[QUOTE=comingback;8302498]
Here is a link to the ruling that mentions an agreement the federation reached with regarding the improper execution of entry blanks. https://www.usef.org/documents/rules/HearingCommittee/2013/OctoberRulings.pdf
The irony is SS is in that month’s ruling too :)[/QUOTE]
Where is the irony?
[QUOTE=comingback;8302498]
Here is a link to the ruling that mentions an agreement the federation reached with regarding the improper execution of entry blanks. https://www.usef.org/documents/rules/HearingCommittee/2013/OctoberRulings.pdf
The irony is SS is in that month’s ruling too :)[/QUOTE]
Where is the irony?
But then SR made a comment about BC having access to the medication trunk. Well why should that concern him if there is nothing illegal in there?
[QUOTE=dp1092;8302300]
Is Mama Colvin there in-disguise to watch her beloved Tori?[/QUOTE]
That was unnecessary. You make “her beloved Tori” sound like a dirty or underhanded emotion. Mothers of every species fight for thir kids and love them. I would hope that Tori is “beloved” by her mother. She needs someone on her side. Everyone else is running away like rats on a sinking ship.
She has been set down for what she may or may not have done. I personally believe that the Parker/Rivett side had a lot more reason to win than Tori did, and the allegations (and inferences) that Brigid gave Tori’s horse an IV drug on the way to the ring with the groom standing right there and other people walking around seems ludicrous to me.
Do you have the slightest reason to insinuate that Brigid would try to get into the showgrounds? If you do, feel free to offer it up as a reason for such a mean spirited comment.
But, whichever side you believe, I think your post was totally unnessary and shows more about your character than it does of Brigid’s.
[QUOTE=Mardi;8302448]
Thank you for the correction. When I read “gopher” in the transcript it was very funny, and I understood that it was a phonetic spelling used by the court reporter (many other phonetic spellings were also used, and some were indiscernible as to their true meaning). As a writer, university English major, and over 35 years in corporate America, I’ve never seen the term spelled as “gopher” by anyone, don’t know anyone that would spell it that way, and didn’t know it even existed, other than the animal. Now I know better. Thank you for the spelling lesson and taking the time to look it up in numerous references !
I stand corrected.[/QUOTE]
snerk
But seriously, that was not as funny as the line where BC balled her eyes out.
[QUOTE=busylady;8302504]
Where is the irony?[/QUOTE]
My apologies. I thought I was helping to give some information regarding someone else signing as trainer for Heritage’s entries. Scott Stewart was fined for a drug infraction that same month and it’s in the same document.
I thought that was ironic since he is included in some of the discussion happening in this thread.
ETA: here is the Chronicle’s report on this as well: http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/top-trainers-respond-tough-usef-penalties
Wow.
If this country’s (arguably) best combination of bankroll, trainers, horseflesh, and rider talent still feels the need to drug, then what the devil are the rest of us doing here? It essentially proves that the current hunter ideal is, in fact, unachievable.
[QUOTE=GypsyQ;8302516]
Wow.
If this country’s (arguably) best combination of bankroll, trainers, horseflesh, and rider talent still feels the need to drug, then what the devil are the rest of us doing here? It essentially proves that the current hunter ideal is, in fact, unachievable.[/QUOTE]
That is my take away too…
Agreed, you know someone will step up and lease whatever horse Andre has for her for the finals if Betsee pulled the plug. But Betsee also likes win photos, so I would think the horses are staying with Tori.
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8302509]
That was unnecessary. You make “her beloved Tori” sound like a dirty or underhanded emotion. Mothers of every species fight for thir kids and love them. I would hope that Tori is “beloved” by her mother. She needs someone on her side. Everyone else is running away like rats on a sinking ship.
She has been set down for what she may or may not have done. I personally believe that the Parker/Rivett side had a lot more reason to win than Tori did, and the allegations (and inferences) that Brigid gave Tori’s horse an IV drug on the way to the ring with the groom standing right there and other people walking around seems ludicrous to me.
Do you have the slightest reason to insinuate that Brigid would try to get into the showgrounds? If you do, feel free to offer it up as a reason for such a mean spirited comment.
But, whichever side you believe, I think your post was totally unnessary and shows more about your character than it does of Brigid’s.[/QUOTE]
I have no dog in this fight, but I don’t think you are correct in your assessment of the person who made that comment.
Reading the transcript, even 10% of it is enough to see a huge mess with people who care more about winning and pointing fingers at others than the welfare of the horse? That says enough about the character of the people involved.
[QUOTE=GypsyQ;8302516]
Wow.
If this country’s (arguably) best combination of bankroll, trainers, horseflesh, and rider talent still feels the need to drug, then what the devil are the rest of us doing here? It essentially proves that the current hunter ideal is, in fact, unachievable.[/QUOTE]
I never thought I would agree with a statement like this, but I do. The ideal hunter is apparently as rare as a unicorn!
I suspect most of us here are adults but I gotta say, if I was an older large junior hunter rider that has spent the past two years battling this team in the show ring I would be righteously pissed (assuming said junior was battling on a sober horse). Whether or not PP is “legal” the blatant admission that it was administered to enhance the horse’s performance, giving every indication that it was done regularly, is a pretty damning confession.
Many families shelling out huge chunks of their own money for their child to compete have just learned how high the deck was/is stacked against them. This should not sit right with them, and I do not think it’s an incredibly far leap for them to hold USEF accountable for this money. Especially if they are forced to compete against the horse now, since USEF is clearly aware that its performances are enhanced. If they are not going to suspend the animal then it would behoove USEF to institute follow-up testing on any horse that earned a positive and continues to show.
I mean, here we have someone with all the money in the world, and yet they still resorted to “enhancements” to establish that incredible show record. What’s the point anymore?
I don’t see him in the Junior Hunters this week at Saug, but if he was it would be inspiring to see all other entries in that division scratch in protest.
But they would have to a) care and b) not be guilty of the same cut corners.
On another note, I do not believe FEI rules are the answer. The circuit is predominantly made up of average riders that need to be on older, been-there-done-that horses. Horses that will not have jobs if they have to forego things like bute to jump around for their adult re-rider on weekends. The rules established for FEI level competition were never intended to fit the needs of the older Short Stirrup pony, so before that actually happens I’d like to see the rank & file competitors stand up and take this sport back into their own hands (lol, as if it was ever there to begin with).
Additionally, any positive test results should be included on the Horse Report for that animal.
[QUOTE=dags;8302546]
I suspect most of us here are adults but I gotta say, if I was an older large junior hunter rider that has spent the past two years battling this team in the show ring I would be righteously pissed (assuming said junior was battling on a sober horse). Whether or not PP is “legal” the blatant admission that it was administered to enhance the horse’s performance, giving every indication that it was done regularly, is a pretty damning confession.
Many families shelling out huge chunks of their own money for their child to compete have just learned how high the deck was/is stacked against them. This should not sit right with them, and I do not think it’s an incredibly far leap for them to hold USEF accountable for this money. Especially if they are forced to compete against the horse now, since USEF is clearly aware that its performances are enhanced. If they are not going to suspend the animal then it would behoove USEF to institute follow-up testing on any horse that earned a positive and continues to show.
I mean, here we have someone with all the money in the world, and yet they still resorted to “enhancements” to establish that incredible show record. What’s the point anymore?
I don’t see him in the Junior Hunters this week at Saug, but if he was it would be inspiring to see all other entries in that division scratch in protest.
But they would have to a) care and b) not be guilty of the same cut corners.
On another note, I do not believe FEI rules are the answer. The circuit is predominantly made up of average riders that need to be on older, been-there-done-that horses. Horses that will not have jobs if they have to forego things like bute to jump around for their adult re-rider on weekends. The rules established for FEI level competition were never intended to fit the needs of the older Short Stirrup pony, so before that actually happens I’d like to see the rank & file competitors stand up and take this sport back into their own hands (lol, as if it was ever there to begin with).[/QUOTE]
AMEN!!!
Wow, I actually thought the judges would hold it against her in the $500k…well they did not. 94/95, class leader. Wonder how many tubes of perfect prep he got today?
Yes, dags, that was a great post.
It’s a real disincentive for normal, ethical, skilled riders mounted on decent, well trained but not drugged horses to want to ever enter the show ring to know what they are competing against and what type of people they are mixing with.
And yes, it’s even worse knowing that very little is being done about it. I don’t find much of what happened and what was said incredible. What I do find incredible is that everything is still business as usual for the parties involved.
It would be interesting to know if any of the other National Federations drug programs are similar to the USEFs. All of them have serious responsibilities for juniors and amateurs. Did they adopt the FEI standards or have they gone their own ways?
I’ll grant that they don’t have hunters, but should that make a difference?
[QUOTE=busylady;8302583]
Wow, I actually thought the judges would hold it against her in the $500k…well they did not. 94/95, class leader. Wonder how many tubes of perfect prep he got today?[/QUOTE]
Not the job of the judge to hold grudges. Any judge who did so would likely not be hired to judge anymore. And PP isn’t illegal (though I personally think anything given to alter the performance of the animal shouldn’t be allowed regardless of it’s “legality” in the interest of horse welfare and fair play). But I do wish that a past positive test would immediately require that horse be tested at every competition for a certain amount of time. A year? Six months? Two years? Forever? I don’t know.
Perhaps the USEF should expand its “High Performance” division to include some hunters as well. Apply FEI rules to hunters competing in these high performance classes, National and International derbies, etc. with a zero tolerance doping rule. Junior Hunters, maybe. Pre-greens, 1st years, 2nd years? Maybe those, too. Set a height threshold? Anything 3’6" and up? Any class that requires a jog?
This way, the old SS pony that needs some bute can still get it’s bute. The packer doing the Low Adults or lower A/Os with a rerider can still get its #9tubeapalooza. But the high performance horse or horse competing in a green division should be able to do so without chemical intervention. If that horse needs daily bute, perhaps it’s time for that horse to step down from these “high performance” divisions.
Probably going to be unpopular opinion. I’m trying to stay out of this for the most part, because lord knows I don’t want the wrath of anyone raining down upon me for having an opinion. But I felt like I had to reply.
[QUOTE=busylady;8302583]
Wow, I actually thought the judges would hold it against her in the $500k…well they did not. 94/95, class leader. Wonder how many tubes of perfect prep he got today?[/QUOTE]
That is SO disappointing. I saw both BC and TC at the Hampton Classic. I think she gave an interview where she said she generally preferred the jumpers to the hunters and eq, so I wouldn’t be surprised if in starting to focus on the jumpers, she eventually starts spending all her time with horses under FEI standards and her reputation becomes repaired. It’s a shame either way. Interestingly enough, I did not see BP at all at the classic and I would have thought she would be there to see her horse win the hunter classic.
As for whether we should go full FEI, I agree that the amateurs are showing been there, done that horses that could use a little bute. I don’t think the ultra stringent rules of FEI make sense for the hunters.
BUT I do think we should borrow some FEI standards and start by applying them to the banned substances we have in place now, like Carolina Gold.
The first would be the ability to drug test any horse at any time. I would love to see champion and reserve be drug tested. They don’t have to every division, it can be randomly chosen.
And the second would be to suspend both the horse and rider for any infraction. I really think it’s the best way to get owners interested in the horse’s care when they hand the reins over to the BM and grooms. And I love Dags idea of having the infraction permanently attached to the horse’s record.
[QUOTE=busylady;8302583]
Wow, I actually thought the judges would hold it against her in the $500k…well they did not. 94/95, class leader. Wonder how many tubes of perfect prep he got today?[/QUOTE]
The judges did their job. It is a very nice horse that is very well ridden. If a judge cannot give a score without preconceived opinions and hearsay entering into their work, they should not be sitting in the chair holding the clipboard. It is their responsibility to fairly judge every entry presented in the ring.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
