Yes, thank you Eric for taking such a stand.
I hope this means he will still compete for Canada!!! And I hope he is invited by EC to participate in the discussions when they do occur!
You know, honestly, a lot of the blame belongs on the shoulders of the yahoos who have been playing ‘fast and loose’ so as to require the implementation of this rule in the first place.
I have personally known a retired GP horse that had been ‘fiddled’ with (had caustic substances applied to it’s legs to prevent rail hits) in the stall so much, that you couldn’t catch the damn animal in it’s stall.
There is a reason these protocols have been enacted. It’s because greedy, dumb a$$es have been cheating (and abusing horses) for the sake of GP placings. I agree that the FEI needs to try harder to be fairer to riders at this time.
But lets face it, they are in this position because jerks have made it necessary. Those jerks are the one’s really at fault.
[QUOTE=Rocky XVI;6487005]
Three cheers for Akaash Maharaj for taking a public stand on this issue. If you didn’t read it above, here it is again:
http://www.maharaj.org/blog/2012_08_08.shtml[/QUOTE]
even a 5 year old could grasp the particulars elucidated by Maharaj… well written and factually based philosophy.
[QUOTE=rodawn;6487038]
Any cut, bruise, scratch will cause a rush of blood flow to the area. This is required for the wound to heal. You can run your fingernail across your skin to scratch without fully penetrating the skin or drawing blood, and you will have a red streak on your skin. Thermography will show a flush of hot there. It’s a natural and required reaction. Thermography in and of itself is insufficient to determine lameness.[/QUOTE]
I understand all of this, and it is exactly my point. Tiffany’s horse was disqualified, with no jog or other determiner of lameness, because of a tiny cut on his coronary band. My question was why this test is not used in eventing between XC and stadium, if their concern is indeed the welfare of the horse. And because it is at that point that an eventer might be motivated to hypersensitive their horse, so why not look for it if THAT is the true reason for the test.
I am certainly not targeting eventers, I have many eventer friendss. I am merely trying to illustrate how ridiculous FEI’s reasons for the test are n how it is currently administered, and it seems to target only SJ.
He made some serious mistakes, but that was quite a few years ago, he has turned his life around, so I think he is to be commended for that. It would have been much easier to just continue on a path of self destruction.
I am not sure whether I agree or not with his decision not to participate on the Canadian team. Does he own his own horses or are they owned by clients? If clients, then I think he would need their support, perhaps they might not be as willing to withhold their horses from team appearances.
Of course the rule needs to be there, and almost all rules are designed to impact those who are looking for an unfair edge, but that simply does not excuse a process that clearly is not working. Exactly how is it useful to make excuses for a bad process because of bad actors? If that’s the case we can just go half assed on ALL rules.
[QUOTE=Isabeau Z Solace;6487184]
You know, honestly, a lot of the blame belongs on the shoulders of the yahoos who have been playing ‘fast and loose’ so as to require the implementation of this rule in the first place.
I have personally known a retired GP horse that had been ‘fiddled’ with (had caustic substances applied to it’s legs to prevent rail hits) in the stall so much, that you couldn’t catch the damn animal in it’s stall.
There is a reason these protocols have been enacted. It’s because greedy, dumb a$$es have been cheating (and abusing horses) for the sake of GP placings. I agree that the FEI needs to try harder to be fairer to riders at this time.
But lets face it, they are in this position because jerks have made it necessary. Those jerks are the one’s really at fault.[/QUOTE]
There are lots of jerks in all the disciplines, but they haven’t created an unfair, capricious test for them. I do agree, however, that maybe one of the flags to test a horse should be his unwillingness to have his front legs touched.
[QUOTE=crackerjack;6486533]
In my lowly very unimportant amateur rider mind I certainly don’t think he’s acting like an a-hole… or running off his mouth.[/QUOTE]
That was probably in response to my post. That was certainly my first thought (and I’m definitely a very unimportant amateur rider), but I don’t think it was a completely hotheaded, knee jerk reaction, and I don’t think he was deliberately trying to be jerk. The more I think about it he’s probably one of the few brave enough to say what needs to be said. He’s had lots of practice with the media so probably thought thought it through at least a little before just spouting off, although it was very clear he was disgusted (as it seems are so many people).
I honestly wish more people were outspoken like that instead of trying to be politically correct and not ruffle any feathers. Part of the reason there is the rule is because people don’t speak up enough (but that’s a whole other thread entirely I suppose). I’ve got a ton of respect for the guy for being so gutsy, and standing tall and proud after all the crap he’s dealt with. It’ll be interesting to follow the story that’s for sure. Glad to see EC is listening.
If you were really worried about the welfare of your horse you would be applying grease to the front of his coronary band to prevent nicks and bumps - just like the eventers do.
[QUOTE=Isabeau Z Solace;6487184]
You know, honestly, a lot of the blame belongs on the shoulders of the yahoos who have been playing ‘fast and loose’ so as to require the implementation of this rule in the first place.
I have personally known a retired GP horse that had been ‘fiddled’ with (had caustic substances applied to it’s legs to prevent rail hits) in the stall so much, that you couldn’t catch the damn animal in it’s stall.
There is a reason these protocols have been enacted. It’s because greedy, dumb a$$es have been cheating (and abusing horses) for the sake of GP placings. I agree that the FEI needs to try harder to be fairer to riders at this time.
But lets face it, they are in this position because jerks have made it necessary. Those jerks are the one’s really at fault.[/QUOTE]
Ding, ding, ding we have a winner. That’s exactly why the rule was implemented. So there are a lot of other folks Eric et al should be angry at, not just the FEI and EC.
No one’s expressed outrage at the rule.
The outrage is at how the rule is applied, the lacksadaisical manner in which the testing is completed, the lack of thoroughness (not trotting out the horse when it is clear that this case was NOT one of equine abuse), and the lack of appeal process (which means there is no way to hold the FEI accountable for THEIR decisions).
The additional outrage is towards our national governing body for their abhorent lack of support for our riders and team.
The rule is good. The application of it, testing procedures, and lack of appeal process requires serious review and revamping.
[QUOTE=BoldChance;6487263]
No one’s expressed outrage at the rule.
The outrage is at how the rule is applied, the lacksadaisical manner in which the testing is completed, the lack of thoroughness (not trotting out the horse when it is clear that this case was NOT one of equine abuse), and the lack of appeal process (which means there is no way to hold the FEI accountable for THEIR decisions).
The additional outrage is towards our national governing body for their abhorent lack of support for our riders and team.
The rule is good. The application of it, testing procedures, and lack of appeal process requires serious review and revamping.[/QUOTE]
^^ YES ! ! ! ! ! ! !
[QUOTE=BoldChance;6487263]
No one’s expressed outrage at the rule.
The outrage is at how the rule is applied, the lacksadaisical manner in which the testing is completed, the lack of thoroughness (not trotting out the horse when it is clear that this case was NOT one of equine abuse), and the lack of appeal process (which means there is no way to hold the FEI accountable for THEIR decisions).
The additional outrage is towards our national governing body for their abhorent lack of support for our riders and team.
The rule is good. The application of it, testing procedures, and lack of appeal process requires serious review and revamping.[/QUOTE]
Yes but there would be no need to complain about how the rule is implemented, if there were no need for the rule at all. There are many individuals, groups and governing bodies to be mad at here that’s for sure.
I think the horses are partly owned by Eric (as they had to show Canadian ownership to be able to compete in the Olympics), but that does not prevent Eric from competing as an individual in Europe, in the States or in Canada. He just would not be part of the Canadian team. To much to lose for EC and for Canada. And I know it would hurt Eric not to represent Canada as he is a staunch Canadian. BUT, still I think he had to make the point and I hope he will be in talks with EC and will be satisfied with their about face! Good on him!! If I were Tiffany, I would be so proud to have such a coach and friend!!
[QUOTE=lauriep;6487211]
I understand all of this, and it is exactly my point. Tiffany’s horse was disqualified, with no jog or other determiner of lameness, because of a tiny cut on his coronary band. My question was why this test is not used in eventing between XC and stadium, if their concern is indeed the welfare of the horse. And because it is at that point that an eventer might be motivated to hypersensitive their horse, so why not look for it if THAT is the true reason for the test.
I am certainly not targeting eventers, I have many eventer friendss. I am merely trying to illustrate how ridiculous FEI’s reasons for the test are n how it is currently administered, and it seems to target only SJ.[/QUOTE]
At FEI levels, eventers jog for soundness before SJ. Not having any experience with intentionally sensitizing a horse (I have a chestnut TB mare, she’s sensitive enough already, thank you!), I wonder if jogging before each day of competition would be enough to show evidence of sensitization? My understanding is that it’s similar to what’s done with the Big Lick horses, so I would think it would effect the movement enough to be obvious, right?
While I don’t disagree at all with the intent of the rule, in execution, it seems to be proving more than a little lacking. Perhaps starting by implementing a jog, and then doing as the eventers do and examining the horses that look NQR would be a better way to go.
Huh? They do that for Stadium Jumping? Funny I have never seen that.
And tit-for-tat. If eventers really cared about the welfare of their horses, they would be clamouring for a sensitivity test between x/c and sj. I am sure there are any number of horses who have hit x/c jumps hard enough to be sensitive to constant prodding to their legs; obviously that is now the criteria for not being able to compete. The FEI has clearly shown that a horse does not have to be jogged to be eliminated. Sensitivity to probing and thermal scans are the new, higher level of judging soundness. Oh, and I forgot about the thermal scan. Any heat in a leg? Oh dear,it is cruel to ask a horse to jump if so.
We would see just how the eventing community feels about that!
Until then, eventers must be a callous bunch to not pull their horses after x/c if they perform the sensitivity test and discover that their horse reacts.
(Sarcasm here people — please do not call me out on what I have written.)
[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;6487486]
Huh? They do that for Stadium Jumping? Funny I have never seen that.
And tit-for-tat. If eventers really cared about the welfare of their horses, they would be clamouring for a sensitivity test between x/c and sj. I am sure there are any number of horses who have hit x/c jumps hard enough to be sensitive to constant prodding to their legs; obviously that is now the criteria for not being able to compete. The FEI has clearly shown that a horse does not have to be jogged to be eliminated. Sensitivity to probing and thermal scans are the new, higher level of judging soundness. Oh, and I forgot about the thermal scan. Any heat in a leg? Oh dear,it is cruel to ask a horse to jump if so.
We would see just how the eventing community feels about that!
Until then, eventers must be a callous bunch to not pull their horses after x/c if they perform the sensitivity test and discover that their horse reacts.
(Sarcasm here people — please do not call me out on what I have written.)[/QUOTE]
Sarcasm noted, but thanks for getting what I am trying to say.
Because stadium can make or break a big competition for an eventer, I cannot believe that they have never “lit up” their horse prior to The stadium phase. Love to be proved wrong, but I don’t think so.
The REASON for the test, and the idea, is fine. The implementation sucks. And no, I am not mad at the nameless people who made this test necessary, any more then I am “mad” at those who made drug testing at shows necessary. I AM mad at them for using more and more dangerous drugs, however.
[QUOTE=crackerjack;6486533]
The statement was oh so typically Canadian- didn’t want to anger the powers that be… rather than causing a fuss to defend one of its own. Some of these reactions are also typically Canadian - oh Eric’s having a temper tantrum- he shouldn’t be making all this noise. No he’s doing the right thing and actually defending a fellow athlete from a pretty major snub by their own organization.[/QUOTE]
I thought that too but didn’t want to say so for fear of offending Canadians! I guess I lived there long enough for some of it to rub off on me.
reported
Did anyone catch the update? I got this in the email:
CLARIFICATION ON THE STATEMENT FROM EQUINE CANADA REGARDING THE DISQUALIFICATION OF VICTOR, CANADIAN SHOW JUMPER FROM THE 2012 OLYMPIC GAMES
August 8, 2012, London, England - Equine Canada has issued the following further statements regarding the International Equestrian Federation’s (FEI) hypersensitivity testing protocol.
“Equine Canada agrees that the FEI’s hypersensitivity protocol is in place to protect the welfare of the horse and the fairness of our sport,” states Mr. Gallagher.
“Victor sustained a superficial cut on the front of the left front coronary band,” states Canadian Olympic Team Veterinarian for Jumping Dr. Sylvie Surprenant. “In our opinion the horse was fit to compete as he showed no signs of lameness. However the FEI hypersensitivity protocol is such that if the horse is sensitive to the touch, regardless of the cause, the horse is disqualified. While the FEI rules for the hypersensitivity protocol were followed, we believe that there should be a review of this protocol.”
“We feel that further discussion of the hypersensitivity protocol needs to take place in order to ensure a balance is reached between the philosophical intent and the real-world application. Canada looks forward to playing a role in those discussions along with other nations within the FEI family,” states Mr. Gallagher
“Equine Canada wants to make it clear that there is absolutely no accusation of any wrongdoing on the part of our athlete Tiffany Foster or any member of the Canadian Team. Equine Canada fully stands behind and supports our athlete Tiffany Foster, as well as our entire team. Everyone at Equine Canada and the Canadian Olympic Team are disheartened and extremely disappointed over the premature ending of Tiffany Foster’s Olympic dream, and remain fiercely proud of both her incredible sportsmanship and athletic achievements,” states Mr. Gallagher.
Read more on the FEI’s hypersensitivity protocol.
Seems they want Eric back.
