I don’t understand why, if she was completely banned from being near the horses, she was holding the horse when the tester showed up.
[QUOTE=busylady;8301000]
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!!![/QUOTE]
I still don’t see why that was such a huge deal because if she wasn’t medicating the horse then someone else was, so why should they be so upset about BC possibly insinuating that the horse should be medicated?
[QUOTE=SnicklefritzG;8301016]
I still don’t see why that was such a huge deal because if she wasn’t medicating the horse then someone else was, so why should they be so upset about BC possibly insinuating that the horse should be medicated?[/QUOTE]
Worried that they already gave it some and if she gives it more it’s going to be over the threshold for testing that they thought they found?!
[QUOTE=JenEM;8300953]
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.[/QUOTE]
Who knows. From my POV why the rift occurred is less interesting than the aftermath
Wow.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8301023]
Worried that they already gave it some and if she gives it more it’s going to be over the threshold for testing that they thought they found?![/QUOTE]
Oh my goodness, you are probably right! The problem wasn’t with Brigid medicating (that was routine), it was with her overmedicating. Perhaps the horse got a double dose on derby day and that is why it tested positive (to the tune of 10x its baselie)!
[QUOTE=vxf111;8301023]
Worried that they already gave it some and if she gives it more it’s going to be over the threshold for testing that they thought they found?![/QUOTE]
I could totally see that.
What a total cluster you-know-what.
[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. [/QUOTE]
Agreed. Its a bit of a red herring to view this as SR v. BC in terms of credibility. In my view, neither is credible. Sure, they may be truthful in some respects, but there are some pretty big issues with BOTH testimonies. I don’t believe either of them is being honest and forthright.
Too bad that Inclusive and the other horses can’t talk.
the only good that can come of this ( aside from juicy reading that Jilly Cooper will love) is the the sordid side of this industry is well exposed
perhaps judges and trainers will see that they have produced a generation of perch and pose , ineffective riders who cannot be called horsemen. The horses who gallumph around a far removed from the purpose of the Hunter; an alert effective partner for the field.
We have accepted and created this. It is our decision about what to do with it.
I’ve come to the conclusion that everyone involved in the horses knew about it and therefore all are considered guilty. No one stood up and said “hey, this is wrong”. Whether BC wants to admit it or not; she played a role in the illegal drugging of these horses and if felt it was wrong, she would’ve sought out a steward to have it addressed.
[QUOTE=snaffle1987;8301067]
I’ve come to the conclusion that everyone involved in the horses knew about it and therefore all are considered guilty. No one stood up and said “hey, this is wrong”. Whether BC wants to admit it or not; she played a role in the illegal drugging of these horses and if felt it was wrong, she would’ve sought out a steward to have it addressed.[/QUOTE]
But then her daughter might not have won as much as she did. It’s unfortunate that some people are putting their ego and greed ahead of the horse’s welfare.
I’m sad to admit that I’ve found this to be an ethralling read. Hopefully hunter land becomes a better place when the dust settles from this implosion.
[QUOTE=AliCat;8301074]
I’m sad to admit that I’ve found this to be an ethralling read. Hopefully hunter land becomes a better place when the dust settles from this implosion.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Sometimes it takes a major disaster to turn things around.
[QUOTE=Justice;8300928]
Can’t find it… Tia![/QUOTE]
Whoops , that will start you on the 13th page but you can go back from there page 1. BAC you really should read when you have time. It is just…:eek:
Holes so big you can drive a mac truck through them… Like many of you probably did, I’ve read pages over a few times saying, “Did he/she REALLY just say that??” I almost expected the transcriber to write audible eye-rolls heard in room at some places. I may have laughed out loud at SR saying he didn’t know what Gaba was.
All that said, I’m 110% convinced that TC has glacier water running through her veins. We all knew she was riding in high profile/stress situations, but we really had No idea, did we?
I have several pages of this thread to catch up on and admit I have not read any of the things I downloaded in detail–just skimmed to make sure I was downloading documents people would care about and to get the procedural gist. I’ve been asked to pull Dr. P’s affidavit. I don’t recall that being an exhibit but I will go back and look. Stay tuned.
[QUOTE=IPEsq;8301129]
I have several pages of this thread to catch up on and admit I have not read any of the things I downloaded in detail–just skimmed to make sure I was downloading documents people would care about and to get the procedural gist. I’ve been asked to pull Dr. P’s affidavit. I don’t recall that being an exhibit but I will go back and look. Stay tuned.[/QUOTE]
Awesome. I can hardly wait to read it if you manage to find it. If you do, I’m saving some ice-cream as a cheat meal while I read it. lol.
Ok, Dr. P’s affidavit is not part of the filed documents at this stage. Since she is not a party, it does not seem to be relevant right now because BC is requesting a stay of her suspension, and it looks like the marked up order was officially signed/entered as of today. So, from what I can tell so far (given that I haven’t read the documents and briefs in detail yet), USEF was just trying to oppose her motion to have the suspension stayed, and USEF just needed to show that it followed proper procedures in imposing the sanction. It may be that the affidavit is introduced at a later stage in the litigation during discovery, but it is currently not a public document.
I have added an email exhibit that I missed yesterday to the dropbox. I have not added the exhibit about equine related injuries because it is such an old paper, who cares. Or the exhibit about USEF’s definition of “trainer” in the rule book because we all know how to read the rule book. Carry on.
