Equitation horses and drugs

[BITSA]

[QUOTE=skydy;8665794]
http://www.usefnetwork.com/news/10277/2013/7/22/change_to_rule_gr_843_mandatory_rep.aspx

This rule only applies to horses that drop dead, so to speak, as in the Mandarino pony case, and not to horses who fall while in the ring. USEF did not pass the mandatory necropsy rule.
So, if your child is riding a BNT’s horse and is killed jumping (a crash in the ring) as opposed to the horse dropping dead when walking from the ring, your options are quite limited at this point. Necropsy not required. Blood tests are, apparently? However it seems the results are not being shared with the public.[/QUOTE]

I wonder what the reasoning is for no necropsy if a horse dies at a show…it seems crazy to me. Maybe who pays the cost?

[skydy]

I suppose that if the horse breaks their neck in a fall that the cause of death is considered obvious. I personally would want a necropsy if it was my horse, to see if there was some underlying reason that the horse failed to jump effectively thus causing the fall. However that is a choice that an owner can make, or not.

The requirement that blood be drawn is more to the point and is it seems at this point, to be non-negotiable.

A concerned parent that is not in the “loop” (many that are “in the loop” know if the horses are medicated and consider it part of the “game”) would unfortunately have to wait a year or so to find put if a particular trainer’s horse had been medicated in violation of USEF rules, thus delaying their ability to make an informed decision whether to entrust their child’s safety to that trainer, big name or not.

[eclipse]

I once sat on my old jumper about 4 hours after she’d been tranqd for a vet appt… It was like she still wasn’t “there” … Worse feeling ever and trainer and I both looked at each other and decided it was too dangerous to ride. No idea why anyone would ever want to compete a horse that doesn’t have all its wits about it?

I also used used to have a horse that was not happy to jump… Ever! She just didn’t like the job although when she did decide today was a good jump day she was amazing! It just wasn’t worth the stress on her or me so she’s now enjoying being a parade horse at her original home. It just never crossed our minds to “ace” her into jump! Sometimes a horse is sending us a clear message about what they actually want to do and it’s upto us to listen!

[kbrethauer]

[QUOTE=danceronice;8663288]
You’re my new COTH hero. I honestly don’t know a lot of other people who have shown who just decide to go with “keep the horse, forget the showing” when it turns out to not be the horse’s thing.[/QUOTE]

I know TB1201 very well and she is quite an amazing person. I am also one of those people that kept the horse and forgot about showing. My gelding just didn’t handle the pressure of the show world very well. My heart of hearts loves hunters and when we jump at home I still get a little sad that we don’t play in that ring anymore, but I love my horse and don’t want to put him through it.

[Lucassb]

[QUOTE=farmgirl;8665473]
LucasB, what are you doing? fg[/QUOTE]

@vxf111;8665499

She’s doing dressage now. Which makes her tougher than me

Haha, very funny, V!!

Yes, I am doing dressage now. Finding it fascinating and lots of fun - far more than I would have expected, to be honest!

I always liked flatwork and what it could do for my horses’ fitness and rideability, but I’ve gained a whole new appreciation for the power and finesse you can develop. Along with an entirely new set of aids that I frankly never knew existed. I’m having a ball and last fall bought myself a fancy, purpose bred 4 year old who is teaching me quite a lot (and having a lot of fun in the process.)

Must admit, I also really like the way dressage shows work. Riders take care of their own horses for the most part, very civilized having ride times so you know exactly when you’ll be in the ring, and getting written commentary from the judge on every movement so you know exactly where you stand. It’s awesome!!

[Peggy]

[QUOTE=skydy;8665852]
https://www.usef.org/_IFrames/rulebook/AdministrativePenaltyRulings.aspx

USEF is hardly throwing the book at anyone for medication violations and it does take a year or so to for the public be able see if any prohibited medication was in the system of a horse that died at a USEF show.[/QUOTE]
Even a penalty with a $750 fine would have more oomph if the past violations were in an accessible, searchable database.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=danceronice;8663288]
You’re my new COTH hero. I honestly don’t know a lot of other people who have shown who just decide to go with “keep the horse, forget the showing” when it turns out to not be the horse’s thing.[/QUOTE]

There is nothing wrong with seling the horse into the correct kind of home in order to be able to keep showing. It’s just a different choice to make. As long as it’s done responsibly, then it’s six of one, half a dozen of another type of thing.

[alittlegray]

.

[IPEsq]

[QUOTE=skydy;8665905]
I suppose that if the horse breaks their neck in a fall that the cause of death is considered obvious. I personally would want a necropsy if it was my horse, to see if there was some underlying reason that the horse failed to jump effectively thus causing the fall. However that is a choice that an owner can make, or not.

The requirement that blood be drawn is more to the point and is it seems at this point, to be non-negotiable.

A concerned parent that is not in the “loop” (many that are “in the loop” know if the horses are medicated and consider it part of the “game”) would unfortunately have to wait a year or so to find put if a particular trainer’s horse had been medicated in violation of USEF rules, thus delaying their ability to make an informed decision whether to entrust their child’s safety to that trainer, big name or not.[/QUOTE]

If client or parent of client owns the horse, I don’t see why they couldn’t ask the show vet to also draw blood and do their own test if they are concerned and don’t want to wait for USEF.

[ivy62]

I have to say that the press that Tori Colvin around the drugs should have been enough to wake up the industry. How do you sing the praises of such a great junior and then she is riding drugged horses. What will she do when the horses are straight up and not under the influence.
This is very sad. The international stage does not look very bright for the future for the USA. The lack of horsemanship is deplorable. UGH…

[BeeHoney]

Ivy, I think everyone is in fact awake. However, instituting change seems to be really tough. Read this thread–a lot of people moan and complain about drugging, but then buy into the culture that quiet is better and defend the current judging standards. I don’t understand this. Why on earth does an unnaturally quiet look have to be considered better? Why on earth can’t judges reward alert or keen horses that behave and jump well? Why does a hunter have to look like a horse that would fall on it’s face if it were asked to gallop down a hill? Why can’t an equitation rider be rewarded for riding a horse that appears to take some skill and tact to ride? There’s simply NO logical reason that this ridiculous level of quietness needs to be so prized by us or our judges.

The problem is, as long as an unnaturally quiet look is the ultimate “hunter look” and as long as an “opinionless” horse is the most competitive mount for the equitation ring, people are going to do whatever it takes to achieve those ideals. Whatever we say on this board about how people should just retire their overly keen hunters, that’s not what happens. Rather, in practice many trainers/owners consider that it is acceptable to give anything that doesn’t test/ can’t be tested for in order to achieve the necessary level of calmness.

[skydy]

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8667012]
If client or parent of client owns the horse, I don’t see why they couldn’t ask the show vet to also draw blood and do their own test if they are concerned and don’t want to wait for USEF.[/QUOTE]

Obviously. However many children whose parents are not “in the loop” ride equitation horses provided by their trainers.

[findeight]

Nothing wrong with the judging standards themselves, nothing really to change. There’s nothing written into those about robotic or opinionless. The problem is in how they are applied and the “special interests” pulling a whole lot of strings from which show managers are successful, where and when their shows take place, who they hire to judge and control who gets punished to what degree for infractions.

Been disappointed in those who vocally object to including owners in meaningful ways when their horses come up positive. God forbid they turn off the money tap.

[BLBSTBLS]

[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8669177]
Ivy, I think everyone is in fact awake. However, instituting change seems to be really tough. Read this thread–a lot of people moan and complain about drugging, but then buy into the culture that quiet is better and defend the current judging standards. I don’t understand this. Why on earth does an unnaturally quiet look have to be considered better? Why on earth can’t judges reward alert or keen horses that behave and jump well? Why does a hunter have to look like a horse that would fall on it’s face if it were asked to gallop down a hill? Why can’t an equitation rider be rewarded for riding a horse that appears to take some skill and tact to ride? There’s simply NO logical reason that this ridiculous level of quietness needs to be so prized by us or our judges.

The problem is, as long as an unnaturally quiet look is the ultimate “hunter look” and as long as an “opinionless” horse is the most competitive mount for the equitation ring, people are going to do whatever it takes to achieve those ideals. Whatever we say on this board about how people should just retire their overly keen hunters, that’s not what happens. Rather, in practice many trainers/owners consider that it is acceptable to give anything that doesn’t test/ can’t be tested for in order to achieve the necessary level of calmness.[/QUOTE]

I agree!! Are hunters not supposed to reflect a horse that would be an optimal mount in the hunt field following a pack of dogs? Most of these “top” hunters would not be a suitable mount for the field. Yes they may have the ground covering stride and a pretty jump… But all of the Fox hunters I have seen all are excited about their job, they are forward paced… like actually going somewhere in their canter pace. yet they are controllable and still jump the solid natural obstacles safely. I get it, non of these show hunters are likely to ever see a field or follow dogs. But show hunters is about tradition - tradition is not a how slow can u go and still manage to get your horse over the 3’ fence… and look pretty. I believe the horses with a forward consistent pace, safe jump, well turned out should be at the top of the card.

This is the reason I love Hunter Derbies. The horses are allowed to gallop a little meet their fences in stride maybe even gasp play a little after a brilliant effort over the high option…

The show hunter industry is really going down hill. and now we are drugging our Eq horses too??? As an Eq rider shouldn’t you be able to put your horses energy and alertness to work…
UGH

[M_O_Connor]

[QUOTE=supershorty628;8643472]
Okay, I feel like I need to interject for a moment.

I’m as horrified by the idea presented in the article as the next person - and I was stunned when I saw who authored it. But I think it’s important to know that while Kip presented that side of the issue, she does not engage in that type of behavior.

As many of you know, I grew up riding with Kip; I started with her when I was 10 and was a working student up until I permanently moved to Minnesota 2 years ago. As the resident barn rat, I saw what went on “behind the scenes,” if you will. Which is to say, nothing. I never even saw a tube of Perfect Prep or any of that woo-woo that people try - that was not done. Horses were hacked/schooled in the mornings (often by me), some got a 10-15 minute longe, and a few of the horses who were getting up there in age got some Adequan or Legend, and perhaps a [legal] dose of an NSAID after a big class. There was nothing nefarious done.

I can’t disagree more with the idea of using Ace for showing. I think it’s absolutely the wrong thing to do, no questions asked, and I’m not going to pretend to understand why Kip wrote that article - because I don’t. It’s not reflective of the trainer I rode with for 13 years. But in any event, I can assure you that when I was riding there, she was one of the people who got horses to the ring the right way… without any training by pharmaceutical, and continues to be.

I don’t understand it. But I can guarantee she does not drug.

Carry on.[/QUOTE]

I won’t understand why Kip wrote what she did till I ask her, and I certainly intend to. It gives me pause–I’ve been very supportive of the EAP program, which my daughter has done twice and plans to do this year, with KIP! The advice <<“Having a rough patch? Use Ace to compete.”>> is not my idea of the type of wisdom we need to be passing along to the next generation…

No horse asked to be put in a horse show.

Horses are our captives as well as our partners…they depend on us to look out for them, to do what’s in THEIR best interest. Not to compromise it because someone needs to win this week.

No one is OWED a win. Or even a good round. Or success. Or the ability to get along with a horse they spent a lot of money on. IF it happens because you did everything right, luck went your way, and your horse agreed to play along, congratulations, you have earned it.

“Leveling” the playing field by “leveling” the horses is not my idea of sport. Those who think that way should try riding a bike instead of a horse.

Here’s a reminder about what we owe the horse from my coach, friend, and mentor, Joe Fargis:

http://www.usefnetwork.com/featured/coverage.aspx?urlkey=2016AnnualMeeting&video=1_ywz7we8i&playlist=1_5deuggfm

[RugBug]

@findeight;8669475

Nothing wrong with the judging standards themselves, nothing really to change. There’s nothing written into those about robotic or opinionless. The problem is in how they are applied

But application is everything. Just like a company can have a written policy but if practice is contradictory to that, they can be held liable for the practice despite what the written policy says.

If the written rules are fine, how do we get the practice to more accurately reflect that? How do we get opinion to change from “opinionless is best” to more accurately reflect the rules.

When did “ground covering” come to mean "huge stride so they only lope’. When did “brilliant” come to mean “exploding from the ground in front of the jump and landing in a heap behind the jump?” There is nothing wrong with the rules, but how we are defining things these days is problematic

[BeeHoney]

@findeight;8669475

Nothing wrong with the judging standards themselves, nothing really to change. There’s nothing written into those about robotic or opinionless. The problem is in how they are applied and the “special interests” pulling a whole lot of strings from which show managers are successful, where and when their shows take place, who they hire to judge and control who gets punished to what degree for infractions.

Oh, I don’t know, I think it would be possible to amend the USEF judging standard. Nothing like putting something in writing to give judges something to fall back on to defend their decisions. For example, in the hunter divisions:

HU135 1. could be amended to something like, “An even hunting pace, manners, jumping style together with faults and way of moving over the course. Manners (not to be confused with an overly slow or dull performance) to be emphasized in Ladies and Amateur classes…”

That’s just a quick stab at it (the color is my change), I’m sure someone else could think of something better.

Under HU136 “Faults”, you could add something like “excessive slowness or laziness” or “lack of adequate hunting pace” as minor or major faults.

[2bayboys]

[QUOTE=RugBug;8670331]
But application is everything. Just like a company can have a written policy but if practice is contradictory to that, they can be held liable for the practice despite what the written policy says.

If the written rules are fine, how do we get the practice to more accurately reflect that? How do we get opinion to change from “opinionless is best” to more accurately reflect the rules.

When did “ground covering” come to mean "huge stride so they only lope’. When did “brilliant” come to mean “exploding from the ground in front of the jump and landing in a heap behind the jump?” There is nothing wrong with the rules, but how we are defining things these days is problematic[/QUOTE]

I agree with this, and asked a similar question on a thread just like this one a couple years ago.

Why does SLOWER equal BETTER? When did the hunters change to this excessive slowness across the ground and over the jump, and why is that prized instead of penalized?

[chunky_munky]

Recognize that we are judging an entirely different breed and size of horse than we did 30 years ago. They are much bigger and they are slower. This is the basic type of horse that riders wish to ride today.

[asterix]

Eh. Totally not a hunter so don’t presume to know what is “in”, but for years I evented a giant, well-bred, imported German WB (see my sig, lost prince). He came to me for a steal because he hated his job as a dressage horse and because, as a dressage horse, he didn’t have the auto change hunters were looking for. Let me be clear, he WAS big and he WAS slow - I worked very hard to get him fit for Preliminary eventing, and although he was often in the top 3 after dressage and show jumping, I am not sure we would ever have made the time XC.
He was quiet, he was well- behaved, he was 17.2 on a short day. I’ve watched videos of winning hunter rounds at big competitions, and I don’t think I could have ridden him that slowly if I tried. It’s not about having a big mellow warmblood. It’s about a warped sense of just how quiet and robotic the horse can be.