additionally in Canada, I’ve spoken to many Stewards and drug testers in attending and helping organize recognized shows and being tested myself (usually get picked once or twice a year).
The most positive tests for prohibitive substances are in the hunter jumpers, next dressage. Hardly ever any in eventing.
The hunter jumper people have been said to have a very bad reaction to being tested, including yelling and harassing the testers, running and hiding, crying etc. I couldn’t believe the stories I heard! So there is even a hurdle for them to get their job done.
Veterinary associations are voluntary membership organizations.
They have no regulatory authority.
The parties that should be very interested in this diversion of a Scheduled Drug are the DEA and the FDA.
Any trainer found in possession of barbiturates for administration to horses is violating federal and state laws as well, and should not just be sanctioned by USEF, but arrested and charged for illegal use of narcotics.
.
ETA: The veterinarian supplying the drugs should also be prosecuted.
Unfortunately there are too few vets available to act as drug testers and way too many horse shows and classes. Many of the shows I attend have small animal vets as their testers on weekends because large animal vets just aren’t available. And the small animal vets tell me horror stories of trying to get techs to work the shows with them because of the abuse they encounter from exhibitors when trying to get their testing done. I would love USEF to step it up in the testing department, but that just isn’t going to happen until we have a lot more vets available.
Yes they can, but remember what happened when USEF was accused of targeted testing? Not a pretty thing and created a lot of resentment within the horse show world. I’m not saying it shouldn’t happen, just that again there are not a lot of vets available and exhibitors have a lot of money to throw at lawyers.
Exactly. And USEF needs to hold firm on enforcing their own rules and violation guidelines. None of the “the groom mixed up the buckets” excuses or “someone must have peed on the hay”. You get a positive test, sample B comes back positive, you get a fine that actually means something and a suspension that hurts.
Agreed! What vet in their right mind creates avenues for exhibitors to cheat and harm horses. That’s not what a vet license if for and those abusing their license should be banned from holding one.
How about take the word random out of it completely. Test the winners and the unusual circumstances that might indicate something nefarious. If someone cares that it’s not random, might I suggest they stop brushing the line of what’s legal and what’s not.
Well that is good to hear! I am certainly not as experienced as many people on this forum, but IME our winners are rarely tested. Regardless, I would like it to be standard i.e. not randomized.
Is it some sort of USEF rule that it has to be a veterinarian collecting the samples? I’ve never had blood drawn for testing at a show in Canada, but I usually end up getting selected for urine samples once or twice per year. It doesn’t have to be a veterinarian to collect urine, it’s an Equestrian Canada Official. They walk you through the whole process, explaining each step, explaining how things can’t be tampered with, etc.
I’ve asked them before how the random selection works. Usually it’s predetermined, such as 4th place in class 102, first place in class 105, etc. They can also do targeted selection if needed.
Crying? Good lord people get a grip. If you have nothing to hide why the dramatics?? Oh wait you do have things to hide.
I’ve become very jaded about showing at all considering the show organizers themselves seem to be turning a blind eye regarding what goes on. They know it goes on.
We used to want to cry when one of our racehorses was picked to test, not because we had something to hide, just that he almost always took the two hours to not pee and ended up having to have blood drawn. Made a long night longer.
I’d have to actually find the USEF testing requirements, but I know that only the testing vet can pull blood. The techs can gather urine, but they call the vet for blood. I don’t think people would be too happy just having anyone stick a needle in their horse’s vein to pull blood.
Which is understandable and I completely agree with. A vet and a tech turned my needle shy horse into a total needle phobic who now needs oral sedation prior to needles of any kind.
And like I said, I’ve never had blood drawn at a show (EC nor USEF). But as Canada has demonstrated there’s no reason that a vet or even a vet tech needs to be the one collecting urine samples. Seems it wouldn’t be that difficult to have a trained USEF official at rated shows collecting urine and sending them off for analysis. Bonus if the show vet or another vet can come, even just for a few hours to collect blood samples. Seems it would make it more difficult for the cheaters if there was always some sort of testing happening.
Slightly ironic, given that the reason for random testing for drugs is because absolutely any one - trainers, riders grooms, owners - stick needles into horses every day of the week and apparently multiple times at shows (cf the original article).
Given that I am aware of more than one “show vet” assisting with “helping” the competing horses with illicit substances, I’d squint real hard at that.
Even with an honest DVM, it’s somewhat of a conflict of interest.
I can’t imagine having some rando pulling blood. I have one horse who’s needle phobic with strangers and someone without experience would end up seriously injured.
Sorry, shouldn’t have said show vet. I meant have officials there all the time who can collect urine samples, and bonus if an authorized DVM can show up sporadically to pull blood for samples. Seems it would be more of a deterrent if there was always some sort of testing going on.
@enjoytheride I never suggested that that anyone but a DVM should be pulling blood. I meant that it doesn’t need to be a DVM for urine collection.
I’ve seen either the FEI vet delegate or the treating vet (can’t recall which one but pretty sure it was the delegate) be on hand for a blood draw in case a urine sample was not “offered” so there’s definitely precedent there. I can appreciate the conflict issue but the process for ensuring secure samples is pretty tight these days so I can see that leeway where it might be more difficult to get a vet tester.
Regarding the extraordinary role proposal, I thought it recommended to be put on hold until they work out the scrip labeling issue? If my memory is correct, I can see where that singular issue needs fine tuning. Anyone who has more than one horse can run into issues even if they are meticulous with the veterinary management of their horses. But why they don’t immediately implement the prohibited list of rx that came along with that proposal is beyond me. And again, lifetime ban if you are found with pentobarbital.
Made a long night longer.
so there’s definitely precedent there. I can appreciate the conflict issue but the process for ensuring secure samples is pretty tight these days so I can see that leeway where it might be more difficult to get a vet tester.