# 2008 AMHR Nationals Results



## ClickMini (Feb 28, 2009)

I just wanted to say that the review committee met last night, and I heard confirmation today that the results for Nationals stand AS JUDGED. I am sure that is a great relief to those who were caught in the confusion. I personally know one of the individuals involved, and I KNEW the horses in question had been qualified as required by the rules. I still don't know how it happened that there was such confusion over that.

Anyway, it is now official.


----------



## Leeana (Feb 28, 2009)

Wait - Confused ...

The results are as they were placed at nationals the first time......or they stand as the "new" results?

Sorry it was just worded funny..i think i know what you mean, just need to confirm...thank you!


----------



## ruffian (Feb 28, 2009)

So all the horses that were accused of being not qualified, and in one case the TRAINER said it was not qualified are just going to be allowed to keep their placings.

Sorry - too much smoke around to not have a fire somewhere.

What's going happen this year to prevent this fiasco from happening again? Still think politics are playing a HUGE role.

What about one of the judges being reprimanded for favoritism?


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Feb 28, 2009)

So, did Jill and Erica's Destiny get his Grand or not? I'm confused.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Feb 28, 2009)

I am assuming you got word from the Board meeting going on that the original placings will stand? So everyone who was told they moved up a place now did not?

WOW if the BOD was wrong in the first place and these horses did qualify correctly- shameful that peoples integrity was questioned.

If they were right and it is sliding well guess that is a bit shameful as well


----------



## Leeana (Feb 28, 2009)

Well i've not really kept my honest feelings on this a secret, but i don't feel it was right to give the placings...take them...then give them back, i think things should have just been left as they were until something was set in stone as now journals have been published & ext. Just wish things had been checked out before Nationals, that way *IF* there was anything in question that would have been worked out prior to nationals with plenty of time. Some good may come out of this yet.


----------



## Frankie (Feb 28, 2009)

Sometimes a lot of people scream awful loud when they "know" things, causing others to react to soon, to calm the storm.

This meeting where some were allowed to show solid proof of qualification, should have taken place, before the placings were changed, not after.

Now we could have a hurricane!


----------



## ClickMini (Feb 28, 2009)

I am not sure where it came from that a trainer admitted that a horse wasn't qualified, all of the people that I know that were caught up in it the horses had qualified. The results that were judged at the National Show are now "official" as I understand it, not the ones that happened after. I also think it was a bit hasty to change the results, but I DO think the result of this will be better screening, etc. prior to the show itself. There are a lot of horses, a lot of results to screen for qualifications, etc. I don't believe there was a lot of "underhanded dealing." I personally saw the horses that I am familiar with at the qualifying shows and I really don't know what happened to make those attendances "disappear."

Jill can speak for her own results, I don't know anything about her situation. Whether her horse was Grand or Reserve Grand, that is one heck of an accomplishment, and certainly a fabulous first year driving accomplishment for Destiny!


----------



## Belinda (Feb 28, 2009)

[SIZE=14pt]I have been ask to say at this time this is NOT THE OFFICIAL results of the hearing committee , Tomorrow they will present their recommendations to the entire board for approval . When a final decision is made those INVOLVED will be notified by the Office.[/SIZE]


----------



## Jill (Mar 1, 2009)

ClickMini said:


> I just wanted to say that the review committee met last night, and I heard confirmation today that the results for Nationals stand AS JUDGED. *I am sure that is a great relief to those who were caught in the confusion.* I personally know one of the individuals involved, and I KNEW the horses in question had been qualified as required by the rules. I still don't know how it happened that there was such confusion over that.


[SIZE=12pt]No, Amy and everyone else, it's not a great relief to me, and here is why:[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt][/SIZE]

To qualify for Nationals, a horse supposedy, if you bother to follow the rules, has to show at at least two shows and under four judges. The horse who pinned above Destiny at the Nationals went to only one show (in April), and was shown and handed there by its trainer who later showed it at Nationals with only one 2008 show under its belt. Destiny went to two shows under at least four judges and was really qualified to show and win at the Nationals.

I am someone involved and I'm not sure what is more upsetting:


Finding out via emails and message board, vs. the Registry, that unqualified horses may keep their wins; or 
The fact that we wasted money and time because of playing by / respecting the rules and having Destiny fully qualified -- only to find it probably wasn't worth the money, effort and time; or
The sense that AMHR has been very disorganized in handling something so important to many people. What is more important than keeping the placements at Nationals correct AND legitimate?
I feel VERY let down by AMHR if the unqualified horses are allowed to keep their wins. I just cannot comprehend why that is fair or would be allowed.

Before finding out about the unqualified horses placing [SIZE=8pt](and we all know it wasn't just in Destiny's class that this happened)[/SIZE], I was beyond proud about his Reserve National Grand Champion win, then hearing he was National Grand Champion, I was even prouder.

Now I'm just disgusted and disappointed, but holding out a shred of hope AMHR will put some stock in its own rule book and show deserved favor to those who honored the registry's rules. To do otherwise is honestly a slap in the face to those who do comply with the rules.


----------



## Barbie (Mar 1, 2009)

All I know is that in this day of computers and software, there ought to be a way to make sure that every horse entered at Nationals is qualified. It shouldn't take rocket science. To me there is no excuse for the 2008 mess. All involved have been through the ringer.

Hopefully there will not be any questions this year!!!

Barbie


----------



## LaVern (Mar 1, 2009)

I sure hope there is an official statement made when the meeting is over. It gets even crazier when, it makes the decision of whether or not a horse should have earned a Hall of Fame for 2008.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Mar 1, 2009)

Jill said:


> ClickMini said:
> 
> 
> > I just wanted to say that the review committee met last night, and I heard confirmation today that the results for Nationals stand AS JUDGED. *I am sure that is a great relief to those who were caught in the confusion.* I personally know one of the individuals involved, and I KNEW the horses in question had been qualified as required by the rules. I still don't know how it happened that there was such confusion over that.
> ...


Jill, you are the first person I thought of when I read this post. And honestly I thought "OMG, here we go again!" I'm not likening your situation to losing a foal or some other very traumatic experience. But like you I choose to SHOW my horses and it is EXPENSIVE, TIME-CONSUMING, and sometimes EMOTIONALLY DRAINING. You've worked for years to put together the herd you have now and that includes Destiny. He is like one of your children and to have his amazing accomplishment (whatever it ends up being) tossed around, willy-nilly, back and forth, poorly managed with leaked premature information, all the rumors and whispers...well, it's just a shame. I don't know what else to say.



I'm sure it takes some of the joy out of what should be an amazing occasion to cherish for years to come. I'm really sorry you're an unwilling participant in this fiasco! And fiasco is EXACTLY what it is!


----------



## Minimor (Mar 1, 2009)

If anyone can say with absolute certainty where and when someone else's horse showed--when that horse might be based 1000 miles away--well, that person is amazing. I can have a pretty good idea which horses the local owners showed, if I was at the same shows, but otherwise....I really cannot say for sure.

We can all look at the show results....but having once in the past had one of my horses replaced in the show results by someone else's horse....I have to say that the posted show results cannot always be trusted to be 100% accurate. I happened to check the show results for some reason & noticed the mistake, so contacted show management who then contacted AMHR and had the results corrected. I know, though, that not everyone does check show results and so may miss the fact that one of their horses was deleted in error from some show results page. In that case it may look like the horse wasn't shown, when in actual fact he was.

I do think AMHR handled this badly; results should have been posted and printed as judged, even while all the protesting and checking and fining and rechecking was done. That way once all was said and done, either the next Journal could print the corrected results for specific classes, or else nothing would have changed. There should not be all this flipping back and forth, with awards being returned and now perhaps returned again.


----------



## minimomNC (Mar 1, 2009)

But even if a horse is listed by the wrong name on the online show results, it would still have to have the correct name and registration number according to the show managers information and entry forms, so why is it so difficult to check all of this, don't the show managers keep the records from all of the shows they do each year, even if its on a disc it would be proof positive. I just find that five months to check out if horses were shown in two shows is just ridiculous. Each person entering horses has to list their qualifing shows, just pull the entries and check the shows listed, why has that been so hard to do. Why would anyone have to send in letters to say a horse they don't own was at a show?

Jill, I am sorry your still in limbo about this, hopefully this will be resolved soon.


----------



## Frankie (Mar 1, 2009)

I have been involved with many organizations for 30 years. All had committees that made recommendations to the rest of the BOD or to the membership. In all those cases the committee as a whole made one recommendation, not two or three on the same subject, that is their purpose.

So if this committee hearing is presenting their finds to the rest of the BOD, then the committee itself, must of had a final result somewhere. If not they wouldn't be presenting it to anyone.

The AMHR may not have a final result, but the committee must.

Computers only work as good as the person inputting the information, if that person makes an error with the number or the name of a horse, how is the computer to know?

It is just so sad to see so many hurt by this, I know how you put your whole heart in to it. I feel bad for all of those people.


----------



## ClickMini (Mar 1, 2009)

Jill, I certainly didn't mean to take anything away from you, or your horse. You need to understand though, that there are owners/trainers on the other side of this that have the same feelings as you. There was little "official" communication at any rate, although I was told that this latest was official and communicated directly from people in the office, otherwise I wouldn't have posted it. I am not sure where you got your information about the horse that placed first in your class at Nationals. I also wonder how the information about the qualifications issues and the place changings was communicated to you to begin with. It is truly a mess. I am sorry if my posting this caused you more pain, it was certainly not my intent. A personal friend of mine is involved as well as you probably have figured out, and she also has been jerked around quite a bit. BTW, she also learned about quite a bit of this via the LB forum postings. Isn't that interesting.

I guess we'll just wait for the "official" official results of the inquiry. They did have to produce proof of qualification, so you can be assured that if it comes to that the horses in question most definitely did qualify under the existing rules.

I do hope this all causes some big changes in the way horses are allowed to enter at Nationals. It is a huge investment, both personal and financial, to get a horse to the big show, and in a case like this there really are no winners. No one walks away unscathed.

Again, my apologies, Jill. I had just heard a little too much sniping (not by you) about how people think the trainers are crooked, etc. Well I just don't feel that way, and I didn't think certain people deserved to be dragged through the mud. And it wasn't just the trainers by the way, it was the owners, amateur and youth exhibitors associated with the animals.


----------



## Jessica_06 (Mar 1, 2009)

[SIZE=24pt]*If the horses were not properly qualified their placings SHOULD be stripped period.*[/SIZE]

I have a lot more to say of this matter but won't





Sorry Jill this happened to you and many others.

~Jessica


----------



## ruffian (Mar 1, 2009)

I agree with Marylou. I was under the opinion that this was official word from AMHR. I think we need to just wait for OFFICIAL results. Then those directly involved should be able to be given proof that those who were accused have been absolved.


----------



## My-Lil-Pony (Mar 1, 2009)

I do not know much about this situation but why did AMHR or the BOD allow this to leak out in the first place. It seems it has tarnished reputations and left hard feelings before any facts were proven.


----------



## tagalong (Mar 3, 2009)

Just wondering if there had been any* official *word about this mess yet - and if (please not that I said IF) rules were broken (even accidentally) why any results would be shifted back to the supposed "unqualified" horses keeping their placings. Or maybe I misunderstood - I am sure I am not the only one who finds this all a bit confusing...


----------



## Dkminis (Mar 4, 2009)

I don't know the whole story on this, lots of confusion. But if there was horses not qualified, then they sould not keep there place. An fined & banned form showing. Etc The people that should win have already lost the glory of the Nation show winning & Photos etc.

Also not long ago Amhr fined & banned some farms for 5 yrs. I don't see that this is any different in the two offinces



(if this was truly done) There was inicent people involved that are paying the price for what someone else done. Guess it is just who you are.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 4, 2009)

After seeing how quickly the fiasco leaked out in the first place months ago it would be a shame for* everyone* to not get official word as to what happened, what the results were of the committee and any action taken.


----------



## maestoso (Mar 4, 2009)

Just out of curiosity, How does everyone know that a particular horse, or several particular horses did not qualify. Did you get this information from the AMHR office directly? Did you read it off of the results listings(which are sometimes not accurate)? Did the offender tell you personally? Did you go to every single rated show and keep track yourself?

I think that rules should be followed, and if a horse isn't qualified than it isn't qualified and it shouldn't be there. But what I don't know is how everyone knows who is or isn't qualified other than their own horses and the horses they see shown in their own region . . . .

My next concern is why AMHR doesn't verify qualifications BEFORE the show. That's not just a slip up . . . . That's a big deal. I don't care if their are 1600 horses showing, then AMHR should take the time to verify that 1600 horses are qualified . . . .

I don't know who was involved and I know their are cheaters out there but I try to give people the benefit of the doubt and perhaps after showing dozens of horses all year they made a mistake and didn't realize a horse wasn't qualified. Do I think they should keep their award just because it may have been a mistake? No. But it's a mistake that wouldn't have happened if all horses' qualifications were verified prior to the start of the show . . . .


----------



## susanne (Mar 4, 2009)

~~~~sigh~~~~

First The Bachelor, now AMHR....


----------



## wpsellwood (Mar 4, 2009)

> First The Bachelor, now AMHR....


LMAO


----------



## Fred (Mar 4, 2009)

Matt if you read your AMHR rule book in the back it states the owner/agent is responsible for the horse being qualified. Not only that the names of the horses are on the master list of the shows they have been in. I DO know that any time I have shown at an AMHR show I have the receipt for the classes I have been in and no matter what it is pretty dumb if you don't keep the receipts with your papers as proof you have shown. If the horse is with a trainer the bill states the show the horse has been in or you pay for the entries yourself and have that receipt. The office does make mistakes but with the ease of qualifying the owner/agent needs to take some personal responsiblity and keep their papers together. In the past I do know that the horses qualifications were checked why they weren't this year I don't know but it does come down to personal responsiblity. Linda


----------



## Amy (Mar 4, 2009)

Any time we have shown at the Nationals -- there is a spot on the form where you have to fill in what qualifying shows you are using to have qualified your horse. We didn't go last year -- so I am wondering if they have removed this line?? It made it very easy to show that your horse had been qualified.


----------



## Minimor (Mar 4, 2009)

Amy, that line was missing on the 2008 entry forms--a clerical error from what I've been told, and I suspect that it will not be missing from the 2009 forms!


----------



## gvpalominominis (Mar 4, 2009)

susanne said:


> ~~~~sigh~~~~
> First The Bachelor, now AMHR....



OMG tooo funny..... (no ill meaning to the actual situation... but that's funny right there)

I agree with suzanne and I said it before... all the shows and their entrants information is within a computer system somewhere.... it seems the extra time that this fiasco has taken... the extra small amount of time it would have taken to verify qualifying shows for even EVERY single horse entered would have been less time, money and effort!!!


----------



## Jessica_06 (Mar 4, 2009)

susanne said:


> ~~~~sigh~~~~
> First The Bachelor, now AMHR....



That is the funniest thing I've heard all Day!!!!!!



:rofl



:rofl



:rofl


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 5, 2009)

I have just read this and I think IMO if now AMHR changes its mind and goes back to the original placings they should have decided this BEFORE taking away awards. This is not good business. AMHR show department needs to get their act together thats all I can say.

Now I don't know who to belive anymore.


----------



## littlearab (Mar 5, 2009)

Dkminis said:


> I don't know the whole story on this, lots of confusion. But if there was horses not qualified, then they sould not keep there place. An fined & banned form showing. Etc The people that should win have already lost the glory of the Nation show winning & Photos etc.
> Also not long ago Amhr fined & banned some farms for 5 yrs. I don't see that this is any different in the two offinces
> 
> 
> ...






As I read this, all I can say is you have hit it right on the head!!





I'm very disapointed to see that AMHR.. after all I and the other party have endured, nothing has changed. .I for one hoped and prayed that AMHR would change thier BIG BOY CLUB mind set but I see now it was all in vane...

And the sad part is AMHR members do nothing ,just sit back and say it's up to the BOD...

Who is AMHR??? A couple of big boys or the 1000s of small owners and breeders who foot the bills.

It truly is who you are and who you know..



A very bad refection on who and what AMHR is.


----------



## Jill (Mar 6, 2009)

Here I am, the owner of a fully qualified horse who's win has been impacted by this turmoil through no fault of ours (it is the situation with another horse in the class that has caused the issue). It's been 6 months since the Nationals, and I still don't know if my guy is a National Grand Champion or a Reserve National Grand Champion. You know, I'd love to order some of the Center Ring Win and Victory Lap photos... What owner doesn't dream of having those sorts of pictures from the Nationals? But, I have been waiting to hear whether or not I need the pictures edited to "upgrade" the sign, ribbons and prizes from Reserve National Grand Champion to National Grand Champion _(which Washburn can and will do if need be)_. This back and forth and drawn out time period really takes away something from the feeling of pride and accomplishment. I mean, with this level of a win is still up in the air after 6 months and that unqualified horses were allowed to even enter the Nationals ring -- it is just very upsetting. It also makes it hard not to wonder if there are too many foxes in the hen house


----------



## Belinda (Mar 6, 2009)

Jill said:


> http://www.whinny4me.com/Smileys/indifferent0014.gif[/img]


[SIZE=12pt]Jill , [/SIZE]

I would suggest calling Erica or your trainer to find out where your horse stands. But as it was already put on here , the placing will stand as they were at Nationals . and I know that everyone on here is having a hard time understanding , but this was NOT TAKEN LIGHTLY !! but there were Procedural errors on both parties being the ( exhibitors and the office..)

And the only way that we can think of to help see that this does not happen again. Is to do a couple of things, 1. Require points to qualify or 2. Require a horse to at least place !!!!! 3. Just drop any qualification period. !!! So maybe we should start a pole to see which way you all want it..

It is so easy for a person to sit here and say what a Good Ole Boys club it is , and trash the office for what they did or did not do , but I truly believe that they did the only thing that they could .


----------



## Jill (Mar 6, 2009)

Belinda said:


> Jill said:
> 
> 
> > http://www.whinny4me.com/Smileys/indifferent0014.gif[/img]
> ...


Belinda --

When last I spoke to Erica, a few days ago, she had not heard. I guess being an owner who is listed on Destiny's papers didn't qualify me myself, as one involved, to be officially notified (as was posted would happen)? AMHR wouldn't want to go that extra mile and show that ounce of consideration for an owner after all this mess? Even though I have called the AMHR office previously about the situation. No, I'm sorry, but I don't feel the office or the BOD has done their best job in this matter. And, really, I've purposely not mentioned Erica in this discussion. My feelings about this matter should not be considered a reflection on her own feelings





Whatever people want as far as requiring actual wins to qualify for Nationals would be fine by me personally. However, you are not going to convince me that it's not possible for the registry to keep track of the horses who have entered and attended shows, even if they did not place. This eluded to excuse sounds to me like an attempt to explain away or make us wonder if horses "maybe" really attended enough shows (with those big name trainers?) and they just didn't happen to place. I guess you can call me disbelieving as well as disappointed with the situation





Maybe disqualifying the unqualified horses and moving up the other horses' placements would set a precedent AMHR is afraid of... because after learning about the current issue, I know I've been wondering if unqualified horses also showed and placed / won in 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 20001 (you get the idea). I bet it would be expensive and embarrassing for AMHR to defend if AMHR fixed things this time for 2008 and anyone really decided to press about whether or not unqualified horses also showed in the prior years' Nationals





The only good thing is that through LB, "a lot" of people know how messed up things are / have been, and maybe that will inspire change and improvement





Jill


----------



## midnight star stables (Mar 6, 2009)

I was not directly affected by this; I'll openly state that.

However this does effect the whole club! My heart goes out to everyone directly involved; but I do believe that Belinda and the AMHR office it trying their best and I applaud them for that.

I do not know all of the details, so I won't pretend to. But I do know that there is a lot of legal issues and many to blame, however AMHR is trying to make a mend as fair as they can.

Question: What happen a few years ago when people were kicked out of AMHR for 5 years?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 6, 2009)

Belinda first thank you for offically stating that placings will stand as judged at the National show. We had heard that here and then were quickly told that was not the findings of the BOD and heard nothing else since so I appreciate you letting us know.

Now not to be snide but being able to keep track of who showed where and when really should not be a impossible nor a difficult task I mean isn't that why we have such an expensive computer system? :arg!

Lastly Jill I am sorry you were not notified I would think as the owner listed on the papers you would surely have been told right after the Board meeting what the results for your horse were.


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Mar 6, 2009)

Jill,

I can _feel_ your frustration in your words.



I can't tell you how sorry I am for what you and others have gone through. It _has_ to be an emotional roller coaster ride. I also think it has been very classy of you to only refer to yourself and not mention any other owner or the trainer.



If I were you I would also be less than impressed with the way things have been handled. If Belinda is in fact correct that the placings stand and you weren't notified...well that is just the lowest of the lows and one more reason why I'm glad I don't "do" AMHR Nationals anymore. How freakin' difficult could it be to pick up the phone and make some calls?





Belinda, I know you're a big fan of AMHR and that you're really involved. I can appreciate that you have a different perspective than most since you're on the board (or whatever the correct term is). I can also see how even if horses weren't qualified, since the office doesn't keep detailed show records that someone could challenge their qualification, and threaten legal action, etc. to take the focus off whether they actually did qualify or not. I get all of that. I don't like it, but I get it. But to use all that as the reason/excuse an OWNER isn't officially notified just doesn't cut it IMO. Sorry, just isn't good business.


----------



## Littleum (Mar 6, 2009)

So, Belinda, is anyone ever going to come clean on what actually happened?

I think that's what is causing a lot of hard feelings and parlor talk. No one has come clean and said "here's where the breakdown was"

Personally, just reading between the lines, I think it's nothing more then a lot of honest mistakes rolled into one big giant snowball. Embarassing yes, worthy of cloak & dagger? Ah... no. And to not keep owners of affected horses informed? Tsk tsk, it just heaps bad feelings on bad feelings, and makes people wonder why information is so hard to come by. Even people directly affected can't even get an explanation!

I'm sitting here and like I said, I'm willing to wager this is nothing more then a lot of honest mistakes. Which is a shame, because now it's just a mountain instead of a molehill!

You appeal to the membership that things need to get fixed, but that's really pointless. WHAT issues are we specifically to address? WHAT are we trying to fix and WHY? WHERE did the process breakdown previously?

It's like my boss tells me to redesign a database because current one just isn't working very well- but he then declines to tell me why the current structure isn't working for them or what they need it to do. Kind of two important things when you're trying to solve problems. When you are trying to fix things, sometimes the powers that be just have to allow you access to sensitive data.

If we can't be honest about what the problem was, how the heck are we supposed to fix it? Who's to say what caused it to happen in 2008 hasn't caused it before (and it just hasn't gotten caught) or it won't happen again?


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 6, 2009)

I am curious if the issue is in the individual records of each show? And if so how would there be changes in HOF - All star points and other pointed year end awards?


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Mar 6, 2009)

I wonder if this may help in knowing which horses qualified.

NAMHSA (North American Model Horse Association) issues a card to each first place and second place winners in each of their classes. (Handed out with the ribbon) This was a ticket that would qualify you to enter their nationals. When entries were sent in, you had to attach your ticket to the entry form. On the card had the show you showed in, (easy way to check if you had shown, you had to win a ticket).

Ticket had show name/date and it had room for class/name of winning horse on ticket. So no confusion.

Tina Ferro

Crabtree Farm


----------



## dmk (Mar 6, 2009)

Crabtree Farm said:


> I wonder if this may help in knowing which horses qualified.
> NAMHSA (North American Model Horse Association) issues a card to each first place and second place winners in each of their classes. (Handed out with the ribbon) This was a ticket that would qualify you to enter their nationals. When entries were sent in, you had to attach your ticket to the entry form. On the card had the show you showed in, (easy way to check if you had shown, you had to win a ticket).
> 
> Ticket had show name/date and it had room for class/name of winning horse on ticket. So no confusion.
> ...


I would think it would very easy - form on home office website that you have to have stamped or signed by show manager - sent in with National entry....

And every show has a master list of horses entered so the information is there as to which horses showed - whether they placed or not. You would be relying on the show manager to provide that information correctly.


----------



## Vertical Limit (Mar 6, 2009)

Again, this is NOT Rocket Science.

With our US Arabian Nationals/Canadian Nationals/Regional Shows you have to list your qualifications on your entry form. The Show Management checks your qualifications *BEFORE* you are even issued your entry package (number, etc). I don't understand how a simple thing like this could turn into this giant cluster.

I also don't understand how something like this would take so long to be resolved. What's the problem?




I think that is all these people would like to know. The longer it takes the more people think that all is not quite on the up and up. And I personally don't blame them.


----------



## Belinda (Mar 6, 2009)

[SIZE=10pt]Ok, I have my flame suit on as I knew I would need it for responding !! I am doing nothing more than trying to explain what went on , which is something I find most of the other Directors don't do as a general rule. !! Actually there are a few that want ALL DIRECTORS kept off any of these forums !! So not sure how that will go.. It is really hard to shut me up !!



[/SIZE]

First there were NO OFFICIAL LETTERS FROM THE OFFICE saying that placements had changed.. So therefore not sure why they would send letter out to say they HAD NOT CHANGED .?? This was all pending an investigation ( so to speak) No placings were changed ever , and /or published as changed. This was all hear say and things that were put on these chat forums, Flame me for that but it is the facts !!!!



> With our US Arabian Nationals/Canadian Nationals/Regional Shows you have to list your qualifications on your entry form.


Exactly , is the reason there was error , that is supposed to be on all our Entry forms for Nationals !! and it was over looked when making the form and left off



, But last I knew to error was human. Actually the way our qualification are , Your horse does not have to place , and the only way to check these horses is after they show due to that fact , because if you don't place at the local shows there is no record except for a master list that you were there.. And those master list are not part of the show results that are published .. That being the reason I said we MIGHT have to change our qualifying rules. It has been I guess so to speak the HONOR SYSTEM.. As horse have NEVER been checked until after the fact so to speak..

We also could be able to check on these horses a lot more , if all shows would use the Show Program that we have , but many refuse so that make it a little harder to have all this via computer , There are actually some that still send in results "HAND WRITTEN"..

Now there is no cover up or trying to hide anything !! We are bound by our rules to NOT DISCUSS WHAT GOES ON IN CLOSED SESSION , and most of this was held in closed session .. Actually this time we had ( directors) sign a Confidentially affidavit ,








So if some seem a little reserved in talking about things that is why.. And I must state that everything I have said came out in open session... also I was not on the hearing committee , so I do NOT know all that came down in there..

Yes , I am very passionate about AMHR/ASPC as I do believe it is a good club, and I do believe that there are many that try and make this everyones club , NOT just a club for a chosen few , Sometimes it is hard on these chat boards to really know both sides and the FULL STORY of what goes on with some of these issues..

I am off my soap box .. and I have a big flame suit on so fire away .. But remember We are ALL HUMAN and sometimes there are errors or mistakes if you wish to call it that ..


----------



## Irish Hills Farm (Mar 6, 2009)

> We also could be able to check on these horses a lot more , if all shows would use the Show Program that we have , but many refuse so that make it a little harder to have all this via computer , There are actually some that still send in results "HAND WRITTEN"..



This, to me would be easy to fix. If you, the show manager, want your show to be an approved sanctioned show, than you MUST use the approved computer software and all results must be submitted in such form. Period, end of story.

And sorry, but to use the excuse that the section of the AMHR National Entry Form were one is suppose to write in their qualifying shows was left off the 2008 entry form is lame to me. It is clearly spelled out in the rule book how a horse is to be qualified to show at Nationals. I don't know if it is in the rule book or not, as to how the National Entry Form is to be designed, will have to look into that. And if there is a rule in regards to that, well....


----------



## StarRidgeAcres (Mar 6, 2009)

Belinda said:


> [SIZE=10pt]First there were NO OFFICIAL LETTERS FROM THE OFFICE saying that placements had changed.. So therefore not sure why they would send letter out to say they HAD NOT CHANGED .?? This was all pending an investigation ( so to speak) No placings were changed ever , and /or published as changed. This was all hear say and things that were put on these chat forums, Flame me for that but it is the facts !!!![/SIZE]



Good point. I thought that folks had been notified of placings changing from what was deemed at the actual show.

Also, Belinda, you should be applauded for coming on here and trying to do what you can (within what you're allowed to do) to help folks understand. That is much appreciated. I just wish you weren't trying to "defend" the office all by yourself. I wish there were more like you and just better comminication in general from the office. It really would go a long way to making people feel better about some of the decisions that are made. JMO. It's tough on both sides and a little more effort on the part of the office would have gone a long way in my opinion.

OK, I need to be done with this topic.


----------



## dmk (Mar 6, 2009)

There is a master list of entered horses compiled by the show manager at every show. That list is part of the results included in the packet the show manager sends in to the show department at the home office - which must be sent in within 30 days of the show. That list includes every horse that ENTERS the show whether it places or not.

Not published, but available to the home office so they can verify.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 6, 2009)

Belinda thanks again for being willing to put yourself out there



I think a lot of the confusion came when the Journal was late and the reasons given to many were that placings had to be changed (not exact wording but the jist of it)

I thought it was all worked out at Convention but then reading the thread

Glad it is all figured out and over with and everyone can move on


----------



## midnight star stables (Mar 6, 2009)

StarRidgeAcres said:


> Also, Belinda, you should be applauded for coming on here and trying to do what you can (within what you're allowed to do) to help folks understand. That is much appreciated. I just wish you weren't trying to "defend" the office all by yourself. I wish there were more like you and just better comminication in general from the office. It really would go a long way to making people feel better about some of the decisions that are made. JMO. It's tough on both sides and a little more effort on the part of the office would have gone a long way in my opinion.


I agree





And Thanks Belinda! Your help is much appreciated!


----------



## Littleum (Mar 6, 2009)

Belinda said:


> Exactly , is the reason there was error , that is supposed to be on all our Entry forms for Nationals !! and* it was over looked when making the form and left off *
> 
> 
> 
> , But last I knew to error was human. Actually the way our qualification are , Your horse does not have to place , and the only way to check these horses is after they show due to that fact , * because if you don't place at the local shows there is no record except for a master list that you were there.*. And those master list are not part of the show results that are published .. That being the reason I said we MIGHT have to change our qualifying rules. * It has been I guess so to speak the HONOR SYSTEM. * As horse have NEVER been checked until after the fact so to speak.. We also could be able to check on these horses a lot more , if all shows would use the Show Program that we have , but many refuse so that make it a little harder to have all this via computer , * There are actually some that still send in results "HAND WRITTEN".. *


Thanks for coming forward, Belinda. This is what I figured happened. Honest mistakes on both sides. I appreciate the "closed session" issue, but think it's more harmful then useful.

So if I'm understanding correctly, horse qualifications are not actually verified at the time National entries are submitted? How did AMHR manage to get to 2008 before that hit the fan? I'm kind of impressed and aghast at the same time.

Is it recorded with a horse's record (in the computer, at the office) what shows they attended?

Or are only placings recorded, and the actual paper master only gets consulted if there's a question?


----------



## ClickMini (Mar 6, 2009)

Thank you Belinda for posting. Your points are all well-made. There was an inquiry, the results are in, and the winning horses were proven to be qualified.

I am sorry I brought this up in the first part, but a personal friend of mine was involved as well, and it was hurtful to her that the supposed changes in placings had been posted here as "fact" earlier on; not by AMHR, but by some people supposedly in the know. I don't know how the information about the inquiry was leaked out initially, but hopefully that is something that is rectified in the future as well. Nothing good came from it, that is for sure.


----------



## maestoso (Mar 6, 2009)

Precisely why people need to be sure of their facts before they start on their rampage. All this frustration for a rumor!!!


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 6, 2009)

Littleum said:


> So if I'm understanding correctly, horse qualifications are not actually verified at the time National entries are submitted? How did AMHR manage to get to 2008 before that hit the fan? I'm kind of impressed and aghast at the same time.



I believe the difference was that the paperwork was handled and done by someone(s) different then has been in previous years. I would imagine that doing all of this for the first time mistakes are bound to happen. I know how hard it is to get paperwork settled and right for a small local show can only imagine the headaches in a huge show with 1700+ horses

Hopefully lessons were learned by everyone and next time what happens behind closed doors stays there until a decision is reached.


----------



## Littleum (Mar 6, 2009)

~Lisa~ said:


> Littleum said:
> 
> 
> > So if I'm understanding correctly, horse qualifications are not actually verified at the time National entries are submitted? How did AMHR manage to get to 2008 before that hit the fan? I'm kind of impressed and aghast at the same time.
> ...


I guess my question is more does AMHR have a decent tool to allow office staff to verify entries?

Just example, but let's say each approved show gets given an ID#. When the Master arrives from that show, all the horses that were in attendance are added under that ID#.

So if you were to run a query (search) for a specific horse, you can see where that horse showed.

Or, you could also search by Show ID and see that horse listed under it.

Or is it a little more primitive?

I'm asking strictly from a professional standpoint. Data management is a major part of my job, so I'm just curious how AMHR handles their data.


----------



## Lisa Strass (Mar 6, 2009)

ClickMini said:


> Thank you Belinda for posting. Your points are all well-made. There was an inquiry, the results are in, and the winning horses were proven to be qualified.



Amy, are you sure this was the case for all horses in question? I appreciate the fact that in your friend's case this may be true, but there was more than one person questioned.

I think the whole situation is sad. Personally, I believe we are all adults, and we know to ourselves whether or not we have cheated. From small scale shows, to National level shows, to our large corporations, to our U.S. government, I just see this general trend to not take responsiblity for our own actions and instead blame the organizations or government for the problem.

I very much understand Jill's and other's frustrations with this whole situation. And I very much appreciate Belinda coming forward to tell what she can. I am also very passionate about ASPC and AMHR, but I do think our organization has room for improved communication to the membership. As someone else pointed out earlier, hopefully exactly what went wrong (can be multiple factors) has been identified, and we can learn from this to ensure it doesn't happen again. Just adding shows qualified at back on the entry form isn't going to solve the problem IMO.


----------



## Amy (Mar 6, 2009)

Personally I don't think we need to change any qualificatiosn. The rule book states very plainly -- each horse must show at a minimum of 2 shows under a minimum of 4 judges.

Whether or not the line on the form was missed-- each person knows at which shows they attended with their horses -- and can quickly state them or have them verified by the office if need be. THe honor system should work very well still.

Gossip seems to have been the problem & if people did not spread rumors there would in fact be no problem.

SO , I for one do not see a need to change the way AMHR has always qualified horses for the National show.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 6, 2009)

So to me this looks like it goes all the way back to the office





Yes everybody is human, we all make mistakes. BUT, it is their job, it is their responsibility. Do you think if someone makes these types of mistakes at any other office still keep their jobs? I don't think so. If they saw no box to list the shows you have been too then correct it and reprint it. Once you get the entries check each horse BEFORE the show and make sure that horse is indeed qualified. If their is a problem let that person know by calling them and try to get it straightened out. Honestly its not that hard to qualify. 2 shows, thats it. It shouldn't be that hard to keep track, we have computers, we have technology. Why decide to take all the placings away when their wasn't a problem to begin with. Its just all really sad IMO. The office really needs to get their act together for this years show season.

It sounds like we as AMHR members won't know all that took placed which I think is sad but oh well.


----------



## Jill (Mar 6, 2009)

ClickMini said:


> Thank you Belinda for posting. Your points are all well-made. There was an inquiry, the results are in, and the winning horses were proven to be qualified.


I haven't seen any results that are supposedly in nor seen any proof. We're not even officially told that these horses were now found to have been qualified -- yet we were told in November that they had not qualified. Now we're just told, through a message board, that the initial results will stand and that details will not be discussed -- that is not the same as saying "yes, every horse in question qualified, and this is where and when they did." Proof would go a long ways towards soothing the hard feelings and concerns. Right now, I'm figuring I won't see "proof" or the full story without an attorney's help. There are a couple issues she could probably help me with really...

If every thing's on the up and up, you don't need closed door sessions and secrecy. If all those reportedly unqualified horses really were qualified, why isn't that the official story from AMHR? Why don't we get to hear the details about where and when those horses qualified and why the registries show records did not reflect qualification at any point?

Honestly, I cannot imagine running my practice and handling my client records and relations in this kind of manner but maybe that's because I know I'm not one of only two games in town. So much for "customer service". A couple times today I thought how I cannot fathom expecting important, negative and personally pertinent information to reach one of my clients through the grapevine! I cannot imagine having this kind of a question surrounding my client records and management, either.


----------



## Sandee (Mar 6, 2009)

Amy said:


> .................................
> 
> SO , I for one do not see a need to change the way AMHR has always qualified hores for the National show.


I don't think we need any changes for these (see above) at Nationals either.





Oh, Amy, sorry not to pick on you as I have made this typo myself but when reading it here it just struck my funny bone.


----------



## garyo (Mar 6, 2009)

Matt Drown said:


> Precisely why people need to be sure of their facts before they start on their rampage. All this frustration for a rumor!!!


Matt, this seems to be more then a rumor. If in fact, it was a rumor it was perpetuated by AMHR itself when used as a reason for the Journal being late.

It is totally ridiculous when some owners of horses possibly affected were not notified officially by the registry. Jill and others involved, I feel for you.

Perhaps if both registries were more open and forthcoming about such issues the "rumor mill" would be closed down.

I am interested to see if there will be an official response by AMHR concerning this matter. If I understand correctly the Journal is the official mouthpiece of the registry, so I will be anxiously awaiting future issues of the Journal to see if this matter is addressed.

I do appreciate Belinda responding on this forum to attempt to clear up this matter.

Being one looking from the outside in, it seems as if this may have been a legitimate issue that has simply been swept under the rug.

I find it hard to believe that in this day and age of electronic communications that it is difficult to figure out what horses have been properly qualified. As said before, "it's not rocket science".

Maybe some good will come out of this with both AMHR and owners being more careful in the future.

Gary


----------



## ClickMini (Mar 6, 2009)

> yet we were told in November that they had not qualified


Jill, this is really the question. HOW DID YOU HEAR THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY???



> Amy, are you sure this was the case for all horses in question? I appreciate the fact that in your friend's case this may be true, but there was more than one person questioned.


Lisa, I am NOT familiar with all of the situations, but I am familiar with three of the horses that were in question, all in training with my friend.

I can tell you that this particular trainer sits down at the beginning of the season, maps out the qualifying path for all the horses in her barn, notifies the owners that the horses need to go to all of the shows, and that is what is done! She doesn't haul horses to Nationals that aren't qualified! For heck's sake. For people living in the Central region, going to Nationals may be a bit of a haul, but really is just like going to any other big show. But when we go there from Washington state it is three full days of travel. And THOUSANDS of dollars to get a horse there to be shown. I ask you, what owner would pay to send their horses to Nationals with this trainer if they hadn't sent them to the qualifying shows? Also, let's think about this. How do trainers get their money? By taking horses to shows! Why in the world would a trainer keep a horse on their string if the owner didn't want to send them to the shows? It just doesn't make any sense, bottom line.


----------



## Jill (Mar 6, 2009)

ClickMini said:


> > yet we were told in November that they had not qualified
> 
> 
> Jill, this is really the question. HOW DID YOU HEAR THEY DIDN'T QUALIFY???


Right now, I'm not naming the source and that is because I'm seriously considering some options.

However, the question really shouldn't be who gave me my facts, but rather why doesn't AMHR to furnish proof of qualification for all horses concerned???

I've never taken a horse to a show and been unable to produce several pieces of evidence to the fact, and that goes for 4H, local open, and registry events. Of course the official show managers do so in their show reports and records as well. If there is proof -- well, why doesn't AMHR say that the horses were qualified and show us the proof, vs. stating that the original placements will stand without reason or explanation (let alone proof that the rules have been followed)?

From my point of view, that is really the reasonable question, Amy.



garyo said:


> Matt Drown said:
> 
> 
> > Precisely why people need to be sure of their facts before they start on their rampage. All this frustration for a rumor!!!
> ...


Thank you for that excellent point and observation, Gary.


----------



## Amy (Mar 6, 2009)

QUOTE

Amy, are you sure this was the case for all horses in question? I appreciate the fact that in your friend's case this may be true, but there was more than one person questioned.

Lisa -- this is NOT my post-- I have no friend involved (that I know of) so did not do this quote. Thanks Amy


----------



## midnight star stables (Mar 6, 2009)

Amy said:


> QUOTE Amy, are you sure this was the case for all horses in question? I appreciate the fact that in your friend's case this may be true, but there was more than one person questioned.
> 
> Lisa -- this is NOT my post-- I have no friend involved (that I know of) so did not do this quote. Thanks Amy







LOL, Wrong Amy, Amy! LOL, I believe Lisa was directing her post to Amy/Click Mini.



Hope that make more sence.


----------



## Amy (Mar 6, 2009)

midnight star stables said:


> Amy said:
> 
> 
> > QUOTE Amy, are you sure this was the case for all horses in question? I appreciate the fact that in your friend's case this may be true, but there was more than one person questioned.
> ...


No -- actually it doesn't make more sense to me since I have had a couple of strange messages regarding things I never said on here-- I "believe' we are to use our forum names on here -- since we could not pick one already in use -- so I have gotten a few comments on things "Amy" has written -- and I knew darn well they were NOT written by me.

I sure did not want any one thinking I knew anything about this mess for sure.

However, Jill also wrote to tell me that it was directed to another amy -- who, I believe should be referred to as clickmini -- that way there would be no confusion.

Amy has been my forum name since I first signed on here.


----------



## tagalong (Mar 6, 2009)

> Matt, this seems to be more then a rumor. If in fact, it was a rumor it was perpetuated by AMHR itself when used as a reason for the Journal being late.


Exactly - that is how it came across to most of us. Not a rumour. And not gossip. More of a Are You Kidding Me Wow They Better Sort This Out kind of thing.

*Amy/Clickmini* - I expect that if your friend (not that we don't know who you are talking about  ) was in Jill's position though all this that they would be equally upset/mystified and looking for answers.

JMO - but I have always felt that in order to qualify for a National Show, you should have placed at a set number of shows previously. Otherwise - it is a walk in the park. No need for placings - no need for anything other than basic attendance.

I attended _all _my Algebra classes - but that certainly did not qualify this Completely Clueless One to move up to the next level...


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 6, 2009)

For both Amys

Not to make light of this but I just read the comments and was like WHOA I didnt say any of that then had to go back and re read and realize they were talking about comments made by a different Lisa..

This is exactly why I gave my kids uncommon names


----------



## Amy (Mar 6, 2009)

Although it does not STATE that you must win a class or classes to go to the Nationals-- I really wonder how many people put out money to go to the National show with a horse that never won in a class or classes??

I think common sense enters somewhere in the equation as well.


----------



## midnight star stables (Mar 6, 2009)

~Lisa~ said:


> For both AmysNot to make light of this but I just read the comments and was like WHOA I didnt say any of that then had to go back and re read and realize they were talking about comments made by a different Lisa..
> 
> This is exactly why I gave my kids uncommon names


LOL! Who knew names were so difficult?





Sorry to bug, Amy.


----------



## ClickMini (Mar 6, 2009)

I definitely do understand why Jill is upset. If I were in her shoes I would be very upset as well! The thing that I am saying, and this is definitely going to be my last post on the matter, is that it should never have been brought to light in the general population there was an inquiry, until the results of the inquiry were final and even then only if the results were negative and the results had been changed.

And Amy, I am sorry if you have received "odd" messages regarding stuff I have posted on the board! I have been a member for an awfully long time now and probably a good number of people know who I am in real life.


----------



## Jean_B (Mar 6, 2009)

dmk said:


> There is a master list of entered horses compiled by the show manager at every show. That list is part of the results included in the packet the show manager sends in to the show department at the home office - which must be sent in within 30 days of the show. That list includes every horse that ENTERS the show whether it places or not.
> Not published, but available to the home office so they can verify.


Was NOT going to post on this topic at all....but thought I should point out....that as far as verifying whether or not a horse SHOWS at a show...the Master List is virtually WORTHLESS. All it does is verify whether or not a horse was on the showgrounds and whether or not it was measured and/or its previous show measurement recorded. Heck - in fact....that horse does NOT even have to be ON the show grounds if it was measured in the recent past!! All you need to do is show the steward your height card and the horse's papers - and it gets logged in as being there!!!!!!

It does NOT verify if in fact that horse entered the arena and was judged. I myself have brought a horse, had it measured, and then due to whatever, decided not to take that horse into the arena for any of its classes.

Was that horse on the Master List? Yes. Does it meet the requirement of having been judged? NO!


----------



## Belinda (Mar 6, 2009)

Thank you Jean, I was working on that for my next post..!!! And everything you said is right on Target,


----------



## Littleum (Mar 6, 2009)

Jean_B said:


> dmk said:
> 
> 
> > There is a master list of entered horses compiled by the show manager at every show. That list is part of the results included in the packet the show manager sends in to the show department at the home office - which must be sent in within 30 days of the show. That list includes every horse that ENTERS the show whether it places or not.
> ...


This is terrible.

No, really. This is TERRIBLE. My jaw just hit the floor. Then I burst out laughing.

Is this true? AMHR has no actual controls in place to verify that a horse was actually SHOWN under 4 judges? Really? Tell me I've missed something.


----------



## LaVern (Mar 6, 2009)

For what we pay our computer guy and our promotion person they could take a note book to all the shows and write all the horses names down. WalMart sells paper note books and pencils really cheap.


----------



## JMS Miniatures (Mar 6, 2009)

Then perhaps it should be changed that a horse MUST place to count going to Nationals. Same way to qualify but you must place. Doesn't matter in which class.

Cause if the master list doesn't mean squat then how do the show staff know if the horse was shown or not?

All I can say and it looks like their needs to be some change. Not some drastic change but some way to make it easier to understand.

Amy (clickmini) perhaps you should invite your friend and let her tell her side of the story.


----------



## Russ (Mar 6, 2009)

I would tend to agree BUT here's something to consider.......will this effect the number of people/horses that actually end up going to Tulsa? Meaning, those who don't place at their qualifying local shows can't take a horse to nationals in the suggested senario?

I would hate to see the registry lose that potential income(if they want to go to nationals)....especially in these hard times. If someone has the money to get their horse to nationals.....even though it may not be a placer at the local level but is qualified under the 4 judge rule....who am I to deney their dream.

Also if you narrow it down to those only placing at a local show to qualify for nationals.....will we still have a 1,600+ horse count at nationals?

Trying to keep things business minded here...to keep a profitable show.....but yet a balance to keep things just and fair. A tough task, but as a strong registry we can do it!

I am not criticizing anyone for coming up with ideas to fix this from ever happening again....we need to band together and come up with a solution to fix this loop hole. If the only solution to fix this is by placing at a local show and qualifying under the set number of required judges...then I am behind the registry supporting it.

My heart goes out to those affected.....I feel very, very bad for you. Especially Jill.

I'd like to add a thank you to JeanB and her above post.......that was very helpful for all of us to see.



JMS Miniatures said:


> Then perhaps it should be changed that a horse MUST place to count going to Nationals. Same way to qualify but you must place. Doesn't matter in which class.


----------



## Littleum (Mar 6, 2009)

Russ said:


> I would hate to see the registry lose that potential income(if they want to go to nationals)....especially in these hard times. Also if you narrow it down to those only placing at a local show to qualify for nationals.....will we still have a 1,600+ horse count at nationals?
> 
> Trying to keep things business minded here...to keep a profitable show.....but yet a balance to keep things just and fair. A tough task, but as a strong registry we can do it!


That gets into an entirely different area of "should AMHR's qualification procedure be changed"....

Requiring a horse to ribbon might not actually solve the issue. If AMHR only maintains show records in relation to HoF points, and lesser placings get purged (ie, 5th out of 6) then the issue still exists. "Well, my horse showed and stood 5th out of 5" who's to say otherwise? No paper trail. Same problem, different day.

Until AMHR answers the question of "How will we handle our qualification data?" there's no point in changing the qualification process. A data integrity issue still exists.

One potential solution is actually somewhat in place and can use existing resources. At many shows there is a "gate manager" with an entrant list for each class. As the entries go in, they're checked off. Presto: entrant was confirmed by show staff to have entered the ring at least once. Now handling the data from here is a little bit murky but at least now there is an official record of the horse actually having entered the ring.


----------



## littlearab (Mar 7, 2009)

Belinda said:


> I am off my soap box .. and I have a big flame suit on so fire away .. But remember We are ALL HUMAN and sometimes there are errors or mistakes if you wish to call it that .. [/size]


This is not meant as a flame, just a reply.

Too bad for the other guy who found the mistake HIMSELF,( showed a horse under the wrong papers by mistake and asked AMHR how to make it right) they did not see it a a simple mistake. But then again he was not a good ol boy was he??

I also so do not know why it has to done behind closed doors. And the people involed aren't even be told what was said or done on thier own case,even when they are right out side the door.





Not a flame mind you just a few ????s


----------



## Minimor (Mar 7, 2009)

IF AMHR posts its show results promptly, the lesser placings are there for all to see...and if we can access the site & see who placed where in each class (can't remember if the non-placing horses are also listed on the AMHR site?) then certainly AMHR has access to those placings and can see which horses did actually show. Horsestudbook also lists all horses in the class--though I cannot say for sure if the listed horses are those entered, or those that actually went into the class and were judged.

I'm afraid that I do not see why AMHR can't make it a rule--as someone mentioned earlier--that if you want to have a sanctioned show then you MUST use the horsestudbook program. Then every show is using the same system, and it should be easy for office staff to verify entries prior to Nationals. Surely every show committee has at least one person that has access to a laptop and has the knowledge to figure out the program?


----------



## Jill (Mar 7, 2009)

Hello, Everyone --

I appreciate, very much, the people who are able to empathize with how I am feeling. The messages here and the many emails, calls and private messages have meant a lot to me.

Please realize though I am not disappointed or let down in Destiny. I am so proud of him, as most of you probably are aware. He has shown well enough to make any owner very pleased and proud. Destiny's a National Champion and a Reserve National Grand Champion with a Hall of Fame. Maybe even more important, he's begun his career as a sire having recently given us a beautiful filly with more foals on the way.

The people I feel sorry for are those who spent 3.5 months thinking their horse moved from 3rd to Reserve National Grand Champion or from 3rd to Reserve National Champion (as there is a lot more than just one class in question)... People who thought their horse got a title and now it's gone. I feel sorry for those people who thought their horse was 10th only to now find they are back to being a basically an unrecognized 11th. Now that would be heart breaking to think your horse had a National title and now it doesn't, or to think your horse placed Top 10, and now it hasn't.

AMHR has provided nothing to even suggest that the horses who caused the turmoil had in fact qualified to show at Nationals... AMHR's own actions reveal there has been a lot in doubt (temporary changes to the original placements, _way_ late Journal issue explained as a result of problems regarding Nationals placements, notation IN the Journal we just got that certain results were not final...). Why doesn't AMHR officially state these horse in question qualified and provide the details, if in fact those horses were found to have qualified??? I won't swallow an explanation that the big name trainers involved took the horses to shows and showed them, yet they didn't happen place. I am also stunned that AMHR supposedly cannot / has not ever been able to really confirm if horses were qualified for Nationals or not.

The emotions I am feeling and have been feeling are anger and disgust at AMHR, not a mourning for something "lost" by Destiny. I feel AMHR is really pulling something shady. I also feel that AMHR is treating the membership as if they aren't actually thinking people who can figure out what's going on -- or that they just flat out don't care what the membership thinks. This is what my emotions in this matter revolve around.

Thank you again,

Jill


----------



## Karen S (Mar 7, 2009)

Good Morning All,

I'm going to touch just a bit on the show program. As most of you know the show program is the exact same program that the AMHA WAS going to use and found out that there were alot of problems. ASPC/AMHR also hired the same man and now WE have the same problems.

What most of you don't understand (which I do cause it happened to several of us), is that program cannot be downloaded without it crashing our computer systems plus a lot of the facilities in which these shows are held DO NOT have internet and the list goes on. It isn't that the show managers are refusing to use it, it's that they can't in most cases. Yes the ASPC/AMHR board is aware of the problems, that we who are out here trying to put on shows for all of you can't use something that still isn't perfected.

A director that has been using it for some time now is having luck with it and they have even been working on an easy to follow manuel in which the managers can refer to. I do know it was discussed at the spring board meeting, that this program as is right now is not user friendly. So passing a rule for ALL show manager to use it is not feasable. There have been several suggestions made by the show managers to the board and they are looking into other alternatives for us.

So please don't always lay the blame on the show managers. The master list is just that. A list in which all miniatures and ponies are listed for that show but doesn't guarantee that those horses enter into a class. Our show manger wanted me to pass along that what she does at our shows, is that after all horses are checked in and have been in A class then she goes back through our show's master list and crosses off those horses that DID NOT enter the show ring and makes a notation to the office as such. She said she has never had any problems with doing this.

Thanks.

Karen


----------



## Jean_B (Mar 7, 2009)

One last comment and then I am not going to say another word on this topic BECAUSE this topic has sort of taken a left turn and has become a bashing of AMHR and show managers.

Even if the show management software is working PERFECTLY, and even if EVERY show manager in the country was using it -- it STILL will not give you a true list of horses that qualify.

Why?? Because it lists horses that are entered in a class, and it lists horses that place in a class, but it does not give you a list of horses that entered the arena, were judged, but did not place!

For instance....let's say you have a class of 15 entries. Let's say that there are 2 last minute scratches. Often times, those scratches are not removed from the computer's class list. Only 6 horses place - so those are the only ones that people know TRULY entered the arena. So there is no way to verify if a horse that WAS entered but did not place actually entered the arena and was judged.

However, if someone SAYS they entered a horse in a class and it was the only horse in that class, but they do not enter the arena...the JUDGES CARDS would show -0- entries. Pretty hard to cheat on that one.

So.....until all the bugs are worked out of the system so that it is a system that will work for all show managers in all environments (and having worked with data bases, and having worked in an audit environment for most of my working life....I know that is a never-ending process), much of what we have to go on AT THE MOMENT is based on the honor system.

There ARE ways to 'audit' suspected rule violations. However, those are very tedious and labor-intensive.

And it would require that ALL show staff are diligent in their record keeping. It would require that the show secretary diligently mark all scratches in the computer program. It would require that the gateman diligently mark all scratches from their sheets as they are checking in horses for each and every class. It would require that the gateman's sheets be kept for a period of at least a year, and made available to the home office in the event of a questionable National entry.

I'm sure there are other things but I haven't had my second cup of coffee this morning so my brain isn't hitting on all 8 cylinders yet...but as you can see - this is NOT an easy fix!


----------



## Crabtree Farm (Mar 7, 2009)

Are we at the point of requiring the horses to be microchipped and have the steward scan them as they enter the ring????

Tina


----------



## Minimor (Mar 7, 2009)

So, Jean, you are saying that it is simply too much work/effort for show management to be accurate on recording scratches and removing from the show list those horses that do not actually enter the ring?

If being accurate on qualifications is too much work then I would suggest that the qualification requirements for Nationals be removed, and anyone and everyone can enter their horses even if those horses haven't been in the show ring in the past 12 months. End of problem.


----------



## river (Mar 7, 2009)

I have a couple of questions on this subject

1. Was anyone contacted regarding the placing of their horse by AMHR? Or were the comments that horses had been disqualified all through the rumor mill. I understand that the Journal said it was late becuase of possible changes but it is my understanding that no official word was given and that no changes were made in the Journal.

2. It is my understanding that the AMHR attorneys were consulted on this situation and that the AMHR was told not to pursue the matter - due to the fact that it does state in our rulebook that the entry form must have a place provided for the qualifying shows. Since this was not done - we could not pursue those that did not comply. As no one had to actually sign that their horses had qualified. Is this correct? Obviously AMHR will make sure this does not happen in the future.

3. If the show managers have 30 days to get their paperwork into the office there is no way that the office can verify the show results for the August shows before nationals. Is this not correct? Horses have always been verified after nationals in previous years mainly because of this problem. When looking at the show schedule it looks like there is 10 or more shows (which possibly could be 500-600 horses that would not show qualified at time of entry).

4. I personally do not know any of the people on either side of this situation but I think that previously to this year AMHR has done a wonderful job with a very large show. Obviously there is always room for improvement and this is going to be a huge lesson.

5. For those accused of showing horses that are not qualified - apparently only they know for sure if they did wrong or not. Jean has shown us in so many ways how people can and will cheat. I do not think that AMHR can legally give a list of all horses that were accused of not qualifying - think of those that were accused and innocent - just having their names on the list will tarnish their reputation.

AMHR is suppose to be a family organization and want all people to be able to show even if they do not place at a local level. Half of the fun is just being at nationals and mixing with the other participants and learning. It is always great to place but not necessary for having an awesome week. I hope they do not make any changes to the qualification process (except having the form correct) and that we must trust that we are all on the honor sytem until after nationals when the office will check the winning horses. I seriously believe after this year we will not have any cheaters.

I know this is an extremely sensitive issue and I hope either AMHR office or the BOD officially comment on this subject either on their web site or in the next Journal (the 2 appropriate places).

River


----------



## Sandee (Mar 7, 2009)

river said:


> I have a couple of questions on this subject
> 1. Was anyone contacted regarding the placing of their horse by AMHR? Or were the comments that horses had been disqualified all through the rumor mill. I understand that the Journal said it was late becuase of possible changes but it is my understanding that no official word was given and that no changes were made in the Journal.
> 
> 2. It is my understanding that the AMHR attorneys were consulted on this situation and that the AMHR was told not to pursue the matter - due to the fact that it does state in our rulebook that the entry form must have a place provided for the qualifying shows. Since this was not done - we could not pursue those that did not comply. As no one had to actually sign that their horses had qualified. Is this correct? Obviously AMHR will make sure this does not happen in the future.
> ...


Well put!


----------



## targetsmom (Mar 7, 2009)

For anyone who thinks that it is a bad idea to remove all qualifications for AMHR Nationals, that is how the Pinto Horse Association does it and it doesn't seem to hurt them at all. Their local shows are certainly well attended. It also allows them to hold their World Show in June. I have never been to any National or World Shows so I can't comment on those.


----------



## Lilac Lane Farm (Mar 7, 2009)

Hello All,

I think that the membership for the most part has been very mislead as of late regarding the software package from this contractor. The board itself was mislead for sometime on this subject also. Here is the nuts and bolts of the whole situation. The software that you the membership are paying for you do not own. What this means is that AMHR's board has decided to pay $14,000+ a month of your membership and dues for a service. In the beginning they were lead to believe that they were buying a software package and they aren't. So what happens to all the data if they decide to sever ties with the contractor you ask? They loose it all just like AMHA did. I was given a copy of they contract to review in October of last year at my own expense I went to the convention in Branson MO to inform the whole board of my findings. The reception I got was less than favorable and there were a few people I found would much rather defend a bad decision than admit that they were wrong. The board also decided after verifying my findings with lawyers and other IT professionals that they are still going to continue to pay this contractor regardless of the inevitable outcome. At that point AMHR's membership will have sunk in an estimated $265,000+ into the development of a software package they do not own, does not meet the needs of AMHR/ASPC and they cannot continue to use without paying more for a license agreement with the contractor. Realize also that the license agreement is an ongoing fee. It has been stated by the board that even if they decide to cut ties with the contractor they still own the data. This is true but what they do not understand is they cannot access that data without using the software and that requires a license agreement. The contractor has made a lot of empty promises but what it comes down to at the end of the day is what is in writing. AMHR/ASPC is paying for a borrowed horse.

Jamie


----------



## Fred (Mar 7, 2009)

Thank you Jamie. About time that came out.


----------



## sdmini (Mar 7, 2009)

Jean ya know I love ya BUT if this is an on going problem, the verification of horses actually "qualified" for Nationals, than it's one that should have been addressed before today. Listing the reasons as to why it doesn't work is not validation when we are talking about a national organization's biggest event.

No matter if AMHR found these horses to be honestly qualified or if because of the exclusion of the line on entry forms decided not to remove the horses placing I have no issue with. However the explanation of "because I said so" went out of fashion with me when I became an adult.

I can appreciate the importance of behind close door sessions but in light of the worst kept secret in AMHR history I, personally, feel that putting everything in the open will go a long way to mend feelings and clear names. Just as mistakes are in human nature, human nature also makes us suspicious of things "in the dark", not shining the light on the subject seems to give more validity to the "good ol' boys club" theory.

I do hate to post on either associations threads with negative comments but I know from my own experience the things that are being said here are being said, unchecked and much more elaborated on, in private conversations.

Wow, I'm just floored in reading Jamie's post. I knew there was something amiss with the computer program when AMHA dumped it but did not know the extent.


----------



## Sandee (Mar 7, 2009)

Lilac Lane Farm said:


> .........pay $14,000+ a month for a service. .............AMHR's membership will have sunk in an estimated $265,000+ into the development of a software package they do not own, ...............AMHR/ASPC is paying for a borrowed horse.
> Jamie


Wow! AMHA never did say exactly what was wrong with that program, and now we know!

Hubby is a retired programmer and for $265,000, I'd bet he could actually makea program that works!


----------



## Littleum (Mar 7, 2009)

Lilac Lane Farm said:


> In the beginning they were lead to believe that they were buying a software package and they aren't.


Did no one read the fine print? The salesman could have said anything he wanted, but when the contract came around, someone should have spotted this in the contract and stopped the presses. I can't honestly believe someone read the contract and agreed to it- unless they really did not understand what the contract was saying (which is fine, but for the love of pie, hand it over to someone who does understand IT legal lingo!)

This story just gets worse and worse by the post, and it boggles my mind.


----------



## Taylor Jo (Mar 7, 2009)

AMHR is suppose to be a family organization and want all people to be able to show even if they do not place at a local level. Half of the fun is just being at nationals and mixing with the other participants and learning. It is always great to place but not necessary for having an awesome week. I hope they do not make any changes to the qualification process (except having the form correct) and that we must trust that we are all on the honor sytem until after nationals when the office will check the winning horses. I seriously believe after this year we will not have any cheaters.

River

Well put!





Thank you Sandee well said. I agree with you 100%. I had a lousy year last year. One of my horses placed and one didn't but he and I got to experience the joy and wonder of driving at Nationals. He's "new" at driving and it may take him awhile to catch up to his counter parts and I hate to see him penalized by the rules. He's catching up and hopefully this season he'll be better. BUT you never know. I'd hate to have the PRESSURE of 1. Driving to different shows TRYING TO GET my horses points, especially NOW when I have to drive 4 hours to get to my nearest show and some people have to drive even more. 2. I stress enough as it is and PAY enough to the trainer to try to make my horses good. Plus, I work hard at training them myself. HOW MUCH MORE can I do.. That's just MORE added PRESSURE to perform. This is suppose to be about FUN remember.

My vote is for leaving it alone, and making AMHR more accountable for they're bookkeeping MAYBE they need to hire more help.... You will ALWAYS have someone trying to beat the system and that's sad. It takes away the joy of the sport. I feel sorry for those that are caught in the middle of this and loosing. My heart goes out to you. Anyway, that's just my two cents worth. TJ


----------



## Littleum (Mar 7, 2009)

Sandee said:


> Lilac Lane Farm said:
> 
> 
> > .........pay $14,000+ a month for a service. .............AMHR's membership will have sunk in an estimated $265,000+ into the development of a software package they do not own, ...............AMHR/ASPC is paying for a borrowed horse.
> ...


The thing that gets me is that I really don't think AMHR's needs are complicated! They need DBs that can handle large amounts of data, but the data doesn't really have to DO anything- it's just warehoused!

This is probably something a college student could do for a senior project, and would LOVE to do to have in his/her portfolio.


----------



## gvpalominominis (Mar 7, 2009)

Belinda said:


> Exactly , is the reason there was error , that is supposed to be on all our Entry forms for Nationals !! and it was over looked when making the form and left off
> 
> 
> 
> , But last I knew to error was human.



So, in other words, it would have or should have been noticed with the very first entry that showed up without that information, and something coulda, shoulda, been done about it right then and there. Heavens, how long in advance is the entry close date? Obviously, it would have created additional work to have to request that information from the exhibitors due to the omission of that part of the entry form... but considering all the man hours, hard feelings, animosity and disgruntal etc. it caused by not correcting it right away, and/or was it noticed and there was decision to not correct it then? ... _after though... how could it NOT have been noticed?_

IMO I'm not saying the office/AMHR should be condemned forever for making an error... but at least step up and be accountable for it! Excuses are a weakness. This seems to be a HUGE problem in several clubs I know of. Nobody wants to be or is accountable for their actions. I can't speak for others, but its a whole lot more admirable to stand and say... "We made a mistake, we're trying to correct the trouble it caused, and here's how we're going to prevent it from ever happening again in the future".

But you are right Belinda, to error is human and what's done is done so the best thing to do is insure that it does not happen again. Hopefully though, the lesson learned through this event can also be applied to other curriculums within the organization.

I'm sorry but I have to agree and I've even witness it first hand that AMHR has kind of a laid back attitude of running things in general and seems to panic a bit and plants their feet once challenged, and even when the current rules' meanings are left to interpretation and unclear the old addage of "its been this way for 50 years it'll be good for 50 more" just doesn't cut in this day and age when EVERYTHING needs to be outlined and PERFECTLY clear.

Belinda, I admire and appreciate your passion, as well as others for their involvement in the club and the way things are going, that "Good 'ole boy" attitude in many ways can also be a welcome sign to new members frustrated with the bureaucracy and lack of 'member friendly' actions in other clubs, so lets not get rid of it totally



. But I also believe that the rules need to be adhered to and followed, especially by example from the Board and leaders.


----------



## pinck43 (Mar 7, 2009)

Littleum said:


> Lilac Lane Farm said:
> 
> 
> > In the beginning they were lead to believe that they were buying a software package and they aren't.
> ...


Why read the fine print?



The stimulus package was 1100 pages long and no on bothered to read that. Sorry, I couldn't resist.


----------



## Belinda (Mar 7, 2009)

This is how I feel and that we just continue to














Now we have turned this negative post to a even more neg, post by bringing the computer contract into a subject .. WoW how this group jumps from one subject to another








Honestly I might have just figured out why NONE OF THE OTHER DIRECTORS POST !! You cannot keep up on here.

I must say this.. JAMIES POST IS NOT CORRECT !!! AND WE SPENT ANOTHER $600 ON HIS ADVICE TO HAVE OUR CONTRACTS GONE OVER BY A OUTSIDE ATTORNEY AND WE ARE FINE. AND NEGOTIATING WITH MARK AT THIS TIME ON THE PRICE AT THIS TIME. AND WE ARE MUCH MORE FUNCTIONAL THAN AMHA WAS BY MILES..

JAMIE YOU DID NOT HAVE THE ACTUAL CONTRACTS DID YOU , TELL EVERYONE THAT YOU ONLY HAD A SUMMERY OF THE CONTRACT !! IF WE ARE GOING TO AIR THINGS TELL THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT WAS GIVEN YOU..

NOW I, AM WITH THIS AND THIS WHOLE POST .. I HAVE TRIED TO BE A VOICE ON HERE OF REASON , I HAVE HELPED MANY PEOPLE ON HERE THAT SOME DON'T EVEN KNOW I HAVE , THOSE THAT HAVE POSTED ABOUT PAPER WORK PROBLEMS WITH THE OFFICE OR NOT GETTING THEIR JOURNALS , OR MANY OTHER PROBLEMS , I HAVE TAKEN IT UPON MYSELF TO CALL THE OFFICE AND TRIED TO GET THESE SETTLED OR THINGS DONE, AND MANY THINGS JUST TOOK A SIMPLE PHONE CALL.. BUT THOSE ARE THINGS I DID ON MY OWN AND WAS JUST TRYING TO HELP ,

IF SO MANY HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TO FIX ALL THE THINGS THAT ARE WRONG WITH OUR ASSOC. THEN BY ALL MEANS ....PLEASE STEP UP TO THE PLATE AND GET IN THAT OFFICE OR ON THE BOARD AND HELP






IT IS ALWAYS MUCH EASIER TO WRITE IT ON HERE HOW EASY IT IS TO FIX THINGS , BUT IT SOMETIMES IS MUCH EASIER TO SAY THAN ACTUALLY DO ..!!

Sorry for the vent , there really are lots of nice people on here and there are many many nice folks in both assoc.. or else I would have quit a long time ago..


----------



## LaVern (Mar 7, 2009)

Holy Smokes!!!!!!!! Are you guys saying that we do NOT own our own Stud Book. What if that guy got run over by a train? Would his relatives get the software.

Maybe he has nothing to do with our Stud Book. In my opinion it is the most important thing we have.


----------



## ~Lisa~ (Mar 7, 2009)

Since the subject has changed I do have to say that the computer program seems to be working for our needs. We have to remember that it is a work in progress and one thing gets done and then we (meaning the office) realizes hey we need to fix, tweak, add or delete this to make it work even better.

I think as far as the program is going it has done a lot and allowed us to do a lot as far as the legal aspects I am not a lawyer nor have I seen and read the contracts so I would never even attempt to make an opinion I can say though the program software seems to be something that can meet our needs and grow as our needs do


----------



## ClickMini (Mar 7, 2009)

I never meant for this thread to be negative and now it is gone from bad to worse. Moderators PLEASE LOCK THIS THREAD.

P.S.: I am a very positive natured person, and I sure never meant to cause any issues for any one. Sorry if it did. Really sorry.


----------



## Lilac Lane Farm (Mar 7, 2009)

I do have to add a possible food for thought. Why would AMHR need to be in negotiations over the computer program if they are just fine and what I said is wrong. Also I was never compensated nor wanted to be for my review. Until the contractor is willing to provide a viable source code and the database, both of which are in his sole possession, AMHR owns nothing as is with AMHA. They never even got a copy opf the database because the contractor felt that they were being "rude". Not a way to handle business.

Jamie


----------



## LaVern (Mar 7, 2009)

Mary Lou Please do not stop this thread. Our Club president is always telling us to pray for and support our troops that are fighting for our freedoms. And we do. We are huge supporters of our Veterans. But one of the freedoms that they are fighting for is free speech.


----------



## JourneysEnd (Mar 7, 2009)

Belinda, take a deep breath.






Thanks for posting the facts. Please don't get so frustrated you stop posting.

The forum is great, but I'm not sure how much of the Nationals info posted has been rumor or truth. Did we play a part in this mess by posting half truths ? Hard to say at this point.

Was anybody notified their horse had moved up in placements ? If so, that had to hurt having it taken away.

The bottom line is, hopefully we've all learned something and can avoid the same mistake in the future.


----------



## Belinda (Mar 7, 2009)

LaVern said:


> Holy Smokes!!!!!!!! Are you guys saying that we do NOT own our own Stud Book. What if that guy got run over by a train? Would his relatives get the software. Maybe he has nothing to do with our Stud Book. In my opinion it is the most important thing we have.



Guess what Renee ,, AMHA DOES NOT OWN THEIR EITHER !!!!!!!!








Jamie we are dealing with Mark on a price reduction and we do have our source code , !!











Ok I am done, oh no I said that last time ,, <<LOL>>> and thanks for every ones Private emails , it is because of you that I continue to work for the AMHR/ASPC.


----------

