IntNewsGroup: What's Best for Athletes and Equestrian Sport: A Public Debate from USET

["Lori & Rick Stewart" <rk-ld.stewart@usa.net>]

Contact:	Armand Leone, Jr., USET, 201-444-6444, armand@drleone.com
		Robert Standish, USET, phone, email
	Alex Samuelson, Rubenstein Associates, 212-843-8286,


January 25, 2001

What's Best for Athletes and Equestrian Sport: A Public Debate

From the USET SPI Steering Committee (Armand Leone, Jr. and Robert Standish)

To the Equestrian Community:

Once again, the process of debate in the current Strategic Planning
Initiative (SPI) has been brought to the public with angry and misleading
statements.

Because of this, the USET is now asking our AHSA colleagues to desist in
spreading dissention in the equestrian world with its continued "news"
divisive releases.  We believe these missives only drive our two
organizations further apart in trying to hash out an agreement that best
serves equestrian sports and the athletes who dedicate themselves to
excellence.

We pledge to operate in the spirit of the SPI as the USOC requested and
continue the dialogue between the two organizations.  There are appropriate
venues to solicit comments from athletes, affiliate organizations and our
Boards.  We will not proactively release news updates until the plans are
before the USOC.

Our request stated, the USET Steering Committee feels it is in the best
interest of equestrian sport and our athletes to correct some published
misstatements.

1) The USET believes that ultimately we all must work together. The USET has
but one goal only: To serve U.S. equestrian athletes.  We are not
confrontational.  If we bring a proposal to the fore, to be considered and
debated by active athletes, Trustees and Directors, what is confrontational
about that?  The AHSA is free to disagree with our proposal, but is not
right in claiming we are ramming our views through with no discussion.
Further, it is important to note that the USET proposal has not "changed
every time," but is consistent with our first presentation.  We have had
extensive discussions with all the various constituencies. The SPI asked for
an open debate-the AHSA should welcome the same.

2) The AHSA asserts that the USET Board should not have voted on the plans
on January 22, 2001.  As per the January 9 SPI meeting, the SPI Task Force
was not to vote on one plan or the other, but there was no ban or agreement
on an organizational Board vote.  After our presentation, the athletes
present (and listening on a conference call) expressed their enthusiastic
support for the proposal and their faith in the USET as NGB.  Upon hearing
this, a Trustee asked the athletes for their vote on the matter. The
athletes overwhelmingly approved the USET plan.  (In fact, Olympic
discipline athletes were unanimous in their assent.)  Only after this
decisive endorsement, did a Trustee call for a full Board vote.  That is
what happened on January 22.  The USET did not vote to end the SPI.

3) Additional functions to be assumed by the new entity, USA Equestrian,
will be amply funded through dues and fees almost identical to what
currently exists from the AHSA for the same services; such as passports,
international competition applications, and competition dues for "protected
competitions."  There are also other, more significant sources of revenue
such as sponsorship and/or licensing fees from rights to National
Championships that will be possible if the USET is designated the NGB that
will directly benefit athlete programs and championships. It is also worth
noting that the AHSA has yet to provide any financial plan or dues structure
for how they propose to fund a merger organization taking on many more
expensive programs and responsibilities that the USET has done successfully
for 50 years.

4) If USET was to merge with AHSA there is absolutely no reason to assume
the USET's staff, supporters and sponsors would immediately switch
allegiance to a new organization.  They very well may for the good of the
sport, but there's no guarantee.  The USET plan however, guarantees the
continuity of sponsorship and athlete funding and training.  It's simpler
and smarter.

Logic and economic prudence dictate the USET should be NGB.

** The USET has raised funds for and administered the training, selection,
coaching and sending of U.S. athletes competing in the internationally
recognized disciplines to the Olympic Games, the World Championships and
other International Equestrian competitions for more than 50 years. The
result has been a multiplicity of Olympic medals in equestrian events.
** Both organizations' assets, infrastructure and boards continue to exist.
** The USET Bylaws comply with USOC requirements for NGB.
** Athletes recognize USET as the organization that addresses their needs.
** The USET as NGB will ensure the continuity of the athletes' programs.
** The USET has facilities and well-trained staff presently up and running
** Lower transaction costs resulting from this solution and resultant NGB
structure allow more funding to support the athletes.

We hope it will not be necessary to publicly defend ourselves again, but
will to further our core efforts of serving equestrian sport.

For more information and specifics on the USET plan, please go to our Web
site, www.uset.org.


(This letter is open for publication)


___________________________________
The information contained in this eMail is confidential; it is intended only
for the use of the individual or entity named above.  If the reader of this
message is not the intended recipient, you are notified that any
dissemination, distribution or use of this information is strictly
prohibited.  If you have received this communication in error, please
contact us immediately at the telephone number or email address set forth
above.  Although this eMail is believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might affect any computer system in which it is received, it is
the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free;
Rubenstein accepts no responsibility for any loss or damage arising in any
way from its use.