Pages Navigation Menu

ON-LINE MAGAZINE & WEB SITE - SCROLL DOWN FOR NEWS

☛ Lawsuit filed in barrel horse case 11-7-17

Posted by on Nov 7, 2017 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, RODEO & BULLRIDING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

LAWSUIT FILED IN MADISON COUNTY, TEXAS REGARDING A BARREL HORSE 

 

SAVANNAH ROBERTSON FILES LAWSUIT AGAINST VETERINARIAN CAMERON STOUDT AND TEXAS EQUINE HOSPITAL

By Glory Ann Kurtz
Nov. 7, 2017

On or about May 13, 2016, Savannah Robertson, Los Osmos, Calif., entered into a contract with Michelle Alley, Madisonville, Texas, an agent for Hope B. Martin, Huntsville, Texas, the owner of a barrel horse named Crown N Diamonds, a.k.a.“Cinderella.”

Prior to the purchase Robertson consulted Cameron Stoudt, DVM of the Texas Equine Hospital, Bryan, Texas, to conduct a pre-purchase report on the horse. Relying on her Dr. Stoudt’s pre-purchase report, Savannah Robertson believed the horse was sound and fit for performance purposes.

Approximately three days after Robertson took possession of the horse, Cinderella experienced a “patella lockup,” or an upper fixation of the left hindquarter stifle ligament. The first patella lockup occurred in the round pen and the second occurred while Robertson was riding the mare, causing the horse and rider to fall to the ground.

Thereafter, the  horse was brought to a California veterinarian who identified the locking patella or upper-fixation condition and referred the horse to the Alamo Pintado Equine Medical Center in Los Olivos, Calif. Upon evaluation, the veterinary clinic also identified this abnormality and treated the horse for the patella lockup condition.

Click for Locking patella explanation>>

Robertson realized the horse she had just purchased was not sound due to the locking patella, and would be unfit for barrel racing or any other performance purpose. She notified both the agent Michelle Alley and seller Hope Martin of their violations based on the deceptive sale of the wholly unfit performance horse.

Robertson also learned after the sale that the veterinarian Cameron Stoudt DVM had previously seen and treated the horse on a number of occasions and had given the  horse multiple injections for the stifle lock issue, knowing that the horse was unfit as a performance horse – yet failed to disclose that information. Dr. Stoudt was employed by Texas Equine Hospital.

The purchase turned into several lawsuits filed by the seller and the agent. with the most recent being filed by the buyer, Savannah Robertson, who hired attorney Robert Wagstaff of McMahon Surovik Suttle, P.C. of Abilene, Texas, who sent a demand letter for payment of damages to the seller Hope B. Martin and her agent Michelle Alley on Sept. 30, 2016, stating damages and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DTPA), especially  Section 17.46 of the Texas Business Commerce Code.

Court documents state that on Nov. 3, 2017, Robertson, filed a First Amended Original Petition in the 278th Judicial District of Madison County, Texas, against the seller Hope B. Martin, the veterinarian Cameron Stoudt, DVM and her employer Texas Equine Hospital PC stating the “Plaintiff intends to conduct discovery under Level 3 of Rule 190.3 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure with the damages sought being  within the jurisdictional limits of the court.”

Click for Texas Equine Hospital website>>

The documents state that the Texas jurisdiction is proper since the parties entered into a contract in Texas, to be performed in whole or in part, in Madison County, Texas. Also, because a substantial part of the conduct giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Madison County, Texas, and a substantial part of the events and omissions which created this cause of action occurred in Madison County, Texas.

Robertson notified both Michelle Alley and Hope B. Martin of their DTPA violations based on the deceptive sale of the wholly unfit performance horse. Further, it was learned after the sale that Defendant Cameron Stoudt, DVM had previously seen and treated the horse on a number of occasions and had given the horse multiple injections for the stifle lock issue and; therefore, knew the horse was unfit as a performance horse, yet wholly failed to disclose it. At all times she was acting in the course and scope of her employment with defendant Texas Equine Hospital P.C.

CAUSE OF ACTION CLAIMED AGAINST SELLER HOPE B. MARTIN:

In the court documents, Robertson claims Hope B. Martin committed DTPA violations by representing that the barrel horse had “characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities” which it did not and she failed to disclose the information concerning the barrel horse, which was known at the time of the transaction and as such filed to disclose the information to induce Robertson into a transaction in which she would not have entered, had the information been disclosed.

CLAIMED DAMAGES INCURRED BY HOPE B. MARTIN:

Court documents state that on Sept. 30, 2016, Robertson provided written notice to Hope B. Martin, advising her of specific complaints and the amount of damages, including reasonable attorney’s fees incurred as of the date of the letter. Robertson said she suffered economic damages in an amount within the jurisdiction limits of the court, for which it now sues, including but not limited to: the original purchase price of the  horse, the costs of all veterinarian exams, transportation and boarding costs and all other costs association with the sale and purchase of the  horse.

Also claiming mental anguish damages, Robertson sued for actual and incurred damages, mental anguished treble (3 times amount of damages) allowed by law.

CLAIMED CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST VETERINARIAN DR. CAMERON STOUDT:

Robertson claims that prior to her purchase of the barrel horse, she consulted Cameron Stoudt, DVM, an experienced veterinarian in the Brazos Valley region, to assess the horse’s present and future soundness and any abnormalities that may adversely affect the horse’s ability to perform for the sole reason of purchase – barrel racing.

She claims that Dr. Stoudt made negligent misrepresentations to her regarding the horse’s health, soundness, medical conditions and ability to perform. She claims the vet supplied false information to her, upon which Robertson relied and as a result suffered damages.

Court documents claim that Dr. Stoudt failed to disclose that the horse was not sound, as its patella locked up in its left rear leg, making the horse unfit for barrel racing or any other performance purpose. Robertson said she had relied on the veterinarian’s Pre-Purchase Assessment and Report in her decision to purchase the horse and enter into the contract with Michelle Alley and Hope B. Martin.

The document included the fact that the acts and omissions of Dr. Stoudt occurred while she was in the course and scope of her employment with Defendant Texas Equine Hospital, who the court case claims is directly liable to the Plaintiff for the acts and omissions of Dr. Cameron Stoudt, DVM and The damages proximately caused thereof.

CLAIMED DAMAGES INCURRED BY DR. CAMERON STOUDT AND TEXAS EQUINE HOSPITAL: 

Damages for which Dr. Cameron Stoudt, DVM and the Texas Equine Hospital are liable for include her purchase price of the horse, expenses incurred in the transaction, expenses and upkeep of the horse since the date of the purchase and lost profits and business opportunities for having a  horse that was unfit for its particular purpose: a barrel racing horse. Robertson also seeks recovery of pre- and post-judgment interest and reasonable and necessary fees for expert witnesses, copies of depositions and costs of court, as authorized by law.

Robertson is also demanding a trial by jury for which required fees have been paid. She is asking, “the defendants be cited to appear and answer the suit. Also, she is asking that upon final hearing of the case, the judgment be entered for the Plaintiff and against the Defendants for damages in an amount within the jurisdictional limits of the Cost, together with pre-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law, post-judgment interest at the legal rate, costs of court, reasonable and necessary attorneys’ fees and other such and further relief to which the Plaintiff may be entitled at law or in equity.”

Click for court documents>>

 

Read More

☛ AQHA to raise rates 11-1-17

Posted by on Nov 1, 2017 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE NEWS, INDUSTRY NEWS, REINING NEWS, SALES INFORMATION, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

AQHA TO RAISE RATES

By Glory Ann Kurtz
Nov. 1, 2017

Got some horses to register or a stallion breeding report to send to the AQHA. You better hurry! A bevy of increases have been made by the American Quarter Horse Association taking effect on Jan. 1, 2018. They include membership fees, registration fees, genetic testing, stallion breeding report, duplicate certificates, embryo transfer enrollment, breeding permits, leases, rushes and show approvals.

The AQHA  has delivered the information on their website, saying, “To deliver the best service to our members and horse lovers around the world, it is necessary for AQHA to review the Association’s budget and make changes to maintain a strong financial position to support the future of our great Association.

“As the largest single-breed equine association in the world, the American Quarter Horse Association strives for excellence as a breed registry and to provide outstanding customer services as an Association.

“Every year, internal staff develops a tentative budget prior to the beginning of the fiscal year, which is approved by the AQHA Executive Committee prior to October 1, and a final budget, which is approved by the Executive Committee at its April meeting, after the AQHA convention. The AQHA treasurer and chief operating officer presents the Association’s audited financial statements every year at convention, and the financial statements are also published on AQHA.com.

“When developing and updating the Association’s budget, we evaluate all of AQHA’s programs and focus on the pillars of excellence from our strategic plan, which include animal welfare, customer satisfaction, culture and communication. We also evaluate the multiple business areas that support the pillars: technology, business development, growth of the American Quarter Horse Foundation, youth development and operational efficiency. All of these, plus several other factors come into play when evaluating the budget.

“AQHA has supplemented its income for years with investment earnings to keep fees as low as possible for AQHA members. We have arrived at a point where the Association’s fees need to reflect the Association’s services provided to our members, and we must continue to be a financially healthy Association with at least a half of a year to a full year budget in reserves.

“With that being said, the Executive Committee reviewed the tentative budget during its September meeting and recently approved multiple fee increases that will go into effect January 1, 2018.

“Membership fees are included in the fees that will increase on January 1, 2018. Membership fees support the services and programs that are provided by AQHA. Members receive 10 issues of the members-only America’s Horse, an official AQHA membership ID card, access to AQHA programs and direct access to members-only discounts, provided by Ford, SmartPak, John Deere and more.

“Other fees affected are:

•Registration fees (Members can log-in to Member Services to save $5 by using the online registration form. Submitting the form online will also reduce the processing time for this request.)

•Genetic testing fees

•Stallion breeding report fees

•Certificate fees

•Embryo transfer enrollment fees

•Breeding permit fees

•Lease fees

•Rush fees

Show approval fees

View a list of the increased fees; this list only includes fees that will change as of January 1, 2018, and the show approval fees, which are effective immediately for 2018 shows. All fees can also be found in the 2018 AQHA Official Handbook of Rules and Regulations, which will be available soon.

While we know the fee increases will affect our members, like you, I can assure you that we kept the fees as low as possible in order to be cost effective for our members, provide members with the best services available and help our great Association stay financially strong, not only for today, but for years to come.”

Read More

☛ Drug suspensions by AQHA getting severe 11-1–17

Posted by on Nov 1, 2017 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE HEALTH, INDUSTRY NEWS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 0 comments

SUSPENSIONS BY AQHA FOR DRUGGING  HORSES HAVE NEVER BEEN SO SEVERE

By Glory Ann Kurtz
Nov. 1, 2017

Showing that the American Quarter Horse Association  is serious about getting tough on the doping of horses, the reigning racing champion of the AQHA has just been suspended for 19 years and fined $110,000 by stewards in Texas. The article in the Paulick Report came after five of trainer Judd Kearl’s horses tested positive for the Class 1 drug nomifensine – a human antidepressant medication taken off the market in the1980s.

Kearl will not be eligible for reinstatement until July 30, 2036. He was suspended one year and fined $10,000 for the first violation, three years and $25,000 for the second and five years and $25,000 for each subsequent violation.

Two other trainers were sanctioned at the same time after the horses they had in training tested positive for the medication. They included Brian Stroud, who received a one-year suspension and a $10,000 fine for one nomifensine positive and Jose Sanchez, who was suspended four years and fined $35,000 for two positives.

Kearl’s violations occurred over several weeks beginning on May 22, Kearl’s horses testing positive at Sam Houston Race Park in Houston and continuing at Retama Park in San Antonio for the other seven. The drug was detected and identified by the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Lab and the “split samples” were confirmed by the Pennsylvania Toxicology and Research Laboratory.

Testing by the “split sample” method has recently been adopted by the AQHA. Split specimen urine drug testing is used extensively by businesses and  is only slightly different from regular testing. In this process, the urine sample is split into two vials and sent to a certified lab for urine testing. One of the vials is tested and the other is stored. If the first vial is tested as positive for any reason, the person who submitted the sample can request that the other vial be tested. If this happens the second vial is then tested by another lab.

According to the rulings, all three trainers used the same veterinarian – Dr. Justin Robinson (who did not testify at the hearing) and from the evidence it was logical that he was responsible for the administration of the drug to all of the horses in question. The trainers claimed the drug was given to the  horses without their knowledge; however, the ruling stated that ignorance does not relieve them of responsibility.

Nomifensine was withdrawn from the market in the 1980s and its FDA approval was revoked in 1992. Any appeal will be heard by an administrative law judge appointed by the state of administrative hearings.

Kearl was named AQHA champion trainer after horses he trained won 129 races from 474 starts in 2016 for earnings of $4.6 million. Stroud and Sanchez also have won major Quarter Horse races during their careers.

For the full article in The Paulick Report, click on the following link:

https://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/aqha-champion-trainer-kearl-suspended-19-years-stroud-sanchez-also-sanctioned/

Read More

☛ When barrel racing turns into a lawsuit 10-16-17

Posted by on Oct 16, 2017 in BREAKING NEWS, HORSE LAWSUITS, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 1 comment

 

 

WHEN BARREL RACING TURNS INTO A LAWSUIT

By Glory Ann Kurtz
Oct. 16, 2017

 

Today, barrel horses bring a lot of money – and that’s because they can win a lot of money. It doesn’t matter if the rider is a boy or a girl, a man or a woman, 10 years old or 60 years old, a newcomer or a professional. However, the important thing is how old the horse is, how well trained it is and most important of all, how sound it is – which means, “How long will he or she last by staying sound?”

 

A court case in Madisonville County, Texas, began on May 22, 2016, in which Savannah Robertson, Los Osmos, Calif., purchased a barrel horse named Crown N Diamonds, a.k.a. “Rosie” and “Cinderella,” from Hope B. Martin, Huntsville, Texas, through her agent/broker Michelle Alley, Madisonville, Texas, a professional in the barrel racing industry. Prior to the purchase, Robertson was told that Cinderella was a sound barrel-racing performance horse, even though the May 13, 2016 contract for the $10,000 sale stated the horse was being sold “as is.”

 

The purchase soon turned into a legal battle with the agent Michelle Alley being the Plaintiff filing a lawsuit against the defendants Hope B. Martin, the owner, and Savannah Robertson, the buyer. The reason was that approximately three days after Robertson took possession of the horse, on May 22, 2016, Cinderella experienced a “patella lockup” or an upper fixation of the left hindquarter stifle ligament. The first patella lockup occurred in the round pen and the second patella lockup occurred while Robertson was riding the mare, causing the horse and rider to go to the ground.

 

Thereafter, the horse was brought to a California veterinarian who identified the locking patella or upper-fixation condition and referred the horse to the Alamo Pintado Equine Medical Center, Los Olivos, Calif. Upon evaluation, the veterinary clinic also identified this abnormality and treated the horse for the patella lockup condition.

 

What is a patella lockup?

 Horse-Jumping stifle. … A locking stifle (in vet words, an upward fixation of the patella or UFP, a common problem in horses that is often unrecognized and often misdiagnosed as general hind leg lameness or overlooked altogether. The stifle joint in a horse’s hind leg corresponds anatomically to the knee joint in the human leg. However, instead of appearing halfway down the limb like the human knee, the horse’s stifle doesn’t even look like a joint because it is hidden within the structure of the horse’s upper hind leg. If you put your hand on the front of the horse’s hind leg where it ties into the flank, you can feel the patella, a small bone that is the anatomic equal of the human kneecap. The patella sits just above the stifle joint where the horse’s femur (upper leg bone that ties into the hip) and the tibia (long bone above the hock) meet.

 

The medial patellar ligament has the important function of hooking over a notch in the end of the femur when the horse is standing still. This stabilizes the stifle and allows the standing or snoozing horse to bear weight on the hind leg without muscular effort. Normally, the ligament slides out of the notch when the horse swings its leg forward as it begins to walk. If the ligament gets hung up and doesn’t slip into an unlocked position, the hind leg can’t be flexed forward and the horse has to drag the stiffened limb forward for a few steps before the ligament releases. This is commonly known as a locking or sticking stifle. While veterinarians term the condition “upward fixation of the patella,” old-time horsemen have a simpler descriptive phrase: “That horse is stifled.” They might add, “Back him up a few steps to get it to release,” and this trick often works. The following image depicts a horse with a locked stifle. The situation becomes problematic for the horse and rider when the stifle inadvertently locks while the equestrian team is in full performance mode. A locked stifle in the performance arena or while under saddle in generally utility riding can cause serious injury to the rider and horse or in the worst case scenario – death or permanent paralysis, if the horse goes down.


 

It wasn’t long before a demand letter from Savannah Robertson’s attorney, Robert Wagstaff, McMahon, Surovik, Suttle PC of Abilene, Texas was forwarded to the seller Hope B. Martin and her agent Michelle Alley on Sept. 30, 2016 stating damages and violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, especially – Section 17.46 of the Texas Business Commerce Code. More specifically, “Deceptive Trade Practices.” Unlawful – (a) False, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful and are subject to action by the consumer protection division under 17.47, 17.58, 17.60 and 17.61 of this code.

 

However, upon receipt of the demand letter for payment of damages, court documents indicate the agent Michelle Alley hired attorney David Hammitt of Madisonville, Texas, to represent her in this matter by filing a lawsuit in her behalf against the buyer Savannah Robertson and the seller Hope B. Martin. Alley, the agent, had sued the buyer, Savannah Robertson, for breach of contract for desiring a rescission of the sale contract and a refund of funds. Thereafter, Robertson’s attorney countersued Alley, alleging violations of the Deceptive Trade Practices Act (DPTA) as previously stated, along with a realignment of Plaintiff and Defendants. More specifically, aligning Savannah Robertson as the Plaintiff and the agent Michelle Alley and the seller Hope B. Martin as the Defendants.

 

Further, Robertson’s lawsuit states the cause of action is “preexisting but undisclosed medical condition of the horse prior to the sale, that disqualifies Crown N Diamonds (Cinderella) as useful for the purpose identified by Robertson, i.e. a barrel-racing performance horse.” Therefore, disqualifying Crown N Diamonds (Cinderella) as a performance prospect for Robertson.

 

The lawsuit also stated that if these preexisting conditions would have been known prior to sale, it would have greatly affected Robertson’s opinion and she would have not bought the horse. The lawsuit further states this non-disclosure of disqualifying preexisting medical conditions was used to induce Robertson to buy the horse.

Link to the lawsuit>>

 

Then comes a strange twist:

 

Afterwards, Robertson’s attorney issued a series of subpoenas in this matter and the results are revealing and alarming to say the least. First, it was disclosed that while under the care, ownership and control of Michelle Gilbert of Bryan, Texas, the horse did in fact exhibit a series of medical treatments, (i.e.) locking patella, blistering the soft tissue surrounding the stifle ligament, hock injections, stifle injections, neck injections, colic treatment and treatment for a lameness of the right front hoof and proof of preexisting medical conditions. The treatments had been performed by Dr. Cameron Stoudt of the Texas Equine Hospital, Bryan, Texas who is also a contributor to “Barrel Horse News.”,

Medical Records

 

Other evidence contributing to a preexisting medical condition for the horse is included on the Facebook social media page of Gilbert where Gilbert openly admits the horse suffered from a locking patella as well as other injuries during training. A review of Stoudt’s medical records indicate after the last medical treatment, the owner (Gilbert) was selling the horse. A recovered advertisement by Gilbert states the horse is being sold as a “broodmare-sound-only horse, but may be runable in the future.”

 

Court documents report that the horse was sold by Gilbert to Hope B. Martin for $4,500, as a broodmare-sound-only mare. In Martin’s deposition, she states she was made aware of the preexisting medical conditions for the horse but “thought it was no big deal.” A scrutiny of the deposition transcripts didn’t reveal a challenge to Martin’s statement by Robertson’s attorney as to her veterinary knowledge that is sufficient for Martin to make such a medical evaluation of soundness.

 

Subpoenaed medical records also indicate Martin, by referral of Cameron Stoudt DVM, had the horse evaluated and treated at Texas A&M Medical University for the right front hoof injury and the records indicate the horse was also suffering from a degenerating navicular bone. For the record, Dr. Stoudt injected the horse’s right front navicular bursa on March 18, 2015. Also, for the record, court documents indicate none of these pre-existing medical conditions and treatments for the horse were ever conveyed to Savannah Robertson prior to the sale of the horse by Hope B. Martin and her agent Michelle Alley.

 

Another curious impact to this lawsuit indicates there are four individuals involved with this horse: Michelle Gilbert, Hope B. Martin, Michelle Alley and Cameron Stoudt DVM. It should be noted that Dr. Cameron Stoudt is the veterinarian of record for all three owners: Michelle Gilbert, Hope B. Martin and Savannah Robertson. It should also be noted that Dr. Stoudt treated the horse for Michelle Gilbert and Hope B. Martin as well as being the veterinarian of record who conducted the pre-purchase exams for Martin and Robertson. Dr. Stout passed the horse as sound on each pre-purchase veterinary exam.

 

When the depositions and other documents were scrutinized, it was learned that the agent Michelle Alley and the owner, Hope B. Martin, were advertising the horse as “Sound and Sane,” without mentioning any preexisting medical conditions and that the horse was in training with Michelle Alley to make her a “super star.” However, while under deposition scrutiny, each one denied having any alleged videos in their possession riding, exhibiting or showing the horse due to the fact that each of their cell phones had either been lost or collapsed prior to the depositions, which required replacement phones and a total loss of data.

 

But it was determined in Michelle Alley’s deposition that she is a “professional horsewoman” who makes a living training and exhibiting barrel horses as well as boarding, brokering, buying and selling horses. Another curiosity is in Alley’s lawsuit, where her attorney refers to Alley in this matter as a “consumer” rather than an “agent or broker” for the sale of Crown and Diamonds (Cinderella). For clarification, a “consumer” is one who buys a product. An Agent is one who represents an individual in the sale of a product or sells it in their behalf. Further scrutiny revealed professionals in the business are held to a higher standard than an individual just selling a personal horse.

 

On Sept. 11, 2017, an agreed-to “Order of Dismissal with Prejudice of Certain Claims” was filed jointly by the attorneys for Alley and Robertson, which essentially states Alley is dismissing her claims against Hope Martin and Savannah Robertson “with prejudice,” and Savannah Robertson dismissed her claim against Alley “with prejudice,” which essentially means the action can’t be filed in this court or any other court after dismissal.

 

However Robertson’s claim against Hope B. Martin remains intact and the lawsuit has been realigned as Savannah Robertson (as Plaintiff) vs Hope B. Martin (as Defendant).

 

 

Is the Seller a professional?

As Equine Legal Solutions explains: “Is the seller someone who sells horses as part of their business, such as a trainer or breeder, or are they an individual horse owner who sells a horse only occasionally?  If the seller is a professional, the sale may be subject to the Uniform Commercial Code, which provides that a “warranty of merchantability” is implied in every sale by a “merchant.”  In laymen’s terms, this means when a breeder or trainer sells a riding horse, there is an implied term that the horse is sound enough to be used as a riding horse. No warranties are implied in sales by individuals. The implied warranty of merchantability can be overcome by a specific statement in the sale contract disclaiming this warranty. Note, however, that contract statements such as “As Is,” “no warranties,” or “seller disclaims all warranties” are insufficient to successfully disclaim the warranty of merchantability – the word “merchantability” must be specifically mentioned in the contract disclaimer.

Click for Alley Perf Horses>>

5-Down the Alley PerformanceHorsesClick >>

 

Read More

☛ Tommy Manion case covered by FW Star Telegram 10-13-17

Posted by on Oct 13, 2017 in BREAKING NEWS, COW HORSE NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE ABUSE, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 1 comment

MANION BB GUN SHOOTING OF HORSE COVERED BY FORT WORTH STAR TELEGRAM

Fort Worth, Texas
Oct. 13, 2017

Friday the 13th only happened twice this year, and today was Tommy Manion’s unlucky day! Not only the NCHA, Allaboutcutting.com and Quarterhorsenews.com have covered the fact that he shot his stallion with a BB gun at an NCHA-approved show and when he was suspended by the NCHA for not following their new Zero Animal Abuse policy, he sued the NCHA. But now he has  announced he has dropped all charges and accepts his penalty. The prestigious Fort Worth Star Telegram and Senior Editor Max Baker have now gotten involved, not only covering the story but publishing the video!

Click on the following link for the article and video:

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/-article178681691.html

 

Read More

☛ Tommy Manion settles with NCHA 10-13-17

Posted by on Oct 13, 2017 in BREAKING NEWS, CUTTING NEWS, HORSE ABUSE, INDUSTRY NEWS, LAWSUITS & INDICTMENTS, REINING NEWS, WHO, WHAT & WHERE | 1 comment

TOMMY MANION SETTLES LAWSUIT WITH NCHA

By Glory Ann Kurtz
Oct. 13, 2017

Due to the fact that I’m in the middle of a move, yesterday I was dreading to go to the Fort Worth Court House to attend the Tommy Manion vs NCHA lawsuit; however, Manion evidently came to his senses and realized he was in the wrong – apologizing to the NCHA in an open letter posted on the NCHA website  to the members, following a meeting with his lawyer and the NCHA on Wednesday, Oct. 11.

The case involved him shooting an unruly stallion that he brought to a cutting in Whitesboro, Texas, that he repeatedly shot in the hip with a BB gun concealed under a jacket on his arm. However, a cell-phone video taken of the entire event was sent to the NCHA and circulated among NCHA members. When they sanctioned him for animal abuse and the non-compliance with the association’s recently implemented Zero Animal Abuse policy, Manion filed a lawsuit against the NCHA.

However, it didn’t take long for him to drop the lawsuit and apologize in an open letter to NCHA officials and members that was  published on the NCHA website, realizing the evidence was overwhelming that he had violated the newly created Zero Tolerance Animal Abuse Policy of the NCHA. Besides, that the more than likely “unwinable” lawsuit was becoming very costly.

But Manion didn’t get completely off the hook for his apology, as the the settlement included the following terms of the settlement:

1.    Suspension of NCHA membership for six months beginning August 9, 2017

2.    NCHA Membership Probation for one year thereafter

3.    Fine payable to NCHA to $10,000.00

4.    Letter to the NCHA membership (which was included in yesterday’s post)

The NCHA announced they are pleased with the settlement and remains committed to its Zero Tolerance policy.

Read More