Colvin Civil Suit

[vxf111]

RugBug,

There’s a lot I don’t believe with EVERYONE’s story. I am not saying I believe SR and I disbelieve BC. SR’s story is pretty unbelievable. I think there is plenty that doesn’t add up with both stories.

Like, for example, why BC stood by and watched her minor daughter ride horses on 1/2 to 20 ccs of Carolina Gold (plus a oral pastes plus being worked down) and never objected. A person whose hands shake at giving shots let her minor child ride drugged horses for years. Or how she never once gave a shot, other than the Banamine emergency. Never? Of ANY KIND? These horses were in her care for a period. No Adequan? No vaccinations. Nothing IM? Never ever ever? And why VC who is so “empathic” was apparently ok with all that was going on around her until KB told her to do something at YR that she disagreed with.

The thing that makes the LEAST sense to me in her version of events is what happens when she gets to derby finals. She is shunned and persona non grata. They are watching her like a hawk and telling her she’s not allowed as so much as get VC’s spurs from the tack trunk. The writing appears to be on the wall that some combination of BP/SS/SR want her GONE. And when the testers come up… she blurts out that she’s the trainer/responsibility party. THAT makes absolutely no sense. None. She didn’t put her name on the form. According to her story she never had care/custody/control of the horse. She thinks combination of BP/SS/SR are out to get her. She knows SS drugs. And yet when the testers ask, she says her own name.

I find a lot that makes no sense.

[JenEM]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8300738]

I wonder what USEF is going to do more broadly, if anything. They conclude in their finding that PP was given as a calming agent. Are they going to keep standing by the absurd contradiction that even though PP is a calming agent and would seem to violate the rules-- it’s some special exception? And plenty of talk of SS using GABA on horses-- are they going to actually investigate that separately?[/QUOTE]

Can the USEF investigate that claim? Since drug testing is supposed to be random, can they do anything about it, beyond hoping his are pulled by chance and seeing what the results are? It raises a lot of questions, and makes you wonder if there should be some kind of mechanism in place for investigating allegations of drugging, or say performances that seems suspicious, or result in falls or something, in an non-random, clearly defined way.

[Pocket_Pony]

THIS IS DISGUSTING! OMG, I’m just so sad for all of these horses who are at the mercy and whims of the people making money or a reputation off of them. The only thing I can say about this is shame on all of these people (specific to this incident and anyone else who does so). What a disgrace. It is ugly and disgusting and disgusting and disgusting.

I will happily take my clunky mustang and my little pony and keep them at home and be grateful that I saw the writing on the wall in my younger years and left this kind of shit.

[vxf111]

I’ll tell you one story that does make sense, at least to me… a hydrid of what both SR and BC are saying.

There was a lot of drugging. ALL the ground level people (SR/SS/BC/VC) were either in on it or at least acquiesced. As long as everyone was chummy, the drugging happened and lots of blues were won.

For whatever reason (maybe over the YR event, maybe over drugging, maybe over something else) a rift developed between SR/SS/BP on one side and BC on the other. Now a lot of people were worried BC would tattle on what was going on. So pressure was put on BC that if she tattled, they’d drop VC. The drugging continued because, well, apparently it was needed to be competitive. BC knew if she wanted to continue to have VC ride, she had to take the fall. So she tried to when the testers came. Only the USEF is apparently not that naive. And now BC is telling mostly the truth (omitting her participation) and SR is telling mostly the truth (saying the drugging happened but blaming it on BC)… and there you have it.

Speculation. But it’s a story that rings true to me.

[SnicklefritzG]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8300894]
RugBug,

There’s a lot I don’t believe with EVERYONE’s story. I am not saying I believe SR and I disbelieve BC. SR’s story is pretty unbelievable. I think there is plenty that doesn’t add up with both stories.

Like, for example, why BC stood by and watched her minor daughter ride horses on 1/2 to 20 ccs of Carolina Gold (plus a oral pastes plus being worked down) and never objected. A person whose hands shake at giving shots let her minor child ride drugged horses for years. Or how she never once gave a shot, other than the Banamine emergency. Never? Of ANY KIND? These horses were in her care for a period. No Adequan? No vaccinations. Nothing IM? Never ever ever? And why VC who is so “empathic” was apparently ok with all that was going on around her until KB told her to do something at YR that she disagreed with.

The thing that makes the LEAST sense to me in her version of events is what happens when she gets to derby finals. She is shunned and persona non grata. They are watching her like a hawk and telling her she’s not allowed as so much as get VC’s spurs from the tack trunk. The writing appears to be on the wall that some combination of BP/SS/SR want her GONE. And when the testers come up… she blurts out that she’s the trainer/responsibility party. THAT makes absolutely no sense. None. She didn’t put her name on the form. According to her story she never had care/custody/control of the horse. She thinks combination of BP/SS/SR are out to get her. She knows SS drugs. And yet when the testers ask, she says her own name.

I find a lot that makes no sense.[/QUOTE]

I haven’t read the entire transcript of the hearing yet, only bits and pieces, so I am still trying to figure out what’s going on.

Why would BC all of a sudden be considered persona non grata? That is, unless it was known that the horse was going to get tested and BP/SS/SR decide to make BC the scapegoat?

Maybe BC got nervous and said her name because she didn’t want her daughter to lose her ride either because she was simply afraid or because BP/other told her to do this? If that’s the case, I could then see why BC might throw everybody else under the bus.

[JenEM]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8300910]

For whatever reason (maybe over the YR event, maybe over drugging, maybe over something else) a rift developed between SR/SS/BP on one side and BC on the other. [/QUOTE]

Is NAYRC under FEI and not USEF rules? That might make a difference, since there the rider is the Person Responsible for any positive tests (see current Sophie Simpson issue), regardless of who signs as “Trainer” on the entry.

[vxf111]

See post #82 for my speculation.

I don’t know why the rift happened but it seems clear from all the testimony that at some point a rift happened. Who knows what it was over. VC seems to think it was over some event that happened between her and BK at YRs. SR seems to think it’s because BP/SS got frustrated with BC’s drugging of horses.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=JenEM;8300913]
Is NAYRC under FEI and not USEF rules? That might make a difference, since there the rider is the Person Responsible for any positive tests (see current Sophie Simpson issue), regardless of who signs as “Trainer” on the entry.[/QUOTE]

I don’t see how that matters since the violation and subsequent suspension happened from testing at derby finals.

[SnicklefritzG]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8300916]
See post #82 for my speculation.

I don’t know why the rift happened but it seems clear from all the testimony that at some point a rift happened. Who knows what it was over. VC seems to think it was over some event that happened between her and BK at YRs. SR seems to think it’s because BP/SS got frustrated with BC’s drugging of horses.[/QUOTE]

Was it really BC doing the drugging or someone else? The bits that I’ve read make it sound like everybody was in on it.

[Justice]

Where is the transcript?

Can’t find it… Tia!

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8300924]
Was it really BC doing the drugging or someone else? The bits that I’ve read make it sound like everybody was in on it.[/QUOTE]

Depends who you believe. BC says it was everyone but her and VC. SR says it was just BC. I don’t find either terribly believeable. I would guess it was a little of both (i.e. everyone did it or turned a blind eye to it).

[roamingnome]

If VC made her way around NAYRC without BC, then why does she need to appeal this? Sit out for 7 months, watch the livestream and come back. Why make the lawyers rich? (Unless I am missing something??)

[busylady]

This:

Q: Did you have anything to do with the preparation of the horse.
A: No, I was not allowed. I mentioned to Karen that the horse looked too fresh. I was told by Steve that it was not business, that I was not allowed, that was not my job. Stay away from the horse. It was not my job. No, no. It was put – I was put in my place immediately.

Umm…:eek:

[SnicklefritzG]

[QUOTE=busylady;8300946]
This:

Q: Did you have anything to do with the preparation of the horse.
A: No, I was not allowed. I mentioned to Karen that the horse looked too fresh. I was told by Steve that it was not business, that I was not allowed, that was not my job. Stay away from the horse. It was not my job. No, no. It was put – I was put in my place immediately.

Umm…:eek:[/QUOTE]

This is the part that has me confused. Is BC being told to stay away from the horse because she had been known to drug the horse in the past? Or because these other people were planning to drug the horse and didn’t want BC around to see?

[JenEM]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8300917]
I don’t see how that matters since the violation and subsequent suspension happened from testing at derby finals.[/QUOTE]

Just pondering, that if there was some kind of big conflict springing from NAYRC, it may have been because apparently everyone knew there was drugging going on (it seems only the person who was actually giving the drugs is in dispute) that there would have been more concern by the rider for the consequences there than a regular USEF show, where the (junior) rider would have borne no penalty if testing came back positive, versus under FEI rules where there would be more serious consequences.

[LJD]

I guess what I’m most disappointed about was that I believed, in my heart of hearts, that this was a good team that won on sheer talent alone and put their horses’ welfare above all else. False.

[busylady]

[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8300950]
This is the part that has me confused. Is BC being told to stay away from the horse because she had been known to drug the horse in the past? Or because these other people were planning to drug the horse and didn’t want BC around to see?[/QUOTE]

I definitely didn’t read that as indicating they wanted her to stay away so she didn’t see what they were planning. Pretty clear to me he was telling her to back off, i.e. putting her in her place.

[NCbarnrat]

This is better than an episode of Scandal.

I’ve been around the upper echelons of the H/J world, spent time as a groom, did the whole thing, so I’m not stupid, but I also maintain a certain level of naiveté simply because I often don’t want to know what goes in to maintaining a winning horse such as inclusive (Or any of Dr. Parkers other horses). I prefer to remain in my bubble where a little lunging and some previcox and a good hack in the morning does the trick.

I feel bad for the kid. She’s super talented and that talent has been exploited. She’s been treated just as these talented and fancy horses have - as a means to an end (and by end, I mean trophies and year end awards and championships).

I hope she manages a career doing what she’s quite good at. Her mother needs to be set down, no question. She’s quite comfortable with the needle from what I’ve heard.

Tragic, yet endlessly entertaining situation.

[SnicklefritzG]

[QUOTE=busylady;8300971]
I definitely didn’t read that as indicating they wanted her to stay away so she didn’t see what they were planning. Pretty clear to me he was telling her to back off, i.e. putting her in her place.[/QUOTE]

putting her in her place for having done what? That’s what I’m trying to figure out from the 40+ pages of transcript. I thought maybe for having drugged horses in the past, but weren’t others doing that?

[busylady]

[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8300985]
putting her in her place for having done what? That’s what I’m trying to figure out from the 40+ pages of transcript. I thought maybe for having drugged horses in the past, but weren’t others doing that?[/QUOTE]

Putting her in her place for suggesting the horse is too fresh! She stated “the horse is too fresh,” which in my experience means it needs to be medicated, and she was told it isn’t her job (to medicate) and she was put in her place!!!