Colvin Civil Suit

[snaffle1987]

[QUOTE=Tony;8307135]
A lot of posts here mentioning Perfect Prep , as if that’s the charge. The calming ingredients in PP are no different then in calming supplements. The charge is not for using PP, they would be saintly if that were it. Big difference from oral PP and injecting GABA or injecting Mag etc…[/QUOTE]

a lot of posts because it’s the same concept. Yes, PP is legal but it is the fact that you are giving it to a horse to “enhance” your performance in order to win. I call that cheating

[Tony]

Not disputing that, however that is the least of the issue here. They tested positive for GABA not PP. GABA is far worse then PP . The grooms admit to giving PP because it is nothing compared to what they are being injected with.
These horses jogging at Devon , they do not even have control over their penis dropping from their sheaths they are all so doped , and that’s NOT PP.

[MoonWitch]

And some it was a “struggle” to even get them to jog…

[Single_Oxer]

What specific horse are you referring to and what lead you to believe that the horse didn’t have any control over it?

[jhg140]

Umm, this is getting to be along the same vein as the “omg you can tell how doped that horse is in the picture!” nonsense - my horse is a pain to jog and trust me, if you saw some of our courses a mere 20 mins earlier, you would know he was not drugged. Bad joggers are not an indication of a drugged horse.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=MoonWitch;8307390]
And some it was a “struggle” to even get them to jog…[/QUOTE]

I’ve got one horse that doesn’t like to jog in hand…and he’s not doped as you are implying. You should see us when he’s getting a vet work up. He’ll trot on the longe, but he is like, “WTH” in hand. 'course I haven’t worked with him on it much and he doesn’t get the opportunity as we don’t compete in anything requiring a jog, but…

[MoonWitch]

Well then I guess the “jog” and line up at Devon were some of the laziest, most “relaxed” horses that all seemed ready to pee…ok.:rolleyes:

And yes, I’m speaking of watching classes with several of BP’s horses…

[Single_Oxer]

There are so many assumptions being made here about so many different things. At this rate we would all be suspended and God forbid you were Champion in a division that was California split and you had two horses. Automatically cheating.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=Single Oxer;8307478]
There are so many assumptions being made here about so many different things. At this rate we would all be suspended and God forbid you were Champion in a division that was California split and you had two horses. Automatically cheating.[/QUOTE]

Remind this Californian what a California split is again?

[IPEsq]

@ynl063w;8306517

I get that people don’t like that a horse she owns tested positive for a banned substance (I certainly don’t), but it’s pretty disgusting to act as though she’s done nothing with her money but buy nice horses and ponies (and honorary degrees), and done nothing with her time but show up at horse shows for photo ops.

I think the tone of this thread is due to what everyone is reading in the transcript and what the transcript reveals about BP’s affidavit. People didn’t like that the horse tested positive, but if you read this in conjunction with the related thread, people jumped all over Mrs. Serio’s trainwreck posts on social media because of what it revealed about the state of hunterland and her character, at the unfortunate expense of Tommy. Some of what she said suggested that everyone had to do it because everyone was doing it and horse shows are a zoo and how can you expect the horse to behave well clean (which I read as sort of the U.S. Postal Service cycling team kind of defense). I think BC is having the same effect here (certainly not helping her daughter), BP is someone people would love to hate. BUT I also think that a lot of people don’t know or care about what person is behind BP’s mink and are making assumptions about her character given what is being said by the people involved with her horses. It would be more fair to reserve judgment until at the very least the affidavit is released. OTOH, she is not innocent in that she keeps her horses in this program, and regardless of what she does in her non-horse life, this case is damaging to whatever reputation she had.

As to whether her other horses were on the “program”, I don’t think it’s unreasonable to think that a group who would administer #9tubeapalooza and GABA to one horse would not be afraid of giving a cocktail to another horse.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8307480]
Remind this Californian what a California split is again?[/QUOTE]

Running the class all together but pinning it in two groups (like an A and B) not by age but by evenly dividing the group of top 16. Run the class, make a list of your top 16… the #1 on the list wins section A. The #2 on the list wins section B. The #3 on the list is second in section A. The #4 on the list is second in section B. Etc. There aren’t really 2 sections, you just pin it as though there were evening dividing the top horses into the 2 pretend sections. Had a real split occured, it would have been done by age and both of Tori’s mounts would have been in the same section/split so the best she could have done was #1 and #2 in that section. Because it was a California split-- she ended up with her mounts winning both sections instead of being first and second in a section and leaving the win in the other section to someone else.

[Madeline]

Who splits a class of 15? I may be misreading, but the rulebook seems to say that a class smaller than 30 cannot be divided.

[SnicklefritzG]

What is the point of a California split? From the description it sounds like a silly idea. I can see splits based on age, or some other factor, but 1/2, 3/4, and so on? weird.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=Tony;8307378]
Not disputing that, however that is the least of the issue here. They tested positive for GABA not PP. GABA is far worse then PP . The grooms admit to giving PP because it is nothing compared to what they are being injected with.[/QUOTE]

It was the trainer and R judge who admitted to it, and what was striking was the ease at which he did so despite the fact that Moroney’s line of questioning was very clearly intended to encourage Rivetts to incriminate himself in the matter of administering a substance with the intent to alter performance.

Again, this isn’t just some random barn manager, this is a big-R licensed official who should totally know that such activity is against the rules whether or not it tests. And he thinks nothing of telling the president of his association that he does so.

The sanction is not for administration of Perfect Prep (hat tip also to the person who added up the cost of all those tubes), but I feel certain those answers played a role in the determination of what and whether the sanction would be, if only to confirm that this dude is part of the general problem.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8307539]
What is the point of a California split? From the description it sounds like a silly idea. I can see splits based on age, or some other factor, but 1/2, 3/4, and so on? weird.[/QUOTE]

The point is that it ensures the best horses get the best ribbons out of the split. So for example, if all the best horses are in the 15-17, and all the worst horses are in the 14 & under, it can change the results quite dramatically.

It does also mean in a case like this that a rider with two horses that would have been grouped under any normal split like age or height can win both.

It also provides a way to split the class if the numbers are too uneven to split by age. So for example, say you have 27 15-17 rides and 3 14 & under rides. The class of 3 is really too small to run, so you’d combine, but this is now a pretty big class, so a California split is the nicest way to handle this case. (You can imagine also a class of only say 17 year old riders that is still large enough to split, and this is a way to do that.)

Of course, most often the split isn’t made to make a manageable class size, but to group like with like and to for example give the younger kids a better shot at a ribbon because they are less competitive than the older ones. That is lost with a California split.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8307539]
What is the point of a California split? From the description it sounds like a silly idea. I can see splits based on age, or some other factor, but 1/2, 3/4, and so on? weird.[/QUOTE]

I don’t like California splits ALL that much myself, but poltroon articulated some of the reasons they happen. I prefer if you have enough to SPLIT that you actually SPLIT and run separately (including separate schooling and hacks). I don’t particularly care HOW you split (A/B versus age-- the rule book has different split options for different circumstances) but I feel like the whole REASON to split is to diminish the chaos of that many people in the ring at once-- so just SPLIT already.

In addition to what poltroon mentioned, I think shows do California splits because it goes more quickly than a real split. You don’t have 2 separate hacks, etc. I mostly see California splits done when it looked like you didn’t have enough to split and then moments before the class starts suddenly a crapton of new people enter and the show wants to keep moving and not take the time to set up a split and/or the split would be kind of uneven and/or or the show doesn’t want to deal with telling some of the people who are warmed up and ready to go that they just got put in a later group thanks to the late arrivals.

It can end up with some really squirrely results and, as mentioned, I hate being in a giant herd so I must prefer it to take longer but have an actual split.

[supernatural]

According to HU111 #4. At premier competitions junior division is required to be split by age and size so a total of 4 sections of 3’6" juniors is required to be in prizelist. If the have 6 entries in each age section they are required to run it this way.

[RugBug]

In addition to what poltroon mentioned, I think shows do California splits because it goes more quickly than a real split. You don’t have 2 separate hacks, etc.

I would imagine this is a pretty big motivator. It would take less time…

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8307589]
I would imagine this is a pretty big motivator. It would take less time…[/QUOTE]

In theory it takes less time. In practice it often means the judge has to let everyone hack for longer to find his winners-- so I am not sure it actually saves much (if any) time. I guess it depends whether there are 16 clear standouts in the group or not.

[TBLover]

This just in from the USEF:

Important Information Regarding the Use of the Prohibited Substance Phenibut (?-phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid)

From the USEF
Lexington, Ky. - Tasked with protecting the welfare of equine athletes and ensuring the balance of competition, the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) Equine Drugs and Medications Program constantly monitors products and product claims. From time-to-time products appear on the equine supplement market making claims of their effects on the performance of horses in competition. USEF members are ultimately responsible for compliance with the forbidden substance policy, and encouraged to audit the ingredient lists of supplement products for substances prohibited in USEF competition.

Recently, a problematic substance has come to the attention of the USEF Equine Drugs and Medications Program. Phenibut (?-phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid) is considered a derivative of gamma aminobutyric acid (GABA), and effective immediately, Phenibut (?-phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid) or any product containing Phenibut (?-phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid) is considered a forbidden substance under USEF rules. There are no current recognized medical uses for this substance; therefore reporting administration utilizing a Medication Report Form, pursuant to GR411, is not applicable.

There have been a number of recent positive findings for ?-phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid and members have been notified. This ingredient has been found in a product called Focus Calm supplied by Uckele. Phenibut (?-phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid) is also available as a single supplement in the U.S., but is not considered a pharmaceutical. There are no known scientific studies documenting its safety in horses and there are no known legitimate therapeutic purposes for this substance to be used in the horse.

USEF members are encouraged to be aware of what they might be administering to their horse. ‘Calming’ supplements, intended to alter behavior, should be regarded with a high degree of scrutiny when fed to competition horses. It is important for members to understand that the names of substances included on ingredient lists may not always be easily associated with published forbidden substances. The FDA does not formally regulate animal supplements, and a high degree of variability can be present across companies and manufacturing practices. There is no guarantee that the constituents found in the product are consistent with what is listed on the list of the ingredients.

Questions regarding the use of equine drugs and medications may be directed to the USEF Equine Drugs and Medications hotline at 1-800-633-2472.