Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Colvin Civil Suit

Hunter/Jumper
#1041

[QUOTE=RugBug;8323415]
No, it’s not what is happening…or to be more precise, it is only happening to a select group. There are many more parents that have no idea what horsie ws given prior to going in the show ring. BC is an educated horsewoman in her own right. She knows. But some horseshow mom or dad that is transportation/cheering section/emotional support/bill payor? They have no idea littel Suzie Q is riding a drugged animal and most likely wouldn’t agree to it if they understood the ramifications.[/QUOTE]

I hope that you’re right, and if you were speaking of something other than the A/AA hunter shows I might actually believe you.
If you look at the A/AA hunter results you’ll see the same names over and over, and the same trainers, many of whom are on the committees that make the rules.

I just don’t believe that a “grass roots” effort will make a difference UNTIL the governing body finally grows some b@lls and does what it was meant to do, GOVERN.

So few winning horses are tested. Go back (if you have a lot time) and see how many trainers have been slapped on the wrist by USEF, how many of them are on USHJA committees and consider how few horses are tested. Look through the FEI website and see what has been happening. The FEI (unlike USEF) is now cracking down and giving 2 year suspensions of the Persons Responsible for banned substances. There are still people who take the chance and cheat! Do you believe that people will really stop drugging hunters of their own volition?

It is my (admittedly insignificant) opinion that when there is rot at the top it must be addressed from the top down.
It is not an outlandish proposition to expect the USEF or the USHJA to actually address the situation with better RULES.

As it was, the “I spend a hell of a lot of money on this thing for my kid and I expect results” culture was apparent back when I was involved with hunters, though not nearly so prevalent as it is today.
Thankfully it was never an issue at the barn I was involved with. I would have been gone in a flash and, ya know what? No one would have cared, as no one will care now if the “everyday” people leave.

In this win win culture, the expectation that people will self police is, to me, an unrealistic one.

http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?474785-Simpson-and-Horse-Why-Not-Suspended-by-FEI

A young person who’s parents are professionals. :no:

#1042

My interpretation of Mary Babick’s quote in the COTH article was that the people who posted on here tended to be more hands on and knowledgeable about what went into their horses than the general population of AA-show types. She made it clear, I think, that knowledgable and AA-show types could be overlapping sets.

#1043

[QUOTE=skydy;8323309]

You can’t imagine it? :confused: That’s what is happening. The mother of a junior,set down for drugging the horse her child was riding, is the topic of this thread.[/QUOTE]
I am reasonably confident that one of my former students (took winter session OChem with me, along with his twin brother and was a regular student at a large college in the area with a well-known football program) was being given steroids by his parents, possibly as early as when he played high-school football. Nice kids who were great to have in class. The parents, or at least the father, were the physician for a baseball player who’s kind of a poster child for inappropriate doping.

#1044

Carroal,

I can’t say that I understand your post. My quote to the Chronicle was not in reference to any particular person and was not intended to spin anything. I was asked for my personal opinion and that is what Lisa Slade received.

Before you assign me my role, perhaps you should understand that I am fortunate enough to have been a hands on horseman from the start of my riding. I have learned from some wonderful people and in very modest surroundings. My post was not intended to insult people who care for their own horses.

There are many people who board their horses who are highly involved. On the other hand, there are some barns that do not encourage customers to ask questions.

Thank you very much and perhaps we will meet someday.

Cordially,

Mary Babick

#1045

[QUOTE=handwalk;8323619]
Yes, it is. Guess I’m not clear.
Under supervision of a veterinarian is rather loose. We buy cases of meds. In our barn one trained person, who has discussed each case with our veterinarians, administers each dose.
That’s not the same elsewhere. That’s concerning.
We can and do medicate our own horses and pets, not other peoples - especially when the horses cost 7 figures.[/QUOTE]

That is at least somewhat dependent upon location.
I had a conversation on this subject with a member of the state board of veterinary medicine, and asked specifically about the common practice of dispensing a bottle of this or that to be used “as needed”.

I was told, emphatically, that it was a violation of the practice act in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Dispensing for a particular animal for a particular condition at a particular time and with a valid veterinarian/patient/client is what is “legal”.

Enforcement is another matter. Unless there is a substantiated complaint, no one gets in trouble. And the trainer isn’t going to complain. The DVM isn’t going to complain.

The owner isn’t going to complain…unless something goes wrong. And if the owner is unaware, well gee whiz, Weedwhacker just colicked. Or blew out an aneurysm. Very sad.

#1046

[QUOTE=Peggy;8323855]
I am reasonably confident that one of my former students (took winter session OChem with me, along with his twin brother and was a regular student at a large college in the area with a well-known football program) was being given steroids by his parents, possibly as early as when he played high-school football. Nice kids who were great to have in class. The parents, or at least the father, were the physician for a baseball player who’s kind of a poster child for inappropriate doping.[/QUOTE]

It is sad isn’t it?

We all like to think that parents have their children’s best interest at heart but unfortunately this is often not the case. The governing bodies must govern responsibly and advocate for the horse. That advocacy will in turn benefit the rider (whether they realize it or not).

#1047

Here; https://www.usef.org/documents/rules/HearingCommittee/2015/AugustRulings.pdf is a current example of two rule violations and the lack of consequences thereof.

No suspensions, these folks can keep showing. They pay a fine and are “censured”.

#1048

…and two more; https://www.usef.org/documents/rules/HearingCommittee/2015/AugustAdministrativePenalties.pdf

Now, if you don’t pay your bills, you are suspended until you pay. That is as it should be, but non-payment does seem to be the more egregious offense as far as USEF is concerned.

#1049

Thanks to Ms. Babick for coming by and clarifying so graciously. As I noted earlier, I respect her greatly and trust that she does well by her horses.

#1050

Dear ChristinaClarLuisa,

Thank you very much. Anytime you are in NJ stop by my farm and visit. We do love visitors. No appointment needed - its usually the best way to see what really goes on.

Mary Babick

#1051

[QUOTE=Jumphigh83;8323684]
Anyone who thinks Mary Babick is anything but a fine, upstanding, conscientious and compassionate horseman, obviously doesn’t know Mary. I’m sure there are those who are “innovative” and “flexible” … Mary is not one of them.[/QUOTE]

I’m sure she is. And it’s not relevant, so you can take it easy.

To be clear: I was the one who asked what COTHer, ChristinaClareL meant by her synopsis of an idea Ms. Babick expressed in an article. Babick then quoted the section in full, so as to show us exactly what that quote had meant.

None of that exchange had anything to do with Ms. Babick’s integrity or character.

Speaking now to the content of that quote, it seems that Ms. Babick believes those in “boarding barns” to be the least likely to know what’s going on with respect to the meds their horses are given. In particular, I infer, this is to acknowledge that “hands on” horse owners can be part of the show scene (against the stereotype of the high-end rider always being clueless).

But I think her suspicion is a tad misplaced. It’s not merely keeping your horse at someone else’s barn that might get you kept in the dark. Rather, it’s keeping your horse in a trainer’s program when the management style there is to keep horse owners at arm’s length from the decisions made about their horse’s care. That has nothing to do with keeping your horse at home or not, and nothing to do with your tax bracket.

And, not for nothin’, but a long time ago Geoff Teall wrote an article for Practical Horsemen way back in the late 1990s when horse showing really stepped up a notch to become big business. He meant to explain how top programs do it and accomplish the wins they do. Part of his description was an unapologetic statement that the owner needed to be willing to turn over decisions about the horse’s care to the pro. I think the example was about shoeing. I can see his reasoning with respect to wanting control over every bit of the optimizing process. And IME, vets are inconsistent in how the share information and decision-making duties with clients and horse owners. (Also, IME, vets will include owners and are happy to do so; it is the trainers who encourage or discourage that).

In any case, his “You will turn over all aspects of your horse’s care to me or you won’t be in my barn” sparked an onslaught of letters to the editor. People weren’t happy. Since then, I have always wondered if good pros really didn’t like having those “hands on” clients. I am one of those. I can’t help myself and I won’t change. But before Teall wrote, I didn’t know that that kind of horsemanship wasn’t welcome. It feels like shit to know that that’s the case.

But also, IME, you have to get to a pretty high level of sport (and spending) before you get to a barn that would like to keep its owners in the dark and which successfully does that.

#1052

Ms. Babick, thank you for your participation in this discussion.

I disagree, I think that most hunter trainers are quite sophisticated regarding the rules and the meds. They know what will and won’t “test.” Some of them may walk a finer line than others, I think knowing how much GABA you can inject before it shows up as a positive is a great example of this sophistication. Trainers are perfectly aware that giving something with the intention to sedate a horse for a more relaxed performance in the hunter ring is against the rules. That’s why the dex is for “hives,” the Perfect Prep is to help the horse deal with “shipping stress,” the Mag is “just an electrolyte replacement/vitamin&mineral solution” etc.

Medicating horses with all kinds of untestable substances to calm them for a relaxed performance in the hunter ring is deeply ingrained in the current hunter culture. I’m one of those people that falls into both categories that Ms. Babick mentions, I care for my own horses and also show at a reasonably high level. I’m generally there at night tucking my horses in and there early in the morning. I’m not blind, I see the rows of syringes and pastes that just about every hunter gets, even at barns run by very well respected “clean” trainers. Trainers are not innocents, and education is going to be a very weak force compared to the pressure trainers face to survive professionally by producing winning clients, client horses, and sale horses. No one is going to throw their syringes and pastes away because of a little “education.”

Trying to find a solution is difficult–people can talk about morals and ethics all they want, but it’s not a good idea to have a rule you can’t enforce. If you can’t test for these substances/supplements and can’t prove they have been given in some way other than the person flat out admitting it (which is not going to happen often) or an extremely reliable witness (like a steward) that sets up a situation where the honest people play by the rules and the dishonest cheat to their hearts’ content.

This is why I strongly believe the judging has to change. If you reward horses that look like they have been sedated or that jump in an unnaturally quiet manner–a manner that for many/most horses CANNOT be achieved through any amount of training–then people are going to use anything they think they can get away with to relax their horses.

#1053

Horse owners should also ask if that medication was prescribed by the vet for THEIR horse. If it’s not, why is it being used on their horse ? Does the vet know that the trainer is choosing and dosing meds for horses other than the name written on the prescription, and doing it without a license ?

And of course there are the grooms who medicate and sometimes use meds from another groom in another barn. In 2007, this was used as a defense by an American jumper trainer who was suspended by the FEI after his clients’ horses tested positive for isoxsuprine and romfidine at US shows in 2006.

In regards to the Romfidine, the trainer claimed that his groom was given a medication from another groom and that he (the trainer’s groom) was told it calmed horses while clipping. The trainer’s groom said the other groom told him it was drug free, so he used it. However, the FEI vet said that Romfidine is only available in injectable form. The FEI noted that if the trainer’s story was true, then grooms were being allowed to give repeated intravenous injections to a horse without consideration of the eventual consequences for testing.

The money spent to purchase, board, train, shoe, clothe, and compete top show horses is substantial; why grooms are allowed to medicate these horses is beyond me.

#1054

The DVM may complain when they lose their license.

#1055

[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8323928]
Ms. Babick, thank you for your participation in this discussion.

I disagree, I think that most hunter trainers are quite sophisticated regarding the rules and the meds. They know what will and won’t “test.” Some of them may walk a finer line than others, I think knowing how much GABA you can inject before it shows up as a positive is a great example of this sophistication. Trainers are perfectly aware that giving something with the intention to sedate a horse for a more relaxed performance in the hunter ring is against the rules. That’s why the dex is for “hives,” the Perfect Prep is to help the horse deal with “shipping stress,” the Mag is “just an electrolyte replacement/vitamin&mineral solution” etc.

Medicating horses with all kinds of untestable substances to calm them for a relaxed performance in the hunter ring is deeply ingrained in the current hunter culture. I’m one of those people that falls into both categories that Ms. Babick mentions, I care for my own horses and also show at a reasonably high level. I’m generally there at night tucking my horses in and there early in the morning. I’m not blind, I see the rows of syringes and pastes that just about every hunter gets, even at barns run by very well respected “clean” trainers. Trainers are not innocents, and education is going to be a very weak force compared to the pressure trainers face to survive professionally by producing winning clients, client horses, and sale horses. No one is going to throw their syringes and pastes away because of a little “education.”

Trying to find a solution is difficult–people can talk about morals and ethics all they want, but it’s not a good idea to have a rule you can’t enforce. If you can’t test for these substances/supplements and can’t prove they have been given in some way other than the person flat out admitting it (which is not going to happen often) or an extremely reliable witness (like a steward) that sets up a situation where the honest people play by the rules and the dishonest cheat to their hearts’ content.

This is why I strongly believe the judging has to change. If you reward horses that look like they have been sedated or that jump in an unnaturally quiet manner–a manner that for many/most horses CANNOT be achieved through any amount of training–then people are going to use anything they think they can get away with to relax their horses.[/QUOTE]

There is a lot to agree with here. There are those that know and do it anyway – some with a high level of skill and attention to detail. There are those that choose not to know deliberately. There are those that are completely ignorant.

However, there is value to having a rule even if it is difficult to enforce. Rules, like laws, set a standard of behavior. It may be true that it may not always be enforceable, but the statement of a standard has a power in an of itself. The alternative is to say that is is ok to do anything that will not test – think for a moment about that message - its not one to make anyone proud.

#1056

There is a new FEI decision suspending an Arab Sheika (endurance) for two years for her first drugging violation. The USEF still just gives a slap on the wrist and censure, per the August report cited above.

My question is whether or not most of the drugging is found in hunters and equitation, not jumpers? Because people here keep raising the issue of safety for the young rider, and young riders do low level jumpers as well. You really can’t tell from most of the USEF decisions what the horse was showing in.

It might make more of a public relations impact if the class the horse showed in was found in EVERY decision of the hearing panel. More transparency and more fingers pointing would make uproars more based in fact. And the more uproar the better, because things won’t change otherwise.

#1057

[QUOTE=vineyridge;8324043]
There is a new FEI decision suspending an Arab Sheika (endurance) for two years for her first drugging violation. The USEF still just gives a slap on the wrist and censure, per the August report cited above.

My question is whether or not most of the drugging is found in hunters and equitation, not jumpers? Because people here keep raising the issue of safety for the young rider, and young riders do low level jumpers as well. You really can’t tell from most of the USEF decisions what the horse was showing in.

It might make more of a public relations impact if the class the horse showed in was found in EVERY decision of the hearing panel. More transparency and more fingers pointing would make uproars more based in fact. And the more uproar the better, because things won’t change otherwise.[/QUOTE]

It is very unfortunate that the safety of young riders has to be the concern, secondary to the safety and welfare of the horse. (I know that this is not your fault Vineyridge, you are accurately reflecting your concern regarding the current horse show culture).

I’m sure many of us are concerned about the kids, however if the horses aren’t allowed to be impaired (by lax rules and lax enforcement) then the kid is as safe as it can be when properly mounted which, after all, is the responsibility of the professional trainer, to train horse and rider.

If USEF and the USHJA would implement rules that would;

  1. Effectively prohibit the drugging or “supplementing” of the horse by making the rules clear and concise.

and

  1. Establish meaningful penalties for breaking the rules,that would actually deter people from violating them.

Then, the judges would be judging horses that are not under the influence, as well as riders that are capable of riding the horses through those common horsey moments of imperfection (or not). If the horse has a bad day and you can’t pull it together, then today is not your day.

If the horse that is having an off day endangers a child, then it is either an unsuitable horse for a junior or the junior needs to improve their riding skills before showing in an A/AA show.

Trainers would necessarily have to choose the best horse for the job, and not “calm” them to remove any possibility of the horse behaving as horses do at times, and students would have to learn to cope… and of course riders would benefit by learning to ride through those moments.

It really isn’t that difficult to clean up this mess. Technically it’s easy. It is absolutely simple.

The difficulty seems to lie in the fear of the economic damage that would occur to those that cater to the win-win-but-we-want-it-to-be-easy crowd, if that cash cow were to be denied what it wants and pays for.

Remember too, the 12hr no injection rule was all that seemed to come out of the death of a pony at Devon, at the end of a needle, by a “Mom” who to this day continues to be allowed to show. It took many voices from the peanut gallery AND an article in the NYT to get that much done…

#1058

Good post.

Any time one person is responsible for making a decision and another person is responsible for payment, there will be issues with control and input.

My question to those that honestly think that there are owners out there who have no clue the horses are drugged - who is paying the bills on the horses? I have a hard time believing the bills are simply paid with no review.

#1059

[QUOTE=carroal;8323815]
This spin is fascinating. First TC is lauded as the most “hands-on” junior rider out there. But suddenly when her horse tests positive and additionally the outrageous overdosing of supplements becomes a matter of public record, she’s not hands-on enough to know anything about it at all.

And on top of that, those who are critical of giving a horse nine tubes of a supplement plus some kind of bespoke paste and Gaba must have never had their horse “at a boarding barn” and be some kind of lower-level hacks who just don’t understand the importance and the complexityof prep at a “boarding barn.”

Well shucks, m’am, excuse me while I go back on the lower forty to feed my pony in his run-in shelter made of sticks while listening to banjo music. I’ve no doubt that there are many clients who somehow don’t see or ask what goes into their horse, but come on.[/QUOTE]

Sorry to call you out, carraol, but you have completely misunderstood the point here. If you hadn’t quoted Mary Babick I would think you were responding to a different post. I don’t see how she could have more clearly stated that those who take care of their own horses, whether at home or being hands-on at their boarding barn, are more knowledgeable than those who just blindly follow the program. You seem determined to take offense at a blatant compliment.

#1060

Well I guess I’m confused about the interview overall and sorry for missing the point. However, is anyone on this discussion going to tell me they’ve never heard a client at an A/AA show ask if their horse had perfect prep before they get on? I’m questioning the claim that people in full board don’t know what their horse is ingesting and somehow only diy riders know what goes into their horse. They may be following a training program, but they know the horse is getting something.

Moreover this whole discussion started over inclusive. I can only imagine what he smelled like after ingesting nine tubes of perfect prep. The stuff has a very distinctive smell. It’s not possible to be showing and not know what it smells like.

Perhaps I took offense improperly, and if so my apologies to Mary. However there is simply no way people in full training board don’t know a great deal about their horses’ show prep.

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $21.95 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

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.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse