Neymar Romeo

[jay2bee]

Lost my old log in before I'm accused of being a troll... anyway

Has anyone seen this brewing drama regarding a horse called Neymar Romeo. They've made an FB profile here.

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100068190986543

I have no prior knowledge of Nancy Spencer-Jones, but the owners/supporters (?) of this horse are now campaigning to strip her of her BHS accreditations. This makes me so uncomfortable, none of us can surely know the full story, so to try and ruin someone's life just makes me feel terrible for her..

"
My name was Romeo (Neymar) and this is my story :
I wasn’t even 3yo when I was purchased as a just backed horse by Laura Spencer Jones and her mother Nancy Spencer Jones (NSJ Equestrian - BHS Gold member and accredited coach). They took me to a livery yard. In the first week I get scared as Laura was riding me and she fell of and broke her arm. I was then sent to a private yard to be ridden by a professional dressage rider. I was loved and really kind to the people there but still too scared to be ridden so I was lunged, long reined, and out in the field. 3 weeks later the lorry of my owners arrived at the yard. I have heard a lot of shouting and people getting angry. Then I have been led to get in the lorry. After 30 minutes of travelling I arrived in a vet clinic and been led in a stable. My owner Nancy Spencer Jones didn’t even touch me or say a word and left. The last thing I have seen of this world was a cold room where I died surrounded by people I didn’t know. »
This might be what Romeo could say if he was alive and able to talk. Unfortunately Romeo was a very immature not even 3yo horse purchased by the wrong person who expected him to be as they wanted. But he was just a baby who get scared and confused. He needed time & love to grow up and understand what he was supposed to do.
Unfortunately for him, his ex owner didn’t have time for that so the horse had to be put down without any prior vet check.
The people running the second yard tried to save him because he had the most gentle nature and because a horse is not a machine that you can « destroy » because he is not meeting your expectations. They have advised the owners to give him time in the field or to send him to a horse whisperer. The owners said that they would not spend any more money on this horse. Then they offered a week of free livery so the vet can check him, they said no. Then they offered to buy Romeo for £4,000.
At that point the owners might understood that the people running the yard really cared about Romeo so the blackmailing started. £10,000 and Romeo will leave, otherwise he will be « destroyed » at the yard. The people who are running the yard said that they will refuse the access to the vet if it is to put down Romeo. Nancy Spencer Jones said on the phone that she will jump the gate and shoot Romeo in the yard leaving his body until the following day. The owners of the yard informed her by letter that she was reported to the police. So Laura Spencer Jones informed via letter that the horse will be collected the 24th of May by her mum Nancy Spencer Jones.
When Romeo has been collected by Nancy Spencer Jones, her brother and Jan Burns, a massive argument happened in the car park as the owners of the yard tried to make her change her mind, offering again £4,000. It was finally said that Romeo was going to another yard so Romeo left with Nancy, her brother and Jan.
However, the owners of the yard mis believed them so they drove directly to the vet who was originally booked to put down Romeo at the yard. When they arrived they were relieved that Nancy’s lorry wasn’t there but they decided to wait. Sadly, 10 minutes later the lorry arrived with Romeo in. Another massive argument happened, the same money has been offered and this is what you can hear in the record « 10k£ and he lives, 10k£ and he lives, pay it, pay it ». Then the security of the vet clinic kicked out the yard’s owners saying that even if it is a sad situation, the legal owner of the horse is entitled to have him put down for any reason. 2 other members of the last yard arrived and begged the office to see the vet in charge. The vet in charge took them to a meeting room, they explained again the situation, same answer from the vet. They have seen one last time Romeo through the window as he was led by a bunch of apprentice holding the lethal injection to the room where he will meet death. They fell into tears, begged the vet to let one of them be with Romeo until the end so at least he will leave this world with someone he knew, but that was also rejected by the vet.
The heartbreaking and shocking story of Romeo is unfortunately not unique and reveals not only the cruelty of Laura Spencer Jones and her mum Nancy Spencer Jones, but also the lack of morality of this society who legally allows people to treat animals like toasters. Charities have been asked for help to try to stop Laura and Nancy Spencer Jones, same answer every time « legally it is not a welfare case or abuse ». If putting down a healthy young horse because you can’t ride him 4 weeks after the purchase is not abusive or a question of welfare what is it ?
If you think that this is wrong, please share this post to show that you are standing up against this kind of disgusting behaviour and against the legal treatment of it.
Please don’t leave down Romeo and all the horses who suffered the same treatment. Don’t let them be forgotten.
R.I.P Romeo we will remember you
"

 

[9tails]

I'm sure there's a lot more to this story than the account on Facebook. It seems callous to PTS though.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

We definitely don't know the full story. The counter appears to be that the original owners, (who are pros), deemed the horse to be dangerous and wanted to PTS once the 2nd yard could not ride the horse either. Yard 2 wanted to buy him. They offered 10K or PTS to ensure that Yard 2 was not planning to buy cheap to sell on. It would have been better business sense to just take the 4K rather than lose it all so that rings true to me. But there is clearly a lot more to the story than meets the eye.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

Also I heartily agree that the witchhunt is wrong.

 

[ester]

I thought similar when I read it yesterday AE, it was on the dodgy dealer sites and I was reading the comments going hang on, we also complain when people don't do the responsible thing for their horses and end up on the dealer roundabout injuring a few people on the way.

I rather felt for the vets! Impressed they had 'security'

 

[Ample Prosecco]

I thought similar when I read it yesterday AE, it was on the dodgy dealer sites and I was reading the comments going hang on, we also complain when people don't do the responsible thing for their horses and end up on the dealer roundabout injuring a few people on the way.

I rather felt for the vets! Impressed they had 'security'

Yup there would have been an outcry against the owners if they sold cheap instead of securing his future, They couldn't win really.

 

[Roxylola]

I have seen it. Whomever wrote it has clearly been significantly emotionally affected by the situation - the account is highly emotive but for me it lacks facts and reads like someone with a grudge - and possibly without full understanding themselves.
Ultimately my personal opinion is that there are much worse things that can happen to a horse than death and at least the horse is not in pain or other suffering.
I don't know why anyone would rather turn down money and pay to pts unless it was for welfare - either because the horse was suffering or would soon be, or because they doubted that the person offering the money had the means/knowledge/understanding to care for the horse in the long run.
There's no screenshots or evidence of any wrong doing so personally it just looks like someone with some grudge to me

 

[jay2bee]

There are screenshots back and forth of the conversations between the two parties. I think the unfortunate text is when the Spencer-Jones family basically say we want 10k or it's getting destroyed. If they deem the horse dangerous and wanted to do the right thing and take it out of the market, then no amount of money should be swaying that. But again, that's me coming to that conclusion from screenshots of partial messages.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

There is the screenshot with original owners asking it they could have a reduction on the schooling livery fee at a the pro dressage yard where the horse was sent as the horse could not be ridden. They were turned down by yard 2 which is fair enough - after all it's a business! But that does not really ring true with the "£4k for this horse we adore and want to love forever narrative'. And suggests that they were prepared to give the horse a bit more time ut not at a cost of hundreds of ££££ every week. At the end of the day they are pros trying to make a living. What do you do with a horse you can't or won't sell who is costing a fortune to keep going?

I can quite see how they would offer 10k to that yard assuming that if they acceot it they are doing it for the love of the horse and not to make money. And that those on the yard (a pro schooling yard) could manage the horse - or at least know that they couldn't. But that a 4k offer would not ensure that at all and was therefore rejected. Which is actually very responsible.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

There are screenshots back and forth of the conversations between the two parties. I think the unfortunate text is when the Spencer-Jones family basically say we want 10k or it's getting destroyed. If they deem the horse dangerous and wanted to do the right thing and take it out of the market, then no amount of money should be swaying that. But again, that's me coming to that conclusion from screenshots of partial messages.

I agree with this as the text is crystal clear SJ's are saying give us 10,000 and you can have him if not he is being shot. And of course there is another side to every story, but that text message alone raises huge alarm bells to me.

I do wonder if the only way the SJ's could recoup losses and the horses full market value was via a death payout from their insurers, had the horse lost value due to issues and owners knew he would not be worth a fraction of his initial insured valuation if they tried to sell on. But they would have to be able to have a vet back up the decision to PTS as the only humane alternative to whatever might or might not have been wrong with this horse.

I have known unscrupulous vets who have aid and abetted in this sort of scenario, so not entirely impossible this was the background, but only based on my own musings on possible reasoning by the owners.

 

[9tails]

It seems to me like a con cooked up by the original owner and the schooling livery. The horse was bought for £15k apparently and they offered £4k, having already told the SJs that the horse needed to be off the property by the following Friday due to extensive damage done by the horse.

 

[Ample Prosecco]

So the horse was being kicked off the yard that 'adored him' and wanted to buy him? Riiiight.

That is more support that they wanted the horse cheap to sell on. They refused to reduce the livery fee. Instead they evicted the horse and then made a low offer. I tend to believe that the SJ's were quite right to say no.

Not sure whose written the emotive post. Sounds like a young person who probably has no idea of the shenanigans going on around her.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

Definitely seems there’s more to the story and I don’t think the highly emotive way they wrote the post has done them many favours, although given the traction it seems to be getting on Facebook perhaps I’m wrong.

I don’t know any of the parties and admittedly have only given a cursory glance to the posts and comments on Facebook, but personally I feel so often we see owners pounced on for passing on a problem and risking the horse falling into the wrong hands, yet here for some reason folks are falling over themselves to start a witch-hunt because the owner did just that. I fail to understand how anyone thinks money was a motivating factor when they turned down £4k.

Those harping on about insurance payouts have clearly never found themselves having to choose between the horse’s welfare and meeting BEVA guidelines. If my not even field sound 5yo with career ending injuries couldn’t make the cut for a payout I sincerely doubt a horse allegedly PTS for no reason but convenience will.

 

[9tails]

Yes, FF, many people have absolutely no idea how insurance works.

 

[AShetlandBitMeOnce]

Those harping on about insurance payouts have clearly never found themselves having to choose between the horse’s welfare and meeting BEVA guidelines. If my not even field sound 5yo with career ending injuries couldn’t make the cut for a payout I sincerely doubt a horse allegedly PTS for no reason but convenience will.

They couldn't have been chasing a LOU payout could they? As if the horse was just backed then he wouldn't have been able to be performing as a level where he could lose his 'use'? I may be wrong in my understanding of it there though.

I did see this in FB and I couldn't make head nor tails of what exactly was going on, it seems a lot of bashing over a horse that met a humane end for whatever reason. Someone who owns livestock can do as they wish; if the above interpretation of the story are right I would also agree that they did the responsible thing.

 

[FestiveFuzz]

Yes, FF, many people have absolutely no idea how insurance works.

Quite! I had two supporting letters for PTS, including one from a world leading specialist in that field and still the insurers argued that we hadn’t met BEVA guidelines. Of course we PTS anyway as I couldn’t in good conscience keep her in pain but it is surprisingly hard to meet the requirements for a mortality payout.

 

[eggs]

I stumbled across this on Facebook and found the whole thread rather disturbing. There is now a witch hunt to name and shame the vet ....

I very much doubt it was an insurance scam as BEVA guidelines are very strict. I had my mare pts at home when she had a catastrophic kick in the field knowing that I wouldn't get a payout as I could have travelled over an hour to the RVC for an operation which had a very, very poor prognosis. If I had done that and she was then pts I would have received a payout.

There are definitely two sides to this story.

 

[9tails]

Could this be something closer to the truth?

 

[FestiveFuzz]

They couldn't have been chasing a LOU payout could they? As if the horse was just backed then he wouldn't have been able to be performing as a level where he could lose his 'use'? I may be wrong in my understanding of it there though.

I did see this in FB and I couldn't make head nor tails of what exactly was going on, it seems a lot of bashing over a horse that met a humane end for whatever reason. Someone who owns livestock can do as they wish; if the above interpretation of the story are right I would also agree that they did the responsible thing.

Exactly! I joked “if only we’d had LOU” when we were dealing with the 5yo and the insurer told us it wouldn’t have been much use as she was newly backed so we hadn’t lost much in the way of “use” and LOU doesn’t cover for future potential. Sure we’d maybe have got something eventually but it certainly wouldn’t have been a lucrative money making scheme.

 

[ester]

I can see that they perhaps intend to take the original seller to small claims, though they wouldn't have necessarily have PTS to do that. But that would make it not a well 4k is better than nothing situation.

 

[hoofprints1994]

Based on what I've seen, I think the summary by Shannon on the Facebook post hits the nail on the head!

It is a very sad story and as always, I feel the horse has been terribly let down, mostly by the original seller. I wish these horses were given the time they need to mentally and physically mature before they are backed (seems he was only a rising 3yo) and then maybe these situations would be avoided. He should have had vet investigations and time back in the field to mature at least, but it sounds like the facilities to do this just weren't accessible if he had become dangerous to handle. I'm not sure anyone would make the decision to PTS a 15k horse lightly. My gut feeling is that they made a responsible decision in PTS this horse, though it is sad that possibly more could have been done to give him a chance given his age. But ultimately, better he was simply PTS than ending up as one of these unfortunate ones, passed around because of issues, until someone unwittingly eventually gets injured or killed.

I have to add I have known both the SJ's as acquaintances and always considered Laura to be a lovely young person who loves her horses. Her mother is *very* experienced and capable so I found the whole thing very bizarre and feel the social media witch hunt against them is completely out of order (as it always is) and the whole thing is mostly a very poor reflection on the stud/individuals who made the group and post, regardless of how heartbroken they were at the outcome for the horse. What a mess.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Those harping on about insurance payouts have clearly never found themselves having to choose between the horse’s welfare and meeting BEVA guidelines. If my not even field sound 5yo with career ending injuries couldn’t make the cut for a payout I sincerely doubt a horse allegedly PTS for no reason but convenience will.

I was one of the people 'harping on' about insurance - actually I did not 'harp' but minor detail. I was not referring to a LOU payment either, purely the PTS scenario.

I put forward another theory that could be possible. Yes I know full well how insurance payouts work for LOU or death, and have kept horses to the end of their natural life despite I could genuinely have asked vet to PTS well within the guidelines required to claim an insurance payout. And one in particular was a very young horse, but lived another 6 relatively pain free but very happy years as a beautiful field ornament, obviously with no further insurance cover due to the reason he fell within the insurers uninsurable guide lines by then.

I have others that I have PTS with vets agreement when both my vet and myself deemed their further suffering, whatever their age. was not acceptable. One of those was not insured, the other was and yes I got full death payout.

I fail to understand how anyone thinks money was a motivating factor when they turned down £4k.

I fail to see how anyone would NOT question the money side of things when the owners very clearly offered the horse for sale for 10,000 or it would be PTS if the offer was only €4,000 from someone offering to buy.

So obviously the owner was NOT doing the correct and proper thing by the horse with PTS or they would not have offered to sell it for 10,000 instead, so they weren't bothered either way about its future. Obviously I question the reasons behind that very odd decision by the owner, i.e if you give me enough money you can have him, if you don't I am killing him. The text of the message was very clear to read and understand.

Hence my own thoughts that possibly the only thing that would explain that odd decision by the owner, it can live for 10,000 but will die if only 4,000 is on the table, could be insurance payout related?

I am certainly not part of any 'witch hunt' I have read all the FB content and have not commented, I am merely giving my opinion of one possible reason behind this very variable and mixed story. I doubt any of us on here or anywhere else will ever know the truth behind the full story.

If nobody thinks a vet is capable of colluding with a client to defraud and insurance company, or defraud potential buyers, or collude with extremely dodgy dealers you are either very naïve or just happen to have never read any newspaper or other media reports of vets being prosecuted for one of the above. There are several incidents in recent years, so even people younger and not so long in the horse world must surely be aware? Bad eggs in every profession.

 

[Tiddlypom]

Mrs J, have I misunderstood? You had a horse who met the BEVA guidelines for PTS but who you kept for another 6 years?

 

[Roxylola]

Mrs J the BEVA guidelines to PTS are brutal. I'd never ever let my horse suffer to the degree that would be needed to obtain an insurance payout. Its honestly barbaric. PTS on welfare grounds is very different.
I'm not saying there aren't dodgy vets etc but to get a payout for PTS they have to be literally crippled to the point they are skin and bone and won't even eat. No way on a £15k payout not in an emergency would an insurance company just take the vet's word for it, they'd verify it without a doubt.
What you suggest isn't utterly impossible, but highly improbable and very unlikely

 

[FestiveFuzz]

I was one of the people 'harping on' about insurance - actually I did not 'harp' but minor detail. I was not referring to a LOU payment either, purely the PTS scenario.

I put forward another theory that could be possible. Yes I know full well how insurance payouts work for LOU or death, and have kept horses to the end of their natural life despite I could genuinely have asked vet to PTS well within the guidelines required to claim an insurance payout. And one in particular was a very young horse, but lived another 6 relatively pain free but very happy years as a beautiful field ornament, obviously with no further insurance cover due to the reason he fell within the insurers uninsurable guide lines by then.

I have others that I have PTS with vets agreement when both my vet and myself deemed their further suffering, whatever their age. was not acceptable. One of those was not insured, the other was and yes I got full death payout.



I fail to see how anyone would NOT question the money side of things when the owners very clearly offered the horse for sale for 10,000 or it would be PTS if the offer was only €4,000 from someone offering to buy.

So obviously the owner was NOT doing the correct and proper thing by the horse with PTS or they would not have offered to sell it for 10,000 instead, so they weren't bothered either way about its future. Obviously I question the reasons behind that very odd decision by the owner, i.e if you give me enough money you can have him, if you don't I am killing him. The text of the message was very clear to read and understand.

Hence my own thoughts that possibly the only thing that would explain that odd decision by the owner, it can live for 10,000 but will die if only 4,000 is on the table, could be insurance payout related?

I am certainly not part of any 'witch hunt' I have read all the FB content and have not commented, I am merely giving my opinion of one possible reason behind this very variable and mixed story. I doubt any of us on here or anywhere else will ever know the truth behind the full story.

If nobody thinks a vet is capable of colluding with a client to defraud and insurance company, or defraud potential buyers, or collude with extremely dodgy dealers you are either very naïve or just happen to have never read any newspaper or other media reports of vets being prosecuted for one of the above. There are several incidents in recent years, so even people younger and not so long in the horse world must surely be aware? Bad eggs in every profession.

Erm my mention of those “harping on” was in reference to many comments of that ilk on Facebook so not quite sure why you’ve decided to take it so personally.

I guess I interpreted the offer to sell for £10k differently, as I took it to be an attempt to make the horse less appealing to someone hoping to make £££ by buying a £15k horse for £4k and then selling on. If the owner did purchase the horse for £15k as mentioned in posts on Facebook they’d still be making a sizeable loss even if they had sold for £10k especially when you consider the costs of schooling livery etc.

I’m absolutely not implying there’s not unscrupulous folks in any profession, but I suspect it happens a lot less than is being suggested by folks with regard to this situation.

 

[sugarplum18]

I too have seen this post on Facebook, and I'm inclined by how people think insurance claim was the motive, having a claim for loss of use is so hard, everyone knows insurers avoid paying out where ever possible so if the original post is correct and there was nothing medically wrong with the horse; a claim would be almost impossible.

I do think the post is very one sided and there are key facts missing from the original post which keep being deleted within the comments - why is this? There was a long comment from the opposing side with screenshots of them clearly saying they are struggling to find some where suitable for the horse and could it be kept for longer period of time, in which the Facebook response from 'Romeo' was very disappointing nothing that was claimed from the opposing side was actually denied, just basically told the lady to go back and speak to her friends and that she ('Romeo') was not willing to comment back anymore - makes you question. (I cannot seem to find this again though, so think possibly another deleted comment)

I do think there was a vendetta against Laura and Nancy for some unknown reason, I do believe Laura and Nancy thought they were doing the best thing to stop the horse being sold on, I read it as they were willing to accept £10k and not a low offer as this would make it nearly impossible to sell on, who would buy a dangerous horse for £10k?

 

[9tails]

I think this thread has shown two unscrupulous horse folks, the original seller and the schooling livery that wanted the horse off the yard but then offered £4k. I reckon the SJs may have sold for £4k if they hadn't been threatened with eviction of a horse that would be very difficult to get onto another livery yard.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Mrs J, have I misunderstood? You had a horse who met the BEVA guidelines for PTS but who you kept for another 6 years?

Ah there you are Tiddlypom - what a nice surprise! And how is your head today? Seeing as you have previously shown such interest in my recovery from my brain injury, just to update you and keep you in the loop, I am delighted to tell you I am functioning better and better as the months go by.

Yes exactly that - for your consideration and dissection of detail here are the basics, so you can back at me in your normal manner. Nearly 25 years ago when I happened to be living in the Uk and insured with NFU.

6 year old American Quarter horse broke a leg in an horrific field accident- probably from a kick from another horse.......my long term vet who also did a 5 stage on him for me on purchase as a 5 year old. Vet arrived within 10 minutes and immediate thoughts were PTS and offered to contact my insurers for me then and there to inform them of his opinion under guidelines he would immediately PTS for all the right reasons. I asked if he thought there was any small chance for the horse recovering enough to be field sound, could we get the horse pain free enough to at least try.

He reluctantly agreed to give it a go with a time limit of 3 weeks, with the proviso if the horse was at anytime suffering intolerable pain that he was not able to control, we would then PTS. Long story short a good 6 months of very careful nursing and box rest he did become sound enough to be pain free in the field, albeit with a limp, but could still do a rather inelegant wobbly canter with the best of them. I was happy with that, he was a very sweet natured young horse and was a good baby horse minder for foals coming off the mares. Unfortunately a few years later the hock on the broken leg degenerated rapidly and the decision was taken to PTS as that leg was obviously already compromised to a certain extent and it would have been very difficult to keep him pain free without massive medication.

So yes horse was then PTS several years after original accident and obviously no payout as he was no longer insured and hadn't been since that original broken leg had been excluded from the insurance for obvious reasons.

Thank you for reading. If this does not meet with your approval of my narrative relating to MY experience, please fell free to comment as you see fit.

 

[Mrs. Jingle]

Mrs J the BEVA guidelines to PTS are brutal. I'd never ever let my horse suffer to the degree that would be needed to obtain an insurance payout. Its honestly barbaric. PTS on welfare grounds is very different.
I'm not saying there aren't dodgy vets etc but to get a payout for PTS they have to be literally crippled to the point they are skin and bone and won't even eat. No way on a £15k payout not in an emergency would an insurance company just take the vet's word for it, they'd verify it without a doubt.
What you suggest isn't utterly impossible, but highly improbable and very unlikely

Erm.....so I am lying then? Please see my response to your friend above. thank you.

 

[digitalangel]

Hello HHOERS ! Long time no see . I’m just here for the popcorn

just kidding , I am here because this story is everywhere and it really resonated witg me over the horse Damian who I had PTS . I received such lovely support from the forum members at the time . I had to sadly pts a healthy horse because he was a danger to himself and others and like
This guy had caused considerable damage and also couldn’t be kept on the field he would jump out and bolt down the road.

I don’t like the original post way too emotive . I didn’t like the texts I saw from whoever thomas was . A 2 year old should never be sold as a ridden horse . Bad form for the seller and worse things can happen to the horse than death .