Just tell the kids to use "Perfect Prep"

[french_fry]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;7648621]
Ok, I just got off the phone Diana Tartal at USEF. I want to make a few things VERY clear:

• By the time I called her, the conversation WAS NOT about Robert Gage or Perfect Prep in particular.

• She was immensely professional and helpful all morning and is very happy to answer peoples’ questions. She says the encourage anyone with questions/concerns to contact them and they are always happy to help–which is exactly my experience. We went through several emails before the phone call, and she was professional, helpful, and made sure all of my concerns were addressed.

• It was a phone call, so I don’t have a screen shot. You don’t have to believe me; as I said, call USEF yourself. I believe I have captured all of this accurately, but if something is misrepresented here, it would be my fault, not Diana’s/USEF’s.

That said, what I got from the phone call was:

The “spirit and intent” portion of the rule is to help people understand what they should do/should not do. However, if a substance does not contain a forbidden ingredient, there is no violation of the letter of the rule.

So, while people should not be giving their horses calming supplements and violating the spirit and the intent of the rules, as long as the supplements do not contain forbidden ingredients, they fall within the letter of the rule and can be given.

I have always thought people could be set down for violating the spirit and intent of the rule, even if the ingredients were not forbidden, but she said no. When it comes to violations, the letter of the rule (e.g. if an ingredient is permitted or forbidden) is all that matters.

So, there you go. It is definitely not the answer I was expecting, based on how I have previously read the rules.[/QUOTE]

And now the thread will die with not one poster coming back to apologize for calling Rob a cheater.

Snarkiness aside, thanks for doing the legwork on this. Very interesting information that I will admit surprised me a bit too.

[Ghazzu]

@rosebecard;7648516

Wow…the fact that people are going on this witch hunt and trying to destroy someone’s career over this is…astounding. And this is someone ethical who genuinely cares about horses and riders, when there are so many in this industry who are not.

You know, if you weren’t clutching your pearls so tightly, you’d have an easier time breathing.
This might “destroy” someone in some parallel universe, but the odds of it happening here are lower than Sharknado coming to your town.

[inca]

Thank you for clarifying with the USEF. I have contacted them in the past and always found them to be helpful. I am surprised they came out and said it is permissible to give such supplements as long as they do not contain a banned substance. That seems like a change from when they would emphasize that anything given with the intent to alter performance violates the spirit and intent of the rules.

[jlphilli]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;7648636]
You know, if you weren’t clutching your pearls so tightly, you’d have an easier time breathing.
This might “destroy” someone in some parallel universe, but the odds of it happening here are lower than Sharknado coming to your town.[/QUOTE]

http://i62.tinypic.com/acu6gh.jpg

[AffirmedHope]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;7648621]
Ok, I just got off the phone Diana Tartal at USEF. I want to make a few things VERY clear:

• By the time I called her, the conversation WAS NOT about Robert Gage or Perfect Prep in particular.

• She was immensely professional and helpful all morning and is very happy to answer peoples’ questions. She says the encourage anyone with questions/concerns to contact them and they are always happy to help–which is exactly my experience. We went through several emails before the phone call, and she was professional, helpful, and made sure all of my concerns were addressed.

• It was a phone call, so I don’t have a screen shot. You don’t have to believe me; as I said, call USEF yourself. I believe I have captured all of this accurately, but if something is misrepresented here, it would be my fault, not Diana’s/USEF’s.

That said, what I got from the phone call was:

The “spirit and intent” portion of the rule is to help people understand what they should do/should not do. However, if a substance does not contain a forbidden ingredient, there is no violation of the letter of the rule.

So, while people should not be giving their horses calming supplements and violating the spirit and the intent of the rules, as long as the supplements do not contain forbidden ingredients, they fall within the letter of the rule and can be given.

I have always thought people could be set down for violating the spirit and intent of the rule, even if the ingredients were not forbidden, but she said no. When it comes to violations, the letter of the rule (e.g. if an ingredient is permitted or forbidden) is all that matters.

So, there you go. It is definitely not the answer I was expecting, based on how I have previously read the rules.[/QUOTE]

So they pretty much wrote that “rule” to make themselves feel better and make it seem like they are actually doing something.

I don’t care if it’s not against the rules. It’s immoral and LAZY.

[Go_Fish]

[QUOTE=Halt Near X;7648621]
Ok, I just got off the phone Diana Tartal at USEF. I want to make a few things VERY clear:

• By the time I called her, the conversation WAS NOT about Robert Gage or Perfect Prep in particular.

• She was immensely professional and helpful all morning and is very happy to answer peoples’ questions. She says the encourage anyone with questions/concerns to contact them and they are always happy to help–which is exactly my experience. We went through several emails before the phone call, and she was professional, helpful, and made sure all of my concerns were addressed.

• It was a phone call, so I don’t have a screen shot. You don’t have to believe me; as I said, call USEF yourself. I believe I have captured all of this accurately, but if something is misrepresented here, it would be my fault, not Diana’s/USEF’s.

That said, what I got from the phone call was:

The “spirit and intent” portion of the rule is to help people understand what they should do/should not do. However, if a substance does not contain a forbidden ingredient, there is no violation of the letter of the rule.

So, while people should not be giving their horses calming supplements and violating the spirit and the intent of the rules, as long as the supplements do not contain forbidden ingredients, they fall within the letter of the rule and can be given.

I have always thought people could be set down for violating the spirit and intent of the rule, even if the ingredients were not forbidden, but she said no. When it comes to violations, the letter of the rule (e.g. if an ingredient is permitted or forbidden) is all that matters.

So, there you go. It is definitely not the answer I was expecting, based on how I have previously read the rules.[/QUOTE]

Of course this is true…I can’t figure out why people are arguing otherwise.

[woodhillsmanhattan]

Thanks Half Halt for investigating! What a plot twist to the thread! :lol:

I still think the suggestion of Perfect Prep to the rider was inappropriate and unprofessional. What made me frustrated was that this was the sole suggestion. It was not suggested in addition to any riding exercises or homework. The use of Perfect Prep is not the problem here IMO (although I choose not to use it and don’t support it’s use).

[busylady]

I thought a violation of the spirit and intent was a violation. I was wrong and I’m sorry. Nonetheless, I don’t like USEF “R” judges recommending calming supplements, particularly when the recipient is a young horse at its second show. Whether the calming supplement being used is “legal” or not doesn’t change my opinion regarding the trend of using chemicals or natural ingredients in order to create robot-like horses.

[Jelleigh]

I think it’s funny that as I read this thread, on the right hand of my screen under photos on the COTH website is an ad for Chill Ultra

[Coanteen]

[QUOTE=Jelleigh;7648663]
I think it’s funny that as I read this thread, on the right hand of my screen under photos on the COTH website is an ad for Chill Ultra[/QUOTE]

For horses, or posters?

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648634]
And now the thread will die with not one poster coming back to apologize for calling Rob a cheater.

Snarkiness aside, thanks for doing the legwork on this. Very interesting information that I will admit surprised me a bit too.[/QUOTE]

#1: I never called Rob a cheater. I’m very dissappointed with his advice. In fact, I gave him a good review, save this instance.

#2 I’m more than a little confused by the USEF’s standpoint. GABA was NOT on the forbidden substance list, however, it was definitely considered forbidden.

I guess we can take their response to mean that new designer drugs are not forbidden? But hey, wait. they clearly say the are in the FAQ. AGain, logic doesn’t follow.

[trubandloki]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648634]
And now the thread will die with not one poster coming back to apologize for calling Rob a cheater.[/QUOTE]

Did someone actually call him a cheater?

[french_fry]

RugBug, aren’t we splitting hairs here? You claimed that administering PP was definitely illegal. So yes, by extension you were calling Rob a cheater.

I didn’t love the advice either, which I pointed out several posts back. I didn’t take issue with the critiques of his advice on earlier pages. It’s only when it involved into a “cheating scandal” that I got involved on the thread.

[QUOTE=trubandloki;7648668]
Did someone actually call him a cheater?[/QUOTE]

I don’t know, I’ll let a few random quotes I quickly pulled from the last three pages speak for themselves…

“Haven’t read the whole thread, but a judge of Mr. Gage’s standing publicly telling a junior rider to administer an illegal substance to her horse is a shameful problem.”

“Please read this thread and realize while perfect prep is not illegal in that there is no drug test for it, the spirit in which Rob Gage suggested it’s use is illegal. Rob Gage could be the worlds greatest coach, but calling on someone to put performance altering drugs in an animal is not horsemanship.”

“Those of you using Perfect Prep (and anything similar) to show are cheating (or at least attempting to cheat) - full stop. If you’re comfortable being a cheater, it’s whatever to me. But you really should at least own up to it.”

“Uh. Okay okay - we are talking about illegal substances per the USEF. The rules are pretty clear - if you are recommending a calmative agent with the intent of using it to alter the horse’s performance, it’s an illegal substance. That’s not libel, that’s…truth”

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=busylady;7648657]
I thought a violation of the spirit and intent was a violation. I was wrong and I’m sorry. Nonetheless, I don’t like USEF “R” judges recommending calming supplements, particularly when the recipient is a young horse at its second show. Whether the calming supplement being used is “legal” or not doesn’t change my opinion regarding the trend of using chemicals or natural ingredients in order to create robot-like horses.[/QUOTE]

The problem there is how do you prove intent?

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648673]
Aren’t we splitting hairs here? You claimed that administering PP was definitely illegal. So yes, by extension you were calling Rob a cheater.[/QUOTE]

Splitting hairs kind of seems to be the order of the day. “You can violate the ‘spirit and intent’ of the rule but not the letter.”

In many people’s minds, violating the “spirit and intent” of a rule IS cheating.

[RugBug]

@french fry;7648673

Aren’t we splitting hairs here? You claimed that administering PP was definitely illegal. So yes, by extension you were calling Rob a cheater.

Actually, yes we are splitting hairs, but a recommendation does not a cheater make. It makes for bad advice. The person administering the PP would be who I called a cheater.

And BTW: I sent my exact verbiage from the earlier post to the USEF medications team for a response.

[french_fry]

[QUOTE=Windsor1;7648685]
Splitting hairs kind of seems to be the order of the day. “You can violate the ‘spirit and intent’ of the rule but not the letter.”

In many people’s minds, violating the “spirit and intent” of a rule IS cheating.[/QUOTE]

And USEF says it’s not. So I would recommend that people who take issue with this start their own organization with more stringent rules instead of sniffling that it IS illegal despite what USEF directly stated.

[ToTheNines]

Many people do not seem to understand the difference between what is “legal” and ethical guidelines. I have not studied the more recent posts, but if the AHSA has finally clarified that their vague unenforceable rule about “anything affecting the horse” to be a guideline not a legality, I am very pleased and maybe I will join again.

IMO, once you follow the legalities, the ethics are a personal decision. That is why some will prep with Perfect Prep, some will lunge, some will simply deal with a tense horse, some (this is my category) will seek out and be grateful for their saintly horses.

Laws versus ethics… it is a fascinating subject. Just because you have the right to do something does not mean you should do it. The law is an outer limit, ethics are more personal and situational.

ETA: showing my age, USEF not AHSA.

[Jelleigh]

[QUOTE=Jelleigh;7648663]
I think it’s funny that as I read this thread, on the right hand of my screen under photos on the COTH website is an ad for Chill Ultra[/QUOTE]

And now it’s for “Classic Company”…do they just randomly rotate?? lol

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;7648681]
The problem there is how do you prove intent?[/QUOTE]

Very true in some circumstances, not so much in others.

As I mentioned earlier, I would imagine if you are giving a supplement to address a deficiency, you would be giving it regularly/daily. If you were giving the same supplement to affect performance, you’d do so within in optimum time frame, like an hour or so before a class.

I give my TB a B-vitamin supplement. He is on it daily and has been for years. It does make him less reactive, twitchy, what have you. I feel fine giving it to him as I am pretty clearly addressing a deficiency. If I dosed him with B-vitamins right before a class, I wouldn’t feel fine about it.