Parelli statement in re: Catwalk

Can I please ask a question?

Why is the vet's report not on an official document and why is it not overstamped? At all events, there is a need for an accident form which is not just a piece of headed paper. And to prove authenticity, the veterinary practice stamp is put on the document. Those of us unfortunate enough to have had a horse injured at an event are aware of the process and will have received a copy of formal veterinary reports, signed, stamped and lodged with competitor and organiser. Does FOTH have copy of this as well - it is needed because it will have to be used as part of their risk assessment for next year's event.

I'm sorry but to me, the veterinary report looks as though it was written after all the internet condemnation started and then post dated. The comments in it are too specific - they address the criticisms made on the internet and only those, whereas if vet had gone at the time, I would have expected a more general comment about mouth and legs (to see if there were any rope burns on the backs of the knees) and I would have expected a statement about the general demeanour of the horse - whether or not it was stressed, whether or not it had been sweating.

It's also interesting to see that the veterinary report is dated Friday 10th July - ie before all the hullaballoo started.

Having said that, I think it is a massive step forward that Mr Parelli has apologised and that he accepts the way he conducted the demonstration was perhaps not appropriate.
 
Well, that's many words that says nothing more than 'you don't understand'.

I thought it came across as quite arrogant .... I'd expect nothing less.
 
"Sorry" is the easiest word say and the most difficult word to act.

Afraid that it smacks of arrogance to me as well - the tone was set with the words "no one works harder than me"

Hmm
 
Least its an apology. One thing is for sure, if Catwalk is now perfect to bridle he could not have possibly been that extreme in the first place!! in which case why resort to such extreme measures??? If he was that extreme to bridle I do not believe the problem is sorted.
 
Does anyone know if Catwalk really has gone better in competition since this? I can't see his BSJA record and he's not on NED. The claims are that he is much better now and is performing better. Be interesting to see the proof of that.
 
If he's jumping better as a result of parelli's work thats even more worrying cause there are countless people out there that will think a quick fix as demonstrated by mr parelli the answer!!! the apology is incredibly arrogant and certainly suggests the above!!! I for one don't believe a word of it!!! but what pat has given is an apology to appease his fans and those dedicated enough will never have doubted him anyway.
 
More bull5hit ............ he's not apologising for what he did to the horse, he's apologising to those of us that were CONFUSED by what he did.........

Same old, not even worth analysing.
 
Tannis said:
"Sorry" is the easiest word say and the most difficult word to act.

Afraid that it smacks of arrogance to me as well - the tone was set with the words "no one works harder than me"

Hmm
Click to expand...

Ditto, agreed sadly.

And I'm not being deliberately awkward or 'anti parelli' about it. 'Parelli' has nothing to do with it. As I'll repeat, I understand his concepts behind 'his methods' plainly, it's really not the rocket science he makes out, I just [still] do not agree to them. An apology won't change my opinion on that matter.

Anywho, I'm all Parelli'd out now. *steps out*
 
Am I being very blonde here or at no point in that did he actually EXPLAIN why he did what he did!! He didn't tell us the reason he used those specific methods. Just an apology to us poor old unenlightened confused people who haven't chosen to see the light of parelli!! More damage control bullsh!t if you ask me.

I do wonder if he refrained from an apology video after the appalling one his wife did following the *I shall beat this half blind horse into submission* incident.
 
Of course its bull***t!!! It doesn't matter as long as people keep buying those programs and the money keeps rolling in!!!
 
I'm unconvinced for sure. As already pointing out he is apologising for the audience still being confused and not for deploying the technique involved.

I did laugh at the bit about how he would think he was making progress until Catwalk through something else at him - my pony has done that since the day he was born. Just when I think I've sussed something out he changes flamin' tactic. Doubt I'll resort to a gum line though :(
 
Makes me think even less of this man - if that is possible.
I do think the people that bring this sort of thing to the attention of others should be commended.
I could not watch a Parrelli demo as i would get angry, but others beinging these things to our attention can only helpthese poor abused equines in Parelli hands.
 
It sounds like you would prefer to eat catwalk rather than fix the problem going by the response on this and othet similar topics. Anyway I am out of her wish I hadn't bothered dropping in cya
 
sorry I cant read the letter in full, its too scrawny (like my own writing) could someone please write down what the letter actually says.

Well at least Catwalk is OK. This is all I care about now, no longer getting involved *step out but will still lurk in the hope someone puts what letter says* :)
 
All I read was blablablablablabla, I am sorry you are all to stupid to understand me, you must remember I am the GREATEST horseman in world, blablablablablablablablabla, you don't understand, blablablablablablabla and then a "vet report" there is unreadeble and NOT on official paper.
 
Abay said:
then a "vet report" there is unreadeble and NOT on official paper.
Click to expand...

That's my point - it's not official, it's not overstamped and it says it was done the night of the demonstration but it addresses only those points where Mr Parelli has been criticised - ie alleged mouth injuries.

Why didn't it comment on the whole horse? Were there any injuries to the legs? Was the horse exciteable?

If there have been complaints of inappropriate behaviour towards a horse, and the vet examines it at the time and writes a report, why does that report only mention the horse's mouth?
 
bay_beasty said:
sorry I cant read the letter in full, its too scrawny (like my own writing) could someone please write down what the letter actually says.
Click to expand...

Ditto this - I can't understand what it says.

I think the best way for Parelli to have the vet matter resolved would be for them to ask the BHS and the vet who acted in accordance with them, to independently publish that vets findings.

As for his statement, I am a bit confused as to why he has chosen that medium to show a letter - it just makes me suspicious that he doesn't trust a youtube video of him talking not to show a difference in sincerity between his body language and the words (not that I really believe this is the case). Surely a post on the parelli website, blog or whatever would be sufficient for text, rather than going to a video?

Passive persistance - whilst I can see why he is saying its passive - i.e that no video evidence shows him yanking on the gum line or yanking on the rope - i don't think that makes his methods right.

It would also be passive persistance to tie a horse up by a thread of wire through his mouth, and let him react fearfully to a stimulus, and lacerate his tongue. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
I wasn't and probebly still am not anti Parelli. I just didn't think that the scheme was necessary in my life. But each to their own. I do however think what he did last Friday was unaccaptable.

In my view that letter is pointless. There is still no explanation of why he did what he did. The methodology behind it.

Also I believe the BHS more than him in that the vet said he wasn't to be used for more demos (which by the way, on the Parelli site it says he WAS due to be used in).
 
galaxy23 said:
Also I believe the BHS more than him in that the vet said he wasn't to be used for more demos (which by the way, on the Parelli site it says he WAS due to be used in).
Click to expand...

Thats interesting, I thought I had read that. Is it still up there, or can any clever computery people (Is JavaJane still around?) retrieve it?
 
Tannis said:
That's my point - it's not official, it's not overstamped and it says it was done the night of the demonstration but it addresses only those points where Mr Parelli has been criticised - ie alleged mouth injuries.

Why didn't it comment on the whole horse? Were there any injuries to the legs? Was the horse exciteable?

If there have been complaints of inappropriate behaviour towards a horse, and the vet examines it at the time and writes a report, why does that report only mention the horse's mouth?
Click to expand...


I don't think we will ever now that. But I do hope, if the vet did not himself write that,I hope he will be doing something about it, be course I think that will be classed as interpretation of a professional, is that not against the law.

I do now, If my vet made a report, starting To whom it might concern and not to me, I would be rather Peed, especially if it was on some random bit of paper.
 
If you pause the video and then use the zoom control on your browser, you can just about read it.

I would type in what I can see but the writing is pretty unreadable.
 
I think this what the letter says - punctuation and capitals as shown:




10th July 2010

To whom it may concern

Details of Equine

NAME Catwalk IV
102ww23 (not sure about the ww - it looks like that)

Passport number this has been blurred out and is unreadable
Passport issuer this has been blurred out and is unreadable

Sex STALLION
Birth Date 22.05.2003

This is to certify that I have examined the mouth of the above Stallion at 11.00 am today. There were no clinical signs of inflammation on (or it could be "or") , word unreadable , word unreadable along the 2 unreadable words of the mouth, especially the word unreadable.

There was no evidence that the said Stallion was suffering or its welfare compromised by my(this is then crossed out) what I found in my clinical examination.

Signed

Signature is unreadable

then the name is printed and it looks like CLIVE A MASETROS

BVetMed
MRCVS followed by something unreadable
(Chief Vet Officer RFOTH)




Can the Chief Veterinary Officer for the organiser be classified as being an independent vet as claimed in the apology?
 
Right, I'll give it a bash .....

This is to certify that I have examined the mouth of the above stallion today at 11:00am (letter dated 10/7/10). There were no clinical signs of inflammation or pain along the ??? - ??? function of the mouth, especially the ???. There was no ??? that the said stallion was suffering or it's welfare compromised by what I found on my clinical examination.

Signed Clive A M?????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top