens, the horse will quickly be a pasture ornament. That's the only option for worsening, severe low ringbone.

Should that horse be sold privately as a $125,000 allowance/Grade 3 level horse, with the seller actively denying there are any known factors limiting it's performance at that level? The seller literally calls the horse, "the soundest horse in the barn". Even when the seller's agent is asked specifically about specific problems, the agent/trainer lies to the buyer.

What about the owner who uses the trainer as their legal selling agent. The trainer dopes the horse up with four painkillers to make it sound for the sale. And sells the horse for $20,000 more than they originally purchased the horse for.

Is the owner legally liable when the fraud is discovered?

What about the veterinarian doing the local prepurchase exam? (drawing blood and rads) Referred by the seller? The vet tells the buyer that the radiographic ringbone abnormalities are "cosmetic only and of no consequence to the intended use" (a clear lie). When the positive drug tests come back, the veterinarian calls, not the purchaser, but the owner via the owner's agent (trainer) to let them know the bad result. Vet denies giving 2 of the painkillers found. Trainer denies giving two of the painkillers found.

Should the owner continue using that trainer?

The new owner left the horse with the original trainer. The horse continues to move funny, be lame off and on, and cannot be used at the allowance level - or any level. The trainer blames the gallop riders of the horse for making the horse "move funny" to the owners eye.

The owner hires another vet to obtain all the horses documented medical history, and discovers everything said about the horse they purchased was a lie.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Riot

That's how and why the seller got caught drugging the horse

How about this situation?

A race horse owner has a $100,000 allowance/grade 3 level horse. It has developed a coffin joint abnormality that had made it chronically, worsening lame (cannot be "fixed). That lameness has decreased it's performance, caused tendon problems in the other front leg due to the horse trying to avoid the sore foot. It has required regular steroid injections into the joint to keep the horse sound, but it's performance has deteriorated as expected with that problem, and it hasn't been able to run for a year. It's clear the horse has ringbone in the lower coffin joint. The horse isn't insured for loss of use due to ringbone. As the ringbone worsens, the horse will quickly be a pasture ornament. That's the only option for worsening, severe low ringbone.

Should that horse be sold privately as a $125,000 allowance/Grade 3 level horse, with the seller actively denying there are any known factors limiting it's performance at that level? The seller literally calls the horse, "the soundest horse in the barn". Even when the seller's agent is asked specifically about specific problems, the agent/trainer lies to the buyer.

What about the owner who uses the trainer as their legal selling agent. The trainer dopes the horse up with four painkillers to make it sound for the sale. And sells the horse for $20,000 more than they originally purchased the horse for.

Is the owner legally liable when the fraud is discovered?

What about the veterinarian doing the local prepurchase exam? (drawing blood and rads) Referred by the seller? The vet tells the buyer that the radiographic ringbone abnormalities are "cosmetic only and of no consequence to the intended use" (a clear lie). When the positive drug tests come back, the veterinarian calls, not the purchaser, but the owner via the owner's agent (trainer) to let them know the bad result. Vet denies giving 2 of the painkillers found. Trainer denies giving two of the painkillers found.

Should the owner continue using that trainer?

The new owner left the horse with the original trainer. The horse continues to move funny, be lame off and on, and cannot be used at the allowance level - or any level. The trainer blames the gallop riders of the horse for making the horse "move funny" to the owners eye.

The owner hires another vet to obtain all the horses documented medical history, and discovers everything said about the horse they purchased was a lie.

Once you buy something it is yours and you deal with it. If you didnt do your homework or research correctly that is your problem. Falls under the personal responsibility theory the courts are very diligently removing.

[Rudeboyelvis]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Once you buy something it is yours and you deal with it. If you didnt do your homework or research correctly that is your problem. Falls under the personal responsibility theory the courts are very diligently removing.

But then of course she couldn't take 6 pages of posts to smear a guy who most likely had no idea whatsoever that he even owned the friggin horse in the first place, much less connived a scheme with a vet to purposely unload damaged goods.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

But then of course she couldn't take 6 pages of posts to smear a guy who most likely had no idea whatsoever that he even owned the friggin horse in the first place, much less connived a scheme with a vet to purposely unload damaged goods.

Mitt talks to Eberling regularly. He pays the bills. Romneys have a house on the California ranch Eberling works off of, and stay there regularly (they don't ride in public). Romney is the mortgage-holder on the ranch named in the complaint. Romney loaned Eberling the money to get the ranch going. Romney knows exactly what horses they own, per Ann's deposition.

The facts stand: A horse owned by Ann Romney was unsound, but doped sound, and sold for a profit. Mitt Romney is an owner in the horse business the family owns. Mitt takes the profit, and the deductions, on his published income tax form.

[Clip-Clop]

Originally Posted by Rudeboyelvis

But then of course she couldn't take 6 pages of posts to smear a guy who most likely had no idea whatsoever that he even owned the friggin horse in the first place, much less connived a scheme with a vet to purposely unload damaged goods.

to make $20K

[pointman]

Originally Posted by Clip-Clop

Once you buy something it is yours and you deal with it. If you didnt do your homework or research correctly that is your problem. Falls under the personal responsibility theory the courts are very diligently removing.

In the troll's world there is no such thing as responsibility for what you purchase. If you purchase a home and take a mortgage you cannot afford, don't worry, it is those greedy banks fault for tricking you into taking a mortgage you cannot afford. You are not responsible for knowing whether or not you could afford that mortgage when you signed on the dotted line.

If you don't want to work but want healthcare, don't worry, you don't have responsibility for helping yourself, the rich will pay for it.

If you buy a horse from a Presidential candidate, don't bother getting the horse vetted, if it doesn't work out for you, just blame that greedy Presidential candidate for dumping bad goods on you. You don't need to take any responsibility for having checked out whether you made a wise purchase.

Welcome to the Obama world, the land of no responsibility.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by pointman

In the troll's world there is no such thing as responsibility for what you purchase. If you purchase a home and take a mortgage you cannot afford, don't worry, it is those greedy banks fault for tricking you into taking a mortgage you cannot afford. You are not responsible for knowing whether or not you could afford that mortgage when you signed on the dotted line.

If you don't want to work but want healthcare, don't worry, you don't have responsibility for helping yourself, the rich will pay for it.

If you buy a horse from a Presidential candidate, don't bother getting the horse vetted, if it doesn't work out for you, just blame that greedy Presidential candidate for dumping bad goods on you. You don't need to take any responsibility for having checked out whether you made a wise purchase.

Welcome to the Obama world, the land of no responsibility.

Bad day for the Obama-haters in their fantasyland of imagined reality, huh

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief? why start now? You've already offered your opinion, apparently before reading what has been publicly available on the subject. As have many others on this thread

I posted a couple links with link-throughs and detailed info at the start of the thread, and a simple google gives much information. The expert witness testimony, and parts of Ann Romneys deposition.

You know - for those folks that want information before they make up their minds

BS You posted a link to one testimony, with a link to the NYT article that I quoted, to which you responded

Read the actual complaint. Not a synopsis by a reporter.

Okay, where is the complaint? I've asked you for more information and asked you your sources for statements that you've made that aren't in your link, but you haven't provided them. I've searched for more information, but all I find are variations of the NYT article and web blog posts. I'm finished searching for links to substantiate your claims.

Links. Post them if you want anyone here to believe that your initial post was anything more than a smear attempt. Otherwise it's just more politically motivated BS.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

BS You posted a link to one testimony, with a link to the NYT article that I quoted, to which you responded

Okay, where is the complaint? I've asked you for more information and asked you your sources for statements that you've made that aren't in your link, but you haven't provided them. I've searched for more information, but all I find are variations of the NYT article and web blog posts. I'm finished searching for links to substantiate your claims.

Links. Post them if you want anyone here to believe that your initial post was anything more than a smear attempt. Otherwise it's just more politically motivated BS.

The link is in post #1 of this thread, idiot. Click on it and read the whole thing - including the 24 pages of expert opinion. If you are looking for the court case, and have been paying attention, it was dismissed and the original court lawsuit has never been published (and I've never said it was). All the facts of the case mentioned by me are available within published newspaper articles over the past week.

Nice to see that after seven pages of bullsh.iat ad hominem, some of you guys appear to be interested in bothering to find out some factual information on the case.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

The link is in post #1 of this thread, idiot. Click on it and read the whole thing - including the 24 pages of expert opinion.

It's 21 pages, and all of it is one man's testimony. The whole thing doesn't include the opinion, all of it is his opinion. You give no reference to any other "facts" in the case, save one man's testimony. Calling me an idiot doesn't change the fact that you keep citing other information without a source, other than what one must assume is your own imagination.

Originally Posted by Riot

If you are looking for the court case, and have been paying attention, it was dismissed and the original court lawsuit has never been published (and I've never said it was). All the facts of the case mentioned by me are available within published newspaper articles over the past week.

Fine. Bring them on, then.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by OldDog

It's 21 pages, and all of it is one man's testimony. The whole thing doesn't include the opinion, all of it is his opinion. You give no reference to any other "facts" in the case, save one man's testimony. Calling me an idiot doesn't change the fact that you keep citing other information without a source, other than what one must assume is your own imagination.

Fine. Bring them on, then.

The additional pages are the drug report, also photocopied into that story.

I posted a good solid link to the original story, with much detail - and you said you've read the NYT piece. But much of what you complain about as being non-existent is actually within those stories.

As I've said, the rest is readily available in the various news media accounts of this in recent times, expanding upon those two stories.

So I suggest you specify in detail what information you cannot find in those stories, that you object to, and why.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Riot

The additional pages are the drug report, also photocopied into that story.

I posted a good solid link to the original story, with much detail - and you said you've read the NYT piece. But much of what you complain about as being non-existent is actually within those stories.

As I've said, the rest is readily available in the various news media accounts of this in recent times, expanding upon those two stories.

So I suggest you specify in detail what information you cannot find in those stories, that you object to, and why.

Yes, again, your original link is one man's testimony. Pardon me for thinking that one man's testimony isn't enough to mandate a settlement in favor of the plaintiff.

Originally Posted by Riot

This was clearly not dismissed as "there was no case".

Why exactly was it dismissed?

Originally Posted by Riot

Why don't you ignore the reporters, and read the actual complaint yourself?

Because I can't find it, and you either can't or won't provide it. You provided a link to one person's testimony in it. As I have said, other information and testimony just might have some bearing on the case and why it was dismissed.

Originally Posted by Riot

Unlike you, I did take the time to read the entire complaint before I even posted the thread, and thus have the facts informing my opinion.

*See above*

Originally Posted by Riot

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.

Yes, you are guessing.

Originally Posted by Riot

Why did the settlement include getting Ann Romney's name off all the legal documents?

How do you know what the settlement included? Is it published?

Originally Posted by Riot

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

And your source for "in exchange for removing Ann's name" is...? All I read is that Ann Romney was dropped from the suit. Is that the same as settling?

Originally Posted by Riot

It sounds like Mitt Romney got Ann's name off the court case, in exchange for a refund of the $125,000 plus expenses

Sounds like? How do you know that the Romney's refunded the $?

Originally Posted by Riot

What do you suppose the judge prevented the Defendants from talking about? What do you think that was all about? The evidence regarding Defendants the judge said wouldn't be released?

I don't know that the judge prevented the defendants from talking about anything. Where did you read/hear this?

Originally Posted by Riot

And I still wonder what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge?

I don't know "what Defendant Sanctions the Romney's requested be lifted by the judge." Do you? I don't even know that the Romney's made such a request. Where did you read/hear this?

Originally Posted by Riot

Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit, try to have them sign confidentiality agreements (fail), and after the lawsuit moves through court for 18 months, panic and settle immediately before lawsuit goes to a judge in exchange for removing Romneys name from it

Again, where do you get your information that the "Romneys pay off the filer of the lawsuit?" Give me the source so that I will know that it's true. Or am I an idiot for asking?

Originally Posted by Riot

After 18 months, immediately before the lawsuit was to be heard in court, the lawsuit was settled out of court, at the request of the Romney's, in exchange for reimbursement of the sale price of the horse

Source? Or is it just supposed to be "obvious" that the Romney's paid? Where did you read/hear this? That's all I am asking for. If it's true, it's relevant. But I'm not accepting it as fact unless/until it's sourced.

Earlier I asked you about this "payoff," or "reimbursement," you said

Originally Posted by Riot

The statements of the horse owner, and of her lawyer, and of opposing lawyers, publicly, combined with what ultimately happened to the horse.

So, when I asked you for the sources of these public statements, all I got was

Originally Posted by Riot

Good grief? why start now?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Where are these statements published? I would like to read them so that I might be "ignorant" no more.

thou shalt not feed thy trolls.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

thou shalt not feed thy trolls.

I'm no more a troll than you are demonstrating in this thread, 'Zig. "How dare she be rich and ride horses. and this topic, on a website devoted to following a sport involving rich people with horses". That's nothing but baloney troll - because nobody on this thread has attacked Romney for being rich or riding horses, especially me. Just like nobody here thinks this is "the number one thing to worry about".

You like posting inflammatory stuff nobody has said?

You don't want to discuss the doping of horses - and those associated with it, especially when it's the trainer of a presidential candidate when selling the candidate's wife's horse - stay off the thread.