Colvin Civil Suit

[ccr052700]

Culture

Forgive me if this has been stated – I got through page 14 of 42 and had too many thoughts to keep going. ? My overall reaction to this is no longer anger – but sadness.

We all wanted to believe in the fairytale…the wealthy provider sponsoring a young talent that did not have the financial means so that the said talent could fully realize her potential and see her dreams come true. My heart is most broken by what appears to be a truly dysfunctional situation in what should be a child’s most enjoyable years – certainly not a fairytale. I can’t help but wonder if, after seeing TC’s talent, her mother felt she had no other options as her family did not have the thousands upon thousands to fund showing at the highest levels. Perhaps she viewed this as “if we don’t go along, she won’t be able to ride”…while heartbreaking as a mother to have to face that decision – to deny her daughter something that she truly loves – it is a decision that we all face at one point or another for many different reasons.

I’ll save my thoughts on the meds themselves for another post. For now, what my mind can’t get away from is not the flaw in process or the “impossible standard” that is perceived, but rather …what is this horse show culture teaching our children about what’s important in life? Is it another win, another check, another title? Is it “do what everyone does or be rejected?” Is it “you gotta hang with this crowd to be considered talented?” Gutcheck moment for me - I know I’ll be thinking seriously about our family’s involvement with USEF sponsored activities going forward and what life lessons I want to teach my daughter. Ultimately, I hope this gives our entire industry a gutcheck…where did lines start to get blurry and the playing field skewed? And why?

[Madeline]

[QUOTE=Darkwave;8317137]
OK…for the sake of discussion, what is so wrong with these calming products?

Other than the fact that a) they are currently banned and b) they substitute in some cases for riding skill.

Taking those two points aside, they don’t seem horribly abusive. They’re not causing pain to the horse or allowing the horse to aggravate injuries. It seems that horses on this stuff are able to canter and jump quite nicely and safely (and yes, I know there was a crash at Devon - but it is far from certain that any substance was involved in that crash).

And aren’t these better for the horses then lunge to death/no food/etc?[/QUOTE]

Other than the fact that they are specifically forbidden by the rules?

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=Madeline;8317452]
Other than the fact that they are specifically forbidden by the rules?[/QUOTE]

Well yes…that’s exactly what I said

Absolutely, if they are banned, then you shouldn’t be using them. It’s against the rules. Period. If brown tack was banned, I’d have the same reaction.

But a different question is: should they be banned? And that was what I was getting at with my post above.

[Thoroughbred1201]

[QUOTE=amb;8316452]
The CotH from 10 August has an interesting article that I don’t think I’ve seen mentioned here. (Could be wrong–I did read the whole thread, but there’s been rather a lot!) The title is “So You Say You Want a Hunter Revolution”, and it talks about the original intent of the USHJA Hunter Derby program as being to “bring the sport back to the hunter ring”, the idea being that the derby style of doing things would trickle down (back?) to the regular hunter ring. (Quote from George Morris: “They were great horses and wonderful riders, but it was so generic, so repetitive.”)

There’s a lot of relevant stuff there, but I particularly note the bit with course designer Steve Stephens and George Morris both ranting about the courses. CotH is hardly subtle, though. “For Stephens, a radical departure from what has become standard in the divisions would result in unemployment.”[/QUOTE]

Could you please post a link to the article?

[huntersgonewild]

Violating the spirit and intent of the rule translates to a personal, moral question that can never be regulated. Period. And all of the gnashing of teeth about competitors that violate the spirit of the rules is really an exercise in futility. To me, if we are down to arguing about a combination of vitamins being a problem, then maybe some good has come of the rules. GABA is harmful and there is evidence of that and that has been banned, and the violations have been enforced. Fluphenazine and other drugs of yesteryear that provide clear competitive advantage and have side effects have been banned, and violations have been enforced (although I do agree that the punishments need to be more stringent). If you really think that you are being beaten because people have shoved a bunch of Vitamin B down a horse’s throat, you need a science class. The quote in the new COTH article by Dr. Allen about kidney function says it best. If people want to pay for their horse to pee out excess vitamins and feel better about it, more power to them. But I don’t think perfect prep is turning a low ribbon winner into a high ribbon winner in the big divisions, nor do I think it is taking an unrideable loon and making it into a kicking quiet amateur horse.

[Synthesis]

[QUOTE=ccr052700;8317440]
… Ultimately, I hope this gives our entire industry a gutcheck…where did lines start to get blurry and the playing field skewed? And why?[/QUOTE]

The lines get blurry and the playing field get skewed when the the Yuppie Nuremburg defense comes out “I’ve got a mortgage and bills to pay” Look at the top and mid level barns. Look at the rigs, the facilities, the imported horses, the travelling to shows, the feed/vet/bedding/show bills. Look at the summer/winter farms.

Those that inherited their properties are far and few between. Where does the money come from that has to avalanche through to support all this? It comes from a constant churn of commisions, sponsorships, training fees and more yet even so… How precarious is the illusion of being THE best in a subjective industry?

Because fundamentally the ‘calm’ culture is about preserving illusions. “My horses ARE that consistent and brilliant” “My riders ARE that consistent and brilliant” “If you ride with me/buy from me, you ride like Tori/SS/Liza Boyd, with just 3 short rides a week.” “My horses don’t break down early, we have the luxury of retiring them early in thanks for their performance”

I’m lucky, I guess, I don’t have to make ethical calls with my horse with my livelyhood in the balance. I don’t drug and compete. Full stop. I don’t understand it. If I can’t handle the horse, its the wrong horse. If the horse requires large amounts of prep, the horse is in the wrong job, and life is too short to put a square peg in a round hole. That’s why I’m over in dressage/eventing/jumper land, so I can put the horse in the job s/he’s built for. Hell, I bought my horse intending to make her a dressage horse. Guess who prefers eventing/jumper and guess what we’re doing???

But it comes back to the illusion of guaranteed success doesn’t it? If a client has spent $$$$$$$$ on a ‘winning’ horse from you and the pairing isn’t working out, what does the BNT do? Admit the mismatch or try to salvage while maintaining a winning record and preserve resale value to churn another commision through the system? God knows the commision on the ‘dud’ is long spent.

Ethics are what you do when no one is looking. Maybe I have the luxury of being able to maintain mine, maybe winning is less important to me. I do know that I feel like a dying breed somedays. I also know that the idea of pharma-training makes me very sad.

[jvanrens]

[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8316834]
They are not regulated in terms of licensing, training, education, etc. They are not a profession. They can be punished for a limited set of infractions (i.e., med violations, unsportsmanlike conduct) that are committed only at horse shows. That isn’t how real professions are regulated. And in fact, other sports do license and regulate coaches and trainers in the real sense of the word.[/QUOTE]

Actually trainers are licensed in the racing industry, JC, AQHA, STBs etc. They do have to pass a test (I believe the Ontario test for Standardbreds is about an hour to write) to have a license and they can’t just have a groom or parent sign off as “trainer”. As for pulling a positive etc, it’s not something most of them want, trust me, my SO is big time on racing out of a feed tub as he puts it. He’d likely do a lot better financially if he didn’t, but one of the reasons I love him is his ethics.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8317431]
vxf111: I understand you, I just disagree. I believe judging standards need to change. You don’t. I don’t think people drug because of some belief that they should win every time out, you have stated that you do. I think people drug to give themselves the best shot at winning every time they go into the ring, not that they have an expectation. [/QUOTE]

I really don’t want to argue but I do want to make one last effort to explain. You’re taking me too literally when I say people believe they should win every time. What I was trying to say what the brilliant horses can be unpredictable (the same spook that makes them jump out of their skin can make them refuse). Bigtime riders/trainers won’t accept that horses are “human” and can have inconsistent days. They want to walk in on a horse than can win every time. So they’d rather dope the horse so that at least they know they’re going to have a quiet horse rather than show the horse au natural and know that there’s a chance the horse might have a too-spooky round and disqualify himself. I did not LITERALLY mean that everyone thinks they LITERALLY will win EVERY time (that’s not possible, after all, only one person can ever be #1 save for a tie situation). What I meant was that the culture in some barns has evolved to the point where they’re not willing to take the chance on brilliance because robotic consistency is more important. They want to take every variable off the table they can, through any means possible. So they’ll take the “having a not quiet day” variable off the table with drugs, if that’s what it takes. That way they won’t fail to win because the horse is having as frisky day.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8316924]
That means setting down the horse and the rider for a significant amount of time.[/QUOTE]

I agree for sure about the penalties being lengthy and that the horse should also be suspended. I said that on one (or more) other threads on this topic. Totally agree that setting down the horse, and not for a weekend either, sends ripples through EVERYONE involved with the horse in a meaningful way.

[Flash44]

When I showed hunters, I had tbs. One of them got to the point where I could just hand walk him around the ring once or twice before the show started. But I did get on him an hour before my division to make sure he was not too fresh. Hacked around a bit, and if he was OK, watched a bunch go. The next one was a little spooky. She schooled in the ring for 45 minutes before the show started. Not to wear her down, lots of walking, just for her to get used to it and relax. Then I also got on her about an hour before the class (if we went later). If she was OK, watched a bunch go and just hung out near the gate. If not, hacked around until she relaxed. If our classes were early, she did not need much warm up.

I can’t imaging having that kind of program with multiple horses.

[juststartingout]

Let’s call a spade a spade - Calming agents like Prefect Prep do not just violate the spirit of the rule, they violate the rule itself:

USEF rule GR410 states in part – “For purposes of this rule, a forbidden substance is:
a. Any stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, local anesthetic, psychotropic (mood and/or behavior altering) substance, or drug which might affect the performance of a horse and/or pony (stimulants and/or depressants are defined as substances which stimulate or depress the cardiovascular, respiratory or central nervous systems), or any metabolite and/or analogue of any such substance or drug, except as expressly permitted by this rule….”

If someone embezzles money from their company, it doesn’t become illegal only when it can be proved; it is and was always illegal – and, by the way, we don’t say well it was ok because it wasn’t a big amount they only took the rounding on the thousandth cent.

This is just one – and perhaps a not so important one - of the ways we excuse behavior.

Similarly, it is entirely possible to admire skill at riding and still believe that GABA and multiple tubes of a calming agent have some impact. If there is even a marginal increase in the ability to manage and control the horse, then a rider of skill has the ability to take advantage of that – and that is cheating. The better rider, the more significant the advantage provided by the calming.

[SLW]

[QUOTE=jhg140;8317291]
If you really think that 2 ccs of GABA and some PP is gonna give someone like Tori Colvin that big of an edge, then I don’t think there’s anything anyone can say to you to convince you otherwise. And some of the horses that people discuss on other threads as being so “refreshing” because they are actually galloping forward, etc… you’d probably be shocked at what’s in their veins.[/QUOTE]

It isn’t about TC’s riding skill, it is about a horse being judged on it’s manners, performance and way of going. No doubt TC could ride a frisky horse well; show it sans drugs/etc and let the judges decide. Maybe they will reward the perky horse who tested the rider a bit.

As is, that whole crew is filled with fakers and cheaters and in looking back we will never know how much TC influenced a good ride, got lucky or got robbed.

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=juststartingout;8317681]
Let’s call a spade a spade - Calming agents like Prefect Prep do not just violate the spirit of the rule, they violate the rule itself:

USEF rule GR410 states in part – “For purposes of this rule, a forbidden substance is:
a. Any stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, local anesthetic, psychotropic (mood and/or behavior altering) substance, or drug which might affect the performance of a horse and/or pony (stimulants and/or depressants are defined as substances which stimulate or depress the cardiovascular, respiratory or central nervous systems), or any metabolite and/or analogue of any such substance or drug, except as expressly permitted by this rule….”

If someone embezzles money from their company, it doesn’t become illegal only when it can be proved; it is and was always illegal – and, by the way, we don’t say well it was ok because it wasn’t a big amount they only took the rounding on the thousandth cent.

This is just one – and perhaps a not so important one - of the ways we excuse behavior.

Similarly, it is entirely possible to admire skill at riding and still believe that GABA and multiple tubes of a calming agent have some impact. If there is even a marginal increase in the ability to manage and control the horse, then a rider of skill has the ability to take advantage of that – and that is cheating. The better rider, the more significant the advantage provided by the calming.[/QUOTE]

No vet on the medications committee or anywhere else believes that the ingredients in perfect prep violate the letter of the rule. Vitamins and minerals do not meet any of the definitions in the rule. If you don’t believe me, call Dr. Allen and he will explain it to you.

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=jvanrens;8317596]
Actually trainers are licensed in the racing industry, JC, AQHA, STBs etc. They do have to pass a test (I believe the Ontario test for Standardbreds is about an hour to write) to have a license and they can’t just have a groom or parent sign off as “trainer”. As for pulling a positive etc, it’s not something most of them want, trust me, my SO is big time on racing out of a feed tub as he puts it. He’d likely do a lot better financially if he didn’t, but one of the reasons I love him is his ethics.[/QUOTE]

I am aware that trainers are licensed at the track and in other places. The ones we are discussing in this thread (h/j trainers at American horse shows) are not.

[juststartingout]

[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8317774]
No vet on the medications committee or anywhere else believes that the ingredients in perfect prep violate the letter of the rule. Vitamins and minerals do not meet any of the definitions in the rule. If you don’t believe me, call Dr. Allen and he will explain it to you.[/QUOTE]

I am not a vet nor a bio-chemist, but have been advised by vets not to use calming agents under this rule. Reading the ingredients of Perfect Prep Extreme and then googling for the substance it looks as if they fall within the restriction for example l-trypophan which is used occasionally as a sleep aid and which apparently has a role in the ability of the body to synthesize serotonin. If there is no problem with any of the ingredients, why not just have the vets say so? Such a statement would clear the air and end the debate.

[vxf111]

If PP (and the like) are not mood and/or behavior altering substances… then WHY GIVE THEM to calm the horse?

You can’t have it both ways. Either they’re not mood altering substances-- so then they’re ok under the rule but they don’t do anything (so why bother). Or they do something, and the something they do is to alter the mood, in which case they’re NOT ok under the rule.

I’m not a pharmacist so someone please correct me if I am wrong, but technically Xanax is not a stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, or local anesthetic. But clearly it alters the mind. So under the same theory as saying PP doesn’t violate the letter of the rule, neither does Xanax. Though I think you’d be hard pressed to find someone who would actually argue it’s ok to dose a horse with Xanax to show.

As the rule is written (and perhaps it’s poorly written, I’m just taking it “as is” for now) if you give something NOT on the permitted drug list that is (1) mood-altering/behavioral-altering; and (2) given to affect performance-- you violate the rule. Giving a calming supplement would violate this language, pretty clearly. Whether the USEF wants to say so or not (and risk ticking off a major sponsor) the rule is written the way it’s written and giving a horse PP to calm it during a show violates the rule.

I realize USEF doesn’t necessarily enforce the rule that way-- but that’s what the rule SAYS. Maybe if what the USEF really means is “it’s ok to use anything so long as we don’t have a test for it, and we’ll give you a list of what we can test for” they should re-write the rule to actually SAY that.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Darkwave;8317137]
OK…for the sake of discussion, what is so wrong with these calming products?

Other than the fact that a) they are currently banned and b) they substitute in some cases for riding skill.

Taking those two points aside, they don’t seem horribly abusive. They’re not causing pain to the horse or allowing the horse to aggravate injuries. It seems that horses on this stuff are able to canter and jump quite nicely and safely (and yes, I know there was a crash at Devon - but it is far from certain that any substance was involved in that crash).

And aren’t these better for the horses then lunge to death/no food/etc?[/QUOTE]

How do you not see the “arms race” of calming, and the way that ends? Or do you not think a pony who OD’d in cross ties was enough?

To be frank, the options are to buy a better-minded horse, stay home and train it, and then learn to ride it. That costs more time, money and effort than drugging a horse that won’t work for its owner. But that’s too damned bad. No one ever said that the other alternatives-- lunging or worse-- had to be done. You write as if that were so.

The other problem is that horses who are already better than yours, better trained, and better ridden than yours are also getting “improved” by chemical means. Don’t forget that the way this thread started was because people with more than enough resources with a lovely horse still drugged the snot out of it. So what hope do you have it this is where the bar is set?

And the problems relate to one another because people at the bottom-- heck, even people spending a couple grand a week at a horse show-- feel that they must do something to catch up… so they thing that is either lunge-to-death or drug.

Shame on the so-called horsemen who choose to compete at an amateur sport and then rationalize drugging a hapless animal as the lesser of two necessary evils. That’s just offensive.

[vineyridge]

I thought IV magnesium was illegal. That’s nothing more than lots of mineral.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8317891]
I thought IV magnesium was illegal. That’s nothing more than lots of mineral.[/QUOTE]

Again, not a pharmacist here–but I don’t think magnesium is technically a stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, or local anesthetic. So the people who read the rule to allow PP are reading it in such a way as to allow IV magnesium.

[Manni01]

I think the only solution would be to ban everything and to change the rules that horses dont have to look dead anymore…