Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

Equitation horses and drugs

Hunter/Jumper
#101

[QUOTE=inca;8645969]
Isn’t that against the rules? I didn’t think 1.2 meter horses were allowed to do the Baby Greens. (Now, I know in practice “everyone does it” with their fancy imports.)[/QUOTE]

HU Rule 103 from the 2016 rulebook-
Determining Hunter eligibility for horses. Hunter eligibility for a horse begins when a horse of any age, competes for the first time in any over fences class with jumps set at three feet (3’0") in height or higher in Hunter or Hunter/Jumping Seat Equitation classes or sections held at a USEF or Equine Canada Licensed competition in North America

#102

[QUOTE=inca;8645969]
Isn’t that against the rules? I didn’t think 1.2 meter horses were allowed to do the Baby Greens. (Now, I know in practice “everyone does it” with their fancy imports.)[/QUOTE]

From my understanding, there was nothing in the rules about it when he showed in the division, especially since its an unrated division.

And when he did it, believe me, you wouldn’t have guessed he had been jumping 1.20m (I shudder to think of it honestly). We added in the lines the entire first show and did some trot changes. We went completely back to square one with him! All we cared about was giving him a good experience and building his confidence. And I don’t think anyone would have called him fancy at the time :lol:…He was quite skinny and underdeveloped for a 5 year old. Sorry to hijack the thread!

#103

[QUOTE=MtnDrmz;8641941]
Is this an article that you have to subscribe to COTH to read? Still no links?[/QUOTE]

Yes you need to be a subscriber.

#104

[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]

But you no longer ride with her, right? A lot may have changed since then. Maybe she is tired of getting beat by the quieter (drugged) horses. Switching to the jumpers was only an option for you because you are a much more accomplished rider than most of her clients. I think you are naive to “guarantee” she isn’t drugging.

I was at a Don Stewart clinic this weekend and at the question and answer session after dinner he was asked his opinion about Ernie Oare’s and Kip’s articles and his response was that most “good” trainers are in agreement with them, including himself!

#105

[QUOTE=BAC;8646136]
But you no longer ride with her, right? A lot may have changed since then. Maybe she is tired of getting beat by the quieter (drugged) horses. Switching to the jumpers was only an option for you because you are a much more accomplished rider than most of her clients. I think you are naive to “guarantee” she isn’t drugging.[/QUOTE]

My mom still rides/sometimes teaches for her. And actually, now that I think about it, Kip hasn’t had someone doing the equitation seriously since before I was doing the jumpers, so almost 10 years ago. I guess you could argue that since I personally am not there, I don’t really know for sure, but I trust my mom’s word and intuition.

Perhaps the solution, rather than the hand-wringing going on by some trainers (and going “Ace is the only way!!”), lies in conjunction with the microchipping rule. Determine a time limit that a horse can be ridden/longed/hand-walked in a given day, particularly at the finals. Scan horses as they come into and exit the ring. If you’re over the allotted time, you are immediately eliminated, with a stiff penalty on top of that. Something like that.

#106

[QUOTE=BAC;8646136]
But you no longer ride with her, right? A lot may have changed since then. Maybe she is tired of getting beat by the quieter (drugged) horses. Switching to the jumpers was only an option for you because you are a much more accomplished rider than most of her clients. I think you are naive to “guarantee” she isn’t drugging.

I was at a Don Stewart clinic this weekend and at the question and answer session after dinner he was asked his opinion about Ernie Oare’s and Kip’s articles and his response was that most “good” trainers are in agreement with them, including himself![/QUOTE]

The response does not surprise me – which is not the same as liking it or agreeing with it. The question it prompts is why? Is it because it is favorable to the business model allowing professionals to generate more revenue? Is it because it makes horses who might otherwise not be suitable for showing (at least at competitive levels) to show competitively? Is it because using it makes it safer for a client to show and its easier to do that that say either your horse or you are not ready to show? Is it because they believe that allowing ACE would decrease/eliminate some or all of the substances now in use? Something else?

Until the motivation for the position is really articulated and understood, its hard to address.

#107

Hello all,

Some wonderful conversation here. I’d like to respond to a few of the comments made about COTH’s choice to run Horseman’s Forums from Ernie Oare and Kip Rosenthal about their belief that legalizing low doses of Ace is preferable to what’s going on back in the barn aisles now.

Both Kip and Ernie’s pieces were unsolicited by COTH; they approached us about publishing them. And they’re run as Horseman’s Forums, which means they’re purely the opinion of the author. We’re firmly of the belief that COTH’s pages are a place for open discussion about important issues facing the sports we cover. The debate about low-dose Ace is one we think is vitally important, and we’re open to submissions from any horseman with a valid viewpoint and cogent argument presenting their argument. If any of you feels inspired to put together 1,000 words of your feelings on the topic and submit it, feel free to email me at molly@coth.com.

On the flip side of the low-dose Ace argument, we have written multiple Commentaries (our editorial staff’s op-ed) representing our feelings as an editorial staff. There have also been Letters to the Editor from noted horsemen reflecting their opposition to the low-dose Ace argument.

In the April 11 & 18 issue of the Chronicle, we published the article “Why Not Just Allow 1/2 CC Of Ace”, in which we spoke with some veterinarians about why legalization of low-dose Ace would be a bad idea.

We published the Ernie Oare forum on our website in an effort to further open discussion about the topic, which has continued quite a bit in the print pages of the magazine. We think very hard about what magazine content to open up to online (free) reading—we respect and value our paying subscribers and want them to be rewarded for supporting us by allowing them access to our best content. So we try and balance sparking conversation about a topic with preserving the value of a paid subscription to the print magazine.

We at the Chronicle take our role as a voice of the sport and for the horse very seriously. We believe that publishing Horseman’s Forums on controversial topics—even if they’re not in line with our editorial staff’s beliefs—can shed light on previously ‘underground’ topics and foster a healthy dialog that can hopefully help inspire horsemen to work toward a solution to the issues.

#108

Well said Molly. Keep the discussion going.

For whoever said the owners should grow a set and say no? That shoe can go on the other foot too. Some trainers need to say no to deep pocket clients demanding to win whatever it takes knowing full well they get a wrist slap at worst while trainer could get set down. That ain’t going to happen in the current climate where owners simply find somebody else who will. Suspect the powers that be are afraid to really punish owners as they fund the sport by keeping both trainers and show managers in business.

Its always been around in the shadows behind the barn as it was publically considered wrong and possibly not in the horses best interest. I just wonder when our culture morphed into into drugging becoming so casually and openly accepted and horse welfare kicked to the curb in favor of producing results to justify high prices and expectation of ROI.

#109

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8646066]
HU Rule 103 from the 2016 rulebook-
Determining Hunter eligibility for horses. Hunter eligibility for a horse begins when a horse of any age, competes for the first time in any over fences class with jumps set at three feet (3’0") in height or higher in Hunter or Hunter/Jumping Seat Equitation classes or sections held at a USEF or Equine Canada Licensed competition in North America[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I don’t know if that is new wording of the rule or I was just completely mistaken. But, I do appreciate you posting the rule.

#110

Greys & intheirons, my current hunter is a big, quiet, slow-moving, zero prep horse. He lapses into a nap the second he stands still. It’s embarrassingly possible he looks artificially sedated at times. So I’m actually in a similar boat as you guys.

To clarify, I’m NOT saying that a judge should sit in the box and try to decide which horses have been medicated or not and base judging on that–that would be ridiculous. However, I do think that the ideal hunter look needs to change.

I see a lot of very dull, tired looking and expressionless horses picking up very good ribbons. I also frequently see overly slow horses or horses that are overly slow off the ground being favored. Even worse, I see lazy horses with spurs obviously dug into their sides for significant parts of the round placing highly. IMO, it’s not for the judge to say if these horses have been drugged or not. You can’t tell that without a blood test. But I think those are things that could very easily NOT be rewarded with good ribbons. Personally, I think that spurs needing to be dug into the sides of a horse is much worse than a head shake or an expressive lead change.

Personally, I feel like judges are quick to penalize a horse with energy or even just a tiny bit of quickness, but completely overlook faults on the other extreme. Quietness in and of itself should not be penalized, but if a horse looks tired, dull or expressionless, or you find yourself holding your breath thinking the horse is going to stumble or fall when it lands, then yes, it should be penalized.

#111

If there was only a way to penalize the “I’d be scared to ride it to a 4 foot fence” look, we’d be in business. Half the big time hunter rounds I see make be nervous about the horse clearing the fence. If any jump can be described with the words “heave”, “heap”, or “lurch”, no ribbon for you.

It’s too bad there’s not a way to test that the horse is actually awake during the round. Maybe 2 laps of hand gallop to end the round? :slight_smile:

#112

[QUOTE=supershorty628;8646152]
Perhaps the solution, rather than the hand-wringing going on by some trainers (and going “Ace is the only way!!”), lies in conjunction with the microchipping rule. Determine a time limit that a horse can be ridden/longed/hand-walked in a given day, particularly at the finals. Scan horses as they come into and exit the ring. If you’re over the allotted time, you are immediately eliminated, with a stiff penalty on top of that. Something like that.[/QUOTE]

I have been thinking along the same lines SS and I think in addition maybe they should start drug testing the top 3 placings in every class or random classes at a show. With the new rules that can hold owners and riders accountable for medication infractions… I bet lots would change quickly if owners/riders/horses suddenly couldn’t compete for some period of time. And maybe we need a three strikes and your out type rule banning people from the sport. With as much money as there is in our sport you’d think we could find a few wealthy individuals that care enough about the health and welfare of the horses to bankroll this extra effort that USEF can’t seem to afford. We need a non-profit horse welfare agency employed by USEF to find and impose suspensions or bans on the abusers. I know some people will continue to find a way to stay ahead of the rules and cheat but it seems like right now we’re not even taking down the low hanging fruit.

#113

[QUOTE=supershorty628;8646152]

Perhaps the solution, rather than the hand-wringing going on by some trainers (and going “Ace is the only way!!”), lies in conjunction with the microchipping rule. Determine a time limit that a horse can be ridden/longed/hand-walked in a given day, particularly at the finals. Scan horses as they come into and exit the ring. If you’re over the allotted time, you are immediately eliminated, with a stiff penalty on top of that. Something like that.[/QUOTE]

This would be a great way to end Hunters. Why not just go to an FEI format then? Sorry, but I think by making so many rules and cracking down on drugs and medicating that we’ve actually made it much harder on the horses. Instead of helping them, we are hindering them. That’s why top professionals support legalizing something. Sorry, but I had one who at home was perfect, perfect, perfect but at shows needed to canter, canter, canter and then canter some more. He ended up getting donated because I didn’t think it was fair to wear him down like that. It wasn’t that he was in pain or didn’t like his job, just would get in the ring and wake up. There’s more horses like that vs. naturally quiet. I’m no pro, quite the opposite actually, and need something that goes easily. I love riding and showing, but don’t want to get run away with trying to jump 3’. And like it or not, people like me keep this sport going.

#114

[QUOTE=bjd2013;8646262]
This would be a great way to end Hunters. Why not just go to an FEI format then? Sorry, but I think by making so many rules and cracking down on drugs and medicating that we’ve actually made it much harder on the horses. Instead of helping them, we are hindering them. That’s why top professionals support legalizing something. Sorry, but I had one who at home was perfect, perfect, perfect but at shows needed to canter, canter, canter and then canter some more. He ended up getting donated because I didn’t think it was fair to wear him down like that. It wasn’t that he was in pain or didn’t like his job, just would get in the ring and wake up. There’s more horses like that vs. naturally quiet. I’m no pro, quite the opposite actually, and need something that goes easily. I love riding and showing, but don’t want to get run away with trying to jump 3’. And like it or not, people like me keep this sport going.[/QUOTE]

I guess as someone similar minded – I like the kick ride – my question would be why not enjoy that horse at home or simply keep taking him to shows until he became acclimated to the environment or switch to jumpers or …

To a large extent our horses will tell us the work they are suited to. Many problems occur when we refuse to listen

#115

[QUOTE=bjd2013;8646262]
This would be a great way to end Hunters. Why not just go to an FEI format then? Sorry, but I think by making so many rules and cracking down on drugs and medicating that we’ve actually made it much harder on the horses. Instead of helping them, we are hindering them. That’s why top professionals support legalizing something. Sorry, but I had one who at home was perfect, perfect, perfect but at shows needed to canter, canter, canter and then canter some more. He ended up getting donated because I didn’t think it was fair to wear him down like that. It wasn’t that he was in pain or didn’t like his job, just would get in the ring and wake up. There’s more horses like that vs. naturally quiet. I’m no pro, quite the opposite actually, and need something that goes easily. I love riding and showing, but don’t want to get run away with trying to jump 3’. And like it or not, people like me keep this sport going.[/QUOTE]

It wouldn’t end the hunters but we might go back to a version we used to have when we all rode TBs and no I’m not suggesting we all ride TBs. If your horse has to be cantered into the ground to do the hunters then it needs a different job IMO. If it’s a little fresh and you aren’t competing against drugged or lunged to death in some crazy rig horses then there maybe less perfect rounds and more healthy horses. Oh and maybe even some better riders. Just a thought. If USEF for some crazy reason decides to allow drugging horses I would still never do it. It’s just plain unethical and no real horseperson should do it.

#116

[QUOTE=BAC;8646136]
I was at a Don Stewart clinic this weekend and at the question and answer session after dinner he was asked his opinion about Ernie Oare’s and Kip’s articles and his response was that most “good” trainers are in agreement with them, including himself![/QUOTE]

Wow! I need the vomit icon now. “Good” trainers think riders should compete tranquillized horses. My definition of “good” and theirs is evidently quite different.

#117

[QUOTE=poltroon;8645937]
Maybe it would be safer to drug the people instead. ;)[/QUOTE]

I’ve said for years that all ammy classes should have a one drink minimum to compete!

#118

[QUOTE=supershorty628;8646152]
My mom still rides/sometimes teaches for her. And actually, now that I think about it, Kip hasn’t had someone doing the equitation seriously since before I was doing the jumpers, so almost 10 years ago. I guess you could argue that since I personally am not there, I don’t really know for sure, but I trust my mom’s word and intuition.

Perhaps the solution, rather than the hand-wringing going on by some trainers (and going “Ace is the only way!!”), lies in conjunction with the microchipping rule. Determine a time limit that a horse can be ridden/longed/hand-walked in a given day, particularly at the finals. Scan horses as they come into and exit the ring. If you’re over the allotted time, you are immediately eliminated, with a stiff penalty on top of that. Something like that.[/QUOTE]

In that case I would be really curious as to why she wrote the article. People’s motivations fascinate me and it seems like she doesn’t have a dog in the race, so to speak. Additionally, her advice for you and your mare (and I remember reading the article in PH) runs so counter to what she is proposing in the COTH article that it really makes me go :confused:.

#119

[QUOTE=supershorty628;8646152]
My mom still rides/sometimes teaches for her. And actually, now that I think about it, Kip hasn’t had someone doing the equitation seriously since before I was doing the jumpers, so almost 10 years ago. I guess you could argue that since I personally am not there, I don’t really know for sure, but I trust my mom’s word and intuition.

Perhaps the solution, rather than the hand-wringing going on by some trainers (and going “Ace is the only way!!”), lies in conjunction with the microchipping rule. Determine a time limit that a horse can be ridden/longed/hand-walked in a given day, particularly at the finals. Scan horses as they come into and exit the ring. If you’re over the allotted time, you are immediately eliminated, with a stiff penalty on top of that. Something like that.[/QUOTE]

But Kip still has hunters doesn’t she? Eq horses are not the only ones being drugged. I’m not doubting your mother’s integrity.

Molly I am glad COTH publishes these articles in the Horseman’s Forum and it would never occur to me that COTH supports their position just by publishing them. It’s a big issue in the industry and should be discussed.

#120

[QUOTE=BAC;8646384]
But Kip still has hunters doesn’t she? Eq horses are not the only ones being drugged. I’m not doubting your mother’s integrity.[/QUOTE]

She does not. That’s part of the reason that I’m so blown away by the fact that she wrote the article. She encouraged all of her clients to do jumpers years and years ago. There hasn’t been a top-flight hunter or eq horse in her barn for a long time - horses that did maybe the 3’ eq classes now and then for the kids who didn’t have enough of a foundation yet to do the jumpers, yes.

The more I think about the time limit idea, the more I like it, but it would take a few years before it would work since not all horses are chipped now. But if you made it something like 2 hours, or even 3 hours if you want to make the argument that the geriatric horses need to be out longer to loosen up - if your horse needs more time working than that, then perhaps your horse is in the wrong job…

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