Colvin Civil Suit

[IPEsq]

[QUOTE=Peggy;8321454]
Don’t LLCs have an owner attached to them, either on the horse’s recording page or in USEF’s records. It’s not an unnumbered Swiss bank account.[/QUOTE]

I think for an LLC you could still levy a fine if the LLC is on the paperwork as owner. The suspension would have to prohibit the LLC from participating in shows. If your barn business is the LLC that owns the horse (could happen, such as for GP horses, right?), then I guess the whole barn can’t attend a show, but individuals not set down under the new rule could show in another program so long as the horse is not owned by the LLC. Right? Maybe?

[MIKES_MCS]

I believe it was a couple of months back when the USEF itself, made it clear., (and it was posted on this forum) there is no penalty for violating the “Spirit” of the rule and therefore it does not fall under the umbrella of the USEF rule book.

[BeeHoney]

[QUOTE=bugsynskeeter;8321095]

I have seen suspensions from other associations that include the verbiage that the suspension extends to any entity involving the horse/owner.[/QUOTE]

I’m not a lawyer, nor have I closely read any rules dealing with ownership issues. However, for legal intents and purposes, companies and LLCs are their own entities. Legally it’s pretty difficult to bypass a company and hold the owners themselves personally responsible. I think that would at least make it difficult for a show organization to hold corporate/LLC owners responsible, especially if there were appeals and legal wranglings surrounding a fine/suspension.

Ownership of a company/LLC is not secret information, but it’s not necessarily easily accessible either. That would be another level of difficulty for a show organization like the USEF seeking to hold someone responsible.

A corporation or LLC could be a partnership of 15 or 20 people that go in together to buy a show horse for a well known rider. Would all of those people be suspended? What if those people own other horses? What if those people co-own other horses with multiple other owners through other LLCs?

IPEsq, LLCs are relatively easy and inexpensive to create and maintain. Many people do NOT hold their horses in ownership by the same LLC that owns their farm business. Valuable assets are often held by separate entities to protect them. In the case of a show horse or a racehorse, an owner/set of owners might form an LLC to own a single horse. To avoid severe penalites/suspensions, it would be easy enough to abandon one LLC and create a new one.

I’d be really interested to hear someone with more legal knowledge than myself comment on this issue. We are all anxious to see the USEF crack down, but I don’t think there are many easy answers, other than requiring horses to be microchipped, setting down the horse itself, and changing the judging to discourage the “drugged” look.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=MIKES MCS;8321484]
I believe it was a couple of months back when the USEF itself, made it clear., (and it was posted on this forum) there is no penalty for violating the “Spirit” of the rule and therefore it does not fall under the umbrella of the USEF rule book.[/QUOTE]

Can you point to this because as I’ve posted multiple times on this thread and on others, this is directly from the USEF meds committed regarding PP (I’ll add the title of the person who sent me the email):

@Asst. Director

Magnesium, inositol, l-trytophan, and B vitamins are permitted under the Therapeutic Substance Provision of the USEF Equine Drugs and Medications Rule; however, use of these ingredients for the purpose of calming violates the spirit and intent of the Rule.

[findeight]

Hmmmm, I forsee a rush to form LLCs and listing horses as corporate owned asserts if USEF really gets tough on owners…they have to redefine “owner” to penalize somebody. Nothing new just be more popular.

[BLBGP]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8321647]
Can you point to this because as I’ve posted multiple times on this thread and on others, this is directly from the USEF meds committed regarding PP (I’ll add the title of the person who sent me the email):[/QUOTE]

From their recent press release titled: Important Information Regarding the Use of the Prohibited Substance Phenibut (phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid)

“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.”

Nowhere in the release does it say “‘Calming’ supplements, intended to alter behavior, are prohibited under the spirit of the rule.” Rather, it says “‘Calming’ supplements, intended to alter behavior, should be regarded with a high degree of scrutiny when fed to competition horses.” Sure can be read as a big “ok” to give horses something like perfect prep at a show.

[HorseShopping]

How are you going to prove someone violated the spirit of the rule? Does using regumate on your mare violate the spirit of the rule? Sure makes one of my mares much more manageable and even-keeled.

Unless USEF sends someone to monitor every aisleway 24/7, what are they going to do? How do they know who is giving Perfect Prep vs say an electrolyte paste (can always peel the labels off the PP tube.)

What about raspberry leaves? Some people swear by those. What about thera plate/chiro/massage? Does that make your horse more relaxe and more calm? Does that violate the spirit of the rule?

There was a post many months ago where someone contacted the USEF and the result was basically yes, it violates the spirit of the rule but we have no mechanism to proof and punish the use of non-prohibited/forbidden substances. (I obviously don’t remember the exact wording but that was the gist of it.)

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=BLBGP;8321705]
From their recent press release titled: Important Information Regarding the Use of the Prohibited Substance Phenibut (phenyl gamma aminobutyric acid)

“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.”

Nowhere in the release does it say “‘Calming’ supplements, intended to alter behavior, are prohibited under the spirit of the rule.” Rather, it says “‘Calming’ supplements, intended to alter behavior, should be regarded with a high degree of scrutiny when fed to competition horses.” Sure can be read as a big “ok” to give horses something like perfect prep at a show.[/QUOTE]

But you are adding meaning into this. They absolutely DO NOT address the spirit of the rule here…at ALL. So to say that calming doesn’t violate the spirit of the rule is adding words. It’s a huge omission, yes…and there are implications but to say that they addressed the spirit and intent of the rule regarding calming is reading too much into it.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=HorseShopping;8321719]

There was a post many months ago where someone contacted the USEF and the result was basically yes, it violates the spirit of the rule but we have no mechanism to proof and punish the use of non-prohibited/forbidden substances. (I obviously don’t remember the exact wording but that was the gist of it.)[/QUOTE]

1. the thing with PP is that is not something given on a regular basis…it’s given expressly at shows to alter performance in the show. That’s pretty damning. Maybe there are people out there giving it everyday or before every ride, but I am guessing they are the exception.

2. Just because something is unenforceable, doesn’t mean it’s not prohibited. If USEF can’t enforce the rule as written, they need to change the rule. That way, those of use that follow the letter and intent aren’t penalized.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8321869]
2. Just because something is unenforceable, doesn’t mean it’s not prohibited. If USEF can’t enforce the rule as written, they need to change the rule.[/QUOTE]

If it’s not detectable and is therefore unenforceable, it makes absolutely no sense to classify it as prohibited. At most, it can be strongly suggested that members of the association refrain from using it in horses that are entered in USEF rated shows.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8321896]
If it’s not detectable and is therefore unenforceable, it makes absolutely no sense to classify it as prohibited. At most, it can be strongly suggested that members of the association refrain from using it in horses that are entered in USEF rated shows.[/QUOTE]

Sure…but change the wording of the rule.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8321921]
Sure…but change the wording of the rule.[/QUOTE]

Yes, I absolutely agree. Look at all the churn they’ve created for themselves when people email or call them for clarification, and they don’t have a definitive answer because there simply isn’t one. They’re just shooting themselves in the foot with the way that rule is written.

I don’t understand what the thought process was when they all agreed to put in place a rule that requires self-policing by the members of the association.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8321896]
If it’s not detectable and is therefore unenforceable, it makes absolutely no sense to classify it as prohibited. At most, it can be strongly suggested that members of the association refrain from using it in horses that are entered in USEF rated shows.[/QUOTE]

I think it’s harder to prove but not impossible. If a witness catches someone administering PP, and the drug testers seize the tube, and it is in fact PP in that tube-- I would think the testimony plus evidence would probably be enough to sustain a sanction. It’s relatively low standard of proof.

Now, are people going to get caught red handed very often? No. But here you have (in essence) someone ADMITTING UNDER OATH to giving horse getting PP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALMING. What more evidence do you need/want? If someone admits to giving the horse cocaine, do you really need the blood sample? I don’t think so.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8321937]
I think it’s harder to prove but not impossible. If a witness catches someone administering PP, and the drug testers seize the tube, and it is in fact PP in that tube-- I would think the testimony plus evidence would probably be enough to sustain a sanction. It’s relatively low standard of proof.

Now, are people going to get caught red handed very often? No. But here you have (in essence) someone ADMITTING UNDER OATH to giving horse getting PP FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALMING. What more evidence do you need/want? If someone admits to giving the horse cocaine, do you really need the blood sample? I don’t think so.[/QUOTE]

Oh absolutely, in this particular case where the trainer admits to all of that under oath - yes, that should certainly be a slam dunk. But that’s not the norm. And I understand that you see that point.

As for someone admitting to giving a horse cocaine? Yes, I would want a blood sample to prove it. Who knows what the accusing person’s motive might be?

In your first scenario where someone witnesses someone giving a horse PP, and blows the whistle on that person? How likely is it that the witness will be able to tell for sure that it’s PP and not some benign paste? How likely is it that the whistle blowing will happen, and if it does, how likely is it that the whistle blower will find an official who can get to the scene of the alleged crime quickly enough to collect the evidence and bag it in a way that won’t compromise the investigation?

What is the ingredient in PP that will test positive, and is that ingredient present in PP in a concentration that is high enough that the USEF test will detect it? I have absolutely no idea what that answer is.

We’re talking about people’s livelihoods here. USEF can’t just start handing out sanctions willy nilly because Polly Anna over in Barn A thought she saw something screwy going on down the aisle.

Improvements are clearly needed, but they need to be well thought out and not be made based on emotion. Everyone who cares about this issue needs to keep it in the spotlight while at the same time being patient and understanding about the fact that making the RIGHT changes most often doesn’t happen overnight.

[Soaponarope]

Please don’t flame me, but I’m actually fine with a tube of Perfect Prep or any other nutraceutical given as part of a horse’s routine at home or at the show. I’m no expert, but I can’t think of any athlete that is prohibited from having vitamins and herbal supplements in reasonable amounts. But no one in their right minds takes nine times the recommended dose of an f’ing vitamin or herb for multiple days in a row unless they are looking for something well beyond good health.

There is a vet school out there - and I forget which one - but it did a study and the result was recommending lavender oil dispensed in a humidifier for horses who have anxiety or separation anxiety. I’m pretty sure they were implying its use as helpful for horses who get anxious in new surroundings, i.e., at horse shows. They are looking to help horses.

But nine tubes of anything given in conjunction with Gaba AND GOD KNOWS WHAT ELSE that they know USEF is not testing for is absolutely insane and CLEARLY intended to impact performance way, way beyond “calming.” In fact there is a massive difference between the kind of calm one would get from eating a turkey sandwich or having some ginger tea and the attempt to maximize that calm through overdosing the horse. There’s a big difference between eating a poppy-seed bagel and mainlining smack even if the latter starts out in the same plant as the former. Ugh, the whole thing is such a case of wretched excess it is beyond words. One can only wonder what the hell else they are doing to those horses. Just the recklessness of it and the nerve of it floors me.

[pacific_jumper]

[QUOTE=carroal;8322103]
Please don’t flame me, but I’m actually fine with a tube of Perfect Prep or any other nutraceutical given as part of a horse’s routine at home or at the show. I’m no expert, but I can’t think of any athlete that is prohibited from having vitamins and herbal supplements in reasonable amounts. But no one in their right minds takes nine times the recommended dose of an f’ing vitamin or herb for multiple days in a row unless they are looking for something well beyond good health.

There is a vet school out there - and I forget which one - but it did a study and the result was recommending lavender oil dispensed in a humidifier for horses who have anxiety or separation anxiety. I’m pretty sure they were implying its use as helpful for horses who get anxious in new surroundings, i.e., at horse shows. They are looking to help horses. [/QUOTE]

I’m pretty sure lavender is a prohibited substance

[Madeline]

It’s tough when you have a rule which requires “enforcement” by the Honor System". It’s especially tough when the group you’re expecting to self-regulate has shown over generations that the concept of “Honor System” is a totally foreign one.

You can’t regulate morality. Cheaters gonna cheat.

[findeight]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8321930]
Yes, I absolutely agree. Look at all the churn they’ve created for themselves when people email or call them for clarification, and they don’t have a definitive answer because there simply isn’t one. They’re just shooting themselves in the foot with the way that rule is written.

I don’t understand what the thought process was when they all agreed to put in place a rule that requires self-policing by the members of the association.[/QUOTE]

Its a relic from another time when you were not on the road 40weeks a year and just cheated and gave them some Ace if you chose, there was no such thing as “calmatives”. It was much more black and white, legal or illegal and 180 degrees from the way the big business of showing is conducted today.

USEF needs to revisit the whole concept, or visit it for the first time in the case of calmatives, instead of relying on a basic rule framework developed in…what? 1960s?..when drug testing was developed for show horses and shows were special and far fewer in number with fewer participants.

[Lord_Helpus]

LLC’s are, by definition, Limited Liability Companies. If a business goes bankrupt, and the business is a LLC, the purpose of creating the LLC is to shield the owner’s assets from being attached by creditors of the LLC.

However, courts have recognized that using a legal entity to avoid liability so the owner can just go out and form another LLC and start the process all over again, violates the concept of “equity”:

[ https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/equity ]

Hence the concept of “piercing the corporate veil”.

[ http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/personal-liability-piercing-corporate-veil-33006.html ]

I.e. Courts can rule that, in cases where it is just not plain fair to let the business owner off the hook, the right thing to do is to look through the entity and go after the owner.

Of course, these equitable concepts address business owners and bankruptcy because there is not a large body of law dealing with horses and horse shows. But, in theory, the tools are available if the USEF chooses to go after owners of an LLC (or a Corporation). The problem here is the cost of doing it, and smart horse owners (or horse owners with smart attorneys) know that.

For those nerds who love to know about these things ----- This all goes back to jolly olde England where there were separate courts: 1. Court of Law, and 2. Court of Equity. The latter still has a presence within the Court of Law, and sometimes is used in the interests of fairness. But, in our litigious society, “equity” is taking a back seat to “law”.

There will be a test on the above on Monday, so start studying! :) )

[Flash44]

[QUOTE=pacific_jumper;8322144]
I’m pretty sure lavender is a prohibited substance[/QUOTE]

Definitely a hard color to pull off well. Although is is pretty when used as the lining of a shadbelly.