| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Heather Brown
Gold Member
United Kingdom
682 Posts |
 Posted - 14 Aug 2007 : 7:21:13 PM
|
| The 2007 National Show catalogue is not the catalogue of the HOYS qualifiers at BACS. Not all entries will be transferred and new entries are being taken. A new catalogue will be available at the show. Exhibitors and judges will have no more idea of exhibitors than of any other show,we can always speculate as to who we think will be there. Hope this helps. H |
Edited by - Heather Brown on 14 Aug 2007 7:21:57 PM |
Report to Moderator  |
|
|
Sahir
Gold Member
England
847 Posts |
Posted - 15 Aug 2007 : 11:36:28 PM
|
Jingo - apology unnecessary, like you I also have a life away from AL!! However my question still stands, why, when the Futurity in 2001 was moved to Hartpury (and I'm sure everyone at that time agreed to abide by the rules!)was the Futurity allowed to go ahead?
surely the rules applied then as now, only on that occassion of course the distance was convenient for those living in the South, obviously nobody from the North threatened "legal action" against the AHS for holding it in a different location to Malvern. It all rather points to two people having a fit of "throwing their toys out of their pram" and being completely selfish with total disregard for the rest of the entrants. Did they stop to think of anybody other than themselves? When their names are made public - as indeed I'm sure they will be, I hope that everyone reading this thread will treat them with the contempt they deserve, both parties totally disgust me with their self-centred, mean-spirited attitude - and the fact that they have completely ruined an event that people have been working hard for, for more than three years & will never have the opportunity again (with these 3yr olds) well I just hope they are both feeling very, very uncomfortable (shame is probably not something these two think should apply to them) It will be interesting to see how many people will support them when they have an event they wish to promote, personally I would like to see both of them banned from membership for three years!! |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Jingo
Platinum Member
United Kingdom
3632 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 08:01:57 AM
|
Sahir, oh dear you really are intent on sticking the knife in. If you read my earlier replies you will see the reasons I believe the AHS had no other alternative but to cancel the Futurity this year.
I personally DO NOT think it has ANYTHING at all to do with where the Futurity was going to be held. Again I think it is because the rules were broken - you cannot issue catalogues before an event or open up for more entries to be taken especially after you have said on an open forum the number of horses going forward to the original classes.
IF I had had a horse entered in this years Futurity I too would have been angry and annoyed but for the above reasons and not because the classes had been cancelled.
So again STOP pointing fingers, we have to accept that mistakes were made and we have to move on and learn by those mistakes - I hope.
I'm sorry that your horse cannot go forward this year to the Futurity but you have many more years of showing that you can enjoy.
The Futurity was held during F & M year because catalogues weren't issued before the event etc etc. The National Show was cancelled much earlier in the year before the close of entries if my memory serves me right. |
Jude
www.auchmillanarabians.org.uk
      
photos:Anthony Reynolds,Sweet,Deano,Real Time Imaging |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Lori
Platinum Member
England
1829 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 4:53:18 PM
|
But we have only just been issued the catalogues. The Futurity was cancelled because two selfish people complained and threatened the AHS with legal action because of where the Futurity was being held. Am i being thick here or did i see the reason in black and white issued by the AHS that it was because of these two competitors?
Can't wait to find out who these selfish people are, at least we know where we stand with them eh? If they'd been on the Titanic bet they'd have been in the lifeboats first!  |
     
Lancashire |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Heather Brown
Gold Member
United Kingdom
682 Posts |
Posted - 16 Aug 2007 : 5:27:30 PM
|
| Please don't make this a witch hunt. So many people have different opinions and with the legal advice and short lead time to BACS this was the only decision that could be made. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Sahir
Gold Member
England
847 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 07:54:08 AM
|
| Heather - was legal advice actually sought by the AHS? I heard that it WASN'T - just that they were 'frightened off' by the threat? Jingo - the letters were sent BEFORE the catalogues were issued, and if I'm wrong on this point (which I don't believe I am) then why don't the two people who sent the letters come on here & explain their actions, this is not a witch hunt, but as everyone reading this thread can see, people are furious and rightly so ! |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Heather Brown
Gold Member
United Kingdom
682 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 09:31:15 AM
|
| Well Elaine you heard wrong, legal advice was sought and taken. Who the members were is private and any assumptions made are immoral and wrong. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
nikki
Platinum Member
Wales
4384 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 1:15:00 PM
|
being a bit dim here. but why would releasing the catalouges before the show make any difference? |
pagey |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
SueB
Platinum Member
United Kingdom
3218 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 2:30:22 PM
|
Under ECAHO rules you are not meant to release the show catalogue before the show.
Even at a non ECAHO ruled show you should not let the judges or other competitors see the catalogue before the show.
The whole idea of a show is to go, not knowing who will be there. This gives everyone the fairest chance of winning.
Even though some of us know who will be going, everything should be done to ensure fair play to us all, judges and exhibitors alike.
As far as the new catalogue for the HOYS Qualifiers at BAC, this seems fair enough, but the futurity can't really do anything now as sadly these were entered some years ago.
I think this is why there is so much anger at missing these classes this year. As I said before, I am looking forwards to my futurity entry fees being returned now. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Lori
Platinum Member
England
1829 Posts |
Posted - 17 Aug 2007 : 3:33:07 PM
|
| Heather, there is certainly no witch hunt going on here. All we are asking is that the people who have been left high and dry with this, namely the 15 people who have lost out, should be given a little more consideration. Why would you want to protect the ones who have decided for everyone that the Futurity shouldn't be held this year. They should stand by their convictions and put their names where there mouths are. This was no ordinary class that you can go to the next show and compete in, this was a one off, much waited for and worked at event. Please don't try to sweep us under the carpet. |
Lancashire |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Sahir
Gold Member
England
847 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 09:40:43 AM
|
Well said Lori !!!
Heather - I expect legal advice was taken eventually but NOT before the decision was made to cancel the Futurity, this was advised to someone I know who phoned and spoke to the AHS!
and before the catalogues were despatched. With regard to your comments about making assumptions - this is a free country in which we are allowed to express opinion, hence this forum, the word immoral means "transgressing accepted moral rules" therefore it seems an inappropriate comment to make - and just to put you & Jingo and one or two others straight I never make assumptions - you see I KNOW WHO SENT THE TWO LETTERS.
With regard to it being private - I don't think so! If all entrants to the Futurity have been paying into the pot for 3yrs+ then along comes two members who are miffed at the distance needed to travel and threaten legal action therefore causing the AHS to cancel,
then the Futurity entrants have a right to know who they are, why are these two people 'hiding' if what they did was right, I believe WRONG & IMMORAL is more appropriately attributed to them. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Nick
Gold Member
United Kingdom
887 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 11:09:12 AM
|
Having read this with interest,Sometimes common sense goes out of the window,Always rules,Legal actions,the Horses and enjoyment are always at the end of the scale,
Why not refund the money of the two and let the rest compete simple.
But no complications,
It is hard to see the the Futurity surviving this episode,
Nick |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Heather Brown
Gold Member
United Kingdom
682 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 11:15:18 AM
|
These people made their point, as many do, legal advice was sought and then it was cancelled; they were legally correct, simple as. I am sure you are not accusing me of not telling the truth.
I cannot condone a lynching, the futurity entrants do not have the right to know who complained and if someone has told you I would like to know who. If you read the code of conduct that we abide by, you will see that it is against this code to intimidate complainants.
I am quite sure the futurity will carry on but clearly we need to change the rules slightly to accommodate extenuating circumstances.
Unless there is some new information, I will stop posting on this thread. Please be sure of what you say and please do not make false accusations. |
Edited by - Heather Brown on 18 Aug 2007 11:22:13 AM |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Nick
Gold Member
United Kingdom
887 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 11:28:08 AM
|
Hi Heather, do you agree with me things could be made more transparent.
Were they offered their money back, and the show could go on,
And we know complaining as become an epidemic,
The words Legal advice scare me, FUN is the word in short supply,
Nick |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Sahir
Gold Member
England
847 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 11:46:58 AM
|
Heather - Of course I am NOT accusing you of not telling the truth, but this matter needs to be addressed - it is not a lynching. The Society is just that - a Society whose members have rights too, reading your latest post do we take it that anyone can threaten legal action, cause an event to be cancelled with no comeback whatsoever? As Lori stated (amongst many others)this was no ordinary class that could be competed in next year - it was a one off, if the two 'objectors' are so sure of their opinions, why will they not bring them out into the open forum and discuss it with members of the Society? and why do we as members not have the right to know - smacks of them & us to me !!! As for intimidation - well think about it, just WHO has intimidated the AHS, certainly not the Futurity entrants, they are just the people who have lost out due to the 'intimidators'!!
I rest my case. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Treasure
Silver Member
England
442 Posts |
|
|
SueB
Platinum Member
United Kingdom
3218 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 3:23:48 PM
|
I agree, it is a shame, a huge shame that two people should stop those that had entered, me included, having a chance of winning not only money, (sounds good to me!) but more importantly, for some a chance to make it a hat trick as in the case of Sahir who has won two years running and possibly might have won this year too. No wonder she feels so bitter.
It is also a shame to have to resort to posting on here, an open forum, it is a huge shame that some members take this all so seriously they feel the need to make legal threats written to our society, it is a shame that we can't all just get on with life. As Nick say's owning and showing horses should be fun, well it certainly is becoming more and more like 'no fun at all'
What a blinking shame.
|
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Sahir
Gold Member
England
847 Posts |
Posted - 18 Aug 2007 : 3:57:42 PM
|
| Nick - you have no need to be scared of "legal advice" if you know you are in the right it's only when bully-boy tactics come to the fore that the word "legal advice" is questionable, and how right you are regarding "fun", seems that two parties decided they weren't going to have any - so made sure nobody else did. Thank you SueB for your comments, actually Sahir stock won in 2004 & 2006 (not consecutive years)I wouldn't want any of 2005 Futurity winners feeling snubbed, thank you anyway. |
| Report to Moderator |
|
|
Topic |
|
Topic Locked 