Re: UAE/AERC (my final stupid remarks)

[CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com]

In a message dated Wed, 28 Mar 2001  1:40:58 AM Eastern Standard Time, Howard4567 writes:

<< What I meant was PERCEPTION.  When businesses sponsor events, of course, there's nothing wrong with that.  It's clear why they are doing what they're doing.  To help sell their product.    With the UAE, it's not clear.  At least not to me.  What I was trying to say was if it's not clear why they're sponsoring the FEI sanctioning of our National Championship, then there is the perception, by some, that something's not right.  And some might wonder why the UAE would do such a thing.  What's the motive?        If one entity pours tons of money into something, don't you think there might be strings attached?  The rich (like I would know) don't throw money around just to make others happy.  They, usually, have their own agenda.    And when they compete in the same sport where they are sponsoring large sums of cash, might there not be a conflict of interest there?  >>

Sounds to me like you could insert "Jerry and Larry" where you are saying "UAE" and be talking about exactly the same thing.  What's the difference??  Jerry and Larry's wife Val are both strong competitors in this sport.  You bet your sweet bippy they have an "agenda"--to see the sport survive and thrive, so they have somewhere to compete!  Same "agenda" that the UAE has.  So one more time--what's the big difference here??  Someone could just as easily holler "foul" to Jerry's and Larry's money if anyone thinks the sport is being bought.  But I don't think they can buy the sport, and I don't think the UAE can, either.  Everyone is lauding Jerry and Larry (myself included) for their donations.  The point that seems to be missed here is that the UAE donation is exactly the same thing as Jerry's and Larry's donations--with exactly the same "agenda."  And we were fools to turn it down, just as we would have been fools if we had told Jerry and Larry to take a hike.  The obvious "ag!
enda" here does not make the don
ation wrong--it would only be wrong if there was any impropriety attached to the donation, such as attempts to micromanage the ride in one person's or country's favor.  Not one single solitary soul has come up with ANY hint of ANY such behavior regarding the thwarted UAE donation.  And from my own small dealings with managing a Pan-American Championship that included a UAE donation, I don't think anyone will be able to find any such impropriety--because it isn't there.  It was offered for the same reason that Larry and Jerry offered sponsorship--we took it from one source and turned our noses up at the other.

As to perception--if a person has a slanted view of something, it is often more the fault of that person's own biases, rather than of any impropriety.  Time a few folks figured that out.

Heidi