Quote:
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.