Just tell the kids to use "Perfect Prep"

[Show_boots]

[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.

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]

I might be wrong that it is illegal, but it is against the spirit of the rules. I think of it the same way as I would a strength and conditioning coach telling a player to is human growth hormone to get results. Wink wink nudge nudge it doesn’t test and the rules haven’t caught up to the times yet. Using perfect prep does a rider and a horse a disservice and also does all those that don’t cheat a disservice. In sports I expect the playing field to be as level as possible.

Just because it’s not illegal doesn’t make it the right thing to do. And I still stand by my phrase this is a black eye to the sport. Its disenchanting for a well known judge, and coach to actively encourage that you violate the spirit of the sport.

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648687]
And USEF says it’s not.[/QUOTE]

Look, you raised an objection to hair splitting. A LOT of people are going to feel that it’s hair splitting for the USEF to say that you can violate the “spirit and intent” of a rule but not the letter. And those same people may justifiably feel that regardless of what the USEF technically defines as cheating, adminstering a substance almost immediately prior to a class for the sole purpose of enhancing a horse’s performance in that class IS cheating, even if it isn’t technically a USEF violation.

[comingback]

@RugBug;7648667

#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 might be misunderstanding this, but wasn’t the issue with GABA there was not a reliable test until relatively recently, and thus no way of calling someone out for using it?

[RockinHorse]

[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 USEF will not set someone down for this, they have no way to prove it. I do find it sad, however, that since USEF is of the opinion that people should not give things like PP even though they won’t test and they won’t get in trouble for it, that USEF judges don’t see anything wrong with recommending it be done:(.

[french_fry]

Good lord, this is so exhausting. I would highly recommend that everyone ride and train their own horses as they see fit. If I was at a show and heard someone complaining about how using PP is cheating-even-if-it’s-not-technically-cheating I would laugh and assume it was sour grapes, much like people saying, “well her parents bought her a 100k horse!” or “her trainer rides her horse five days a week!” Of all the ridiculous things.

“I KNOW BETTER THAN USEF, DAMMIT!”

:lol:

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648718]
Good lord, this is so exhausting. I would highly recommend that everyone ride and train their own horses as they see fit. If I was at a show and heard someone complaining about how using PP is cheating-even-if-it’s-not-technically-cheating I would laugh and assume it was sour grapes, much like people saying, “well her parents bought her a 100k horse!” or “her trainer rides her horse five days a week!” Of all the ridiculous things.[/QUOTE]

Well, we all know what happens when you assume.

[MIKES_MCS]

This for me has been an eye opening thread , I like many thought that any substance that altered a horses performance was illegal. As we have seen in this thread the USEF itself has made it clear, if it can’t be tested and is not specifically on the banned substance list it is Legal , ( I did not say ethical) Guidelines are only guidelines not rules and regulations… I myself would like to see a variation of the rule book that eliminates any guide lines and sticks to the rules only .

[french_fry]

Well bless your heart Windsor!

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648752]
Well bless your heart Windsor! :D[/QUOTE]

I understand the spirit and intent of this remark. :lol:

[french_fry]

Okay, okay. I cracked a smile there. :lol:

Well played.

[Sing_Mia_Song]

[QUOTE=MIKES MCS;7648748]
This for me has been an eye opening thread , I like many thought that any substance that altered a horses performance was illegal. As we have seen in this thread the USEF itself has made it clear, if it can’t be tested and is not specifically on the banned substance list it is Legal, ( I did not say ethical) Guidelines are only guidelines not rules and regulations… I myself would like to see a variation of the rule book that eliminates any guide lines and sticks to the rules only .[/QUOTE]

Oh, I don’t think anyone said these products were “legal.” The problem is that the charge of violation is not enforceable because USEF has the burden of proving the violation through a test result.

[Coanteen]

[QUOTE=Sing Mia Song;7648798]
Oh, I don’t think anyone said these products were “legal.” The problem is that the charge of violation is not enforceable because USEF has the burden of proving the violation through a test result.[/QUOTE]

Pretty much. Even in the post from HNX from the convo with, she says,

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.

The should not in this case is a big deal - because while technically allowable (burden of proof being on USEF, and USEF having no way to test for whatever is in PP), according to Diana Tartal from USEF - as transcribed by HNX - a substance like that still should not be given. It does violate the spirit.
Can it be? Yes, USEF can’t test for it, so it can’t meet its burden of proof for a letter-of-rule violation.

But should a BNT publically recommend giving it, for the specific purpose of calming a horse for a show? Publically recommend violating the spirit of the USAF rule, because they know that the substance is untestable and so the rider can’t be “caught”?
Not awesome.

[hntrjmprpro45]

To those who say that perfect prep is okay because “the horse may have a magnesium deficiency”, here is a thought… Give your horse a better balanced diet and/or give magnesium as a DAILY supplement in smaller quantities. It seems to me that their nutritional deficiencies are only relevant when it comes to showing. I’m sure those horses and ponies who dropped dead from being injected with magnesium were also deficient, right??

And honestly it’s downright PATHETIC that we can argue about rules as a justification for BAD horsemanship. Yes, I said it. These are the exact types of thinking that brought us Carolina Gold, Mg injections and ponies dropping dead from stacking so many medications that their bodies can literally not hold up to it. No, USEF cannot always enforce good horsemanship and good judgement, but we should be demanding more from our professionals. Just because you won’t get in trouble doesn’t make something right.

[vxf111]

If USEF is now taking the position that it is permissible to use a substance to alter a horse’s performance so long as that substance is not on the prohibited list and/or testable-- that position is inconsistent with their prior written explanation as follows…

<<Please explain why it is illegal (dangerous) to use a calming element (drug) on a horse to improve its safety and performance?

It is the Federation’s viewpoint that while it is not necessarily wrong to sedate (calm) a horse for a specific therapeutic purpose or to contribute to its safety as the result of a
trauma or stress, it does significantly endanger equine health and wellbeing. It also violates the concept of “fair play,” upon which this Federation’s principles in sport is founded; to unnecessarily and artificially affect mentation (level of attention and clarity of focus) in a horse strictly for competitive gain, or to “improve its performance” in the
show ring, is therefore against the Federation’s rules.>>

https://www.usef.org/documents/EquineWelfare/12HourRuleFAQ.pdf

If what is being reported is correct, the USEF is taking a 180 degree position on its prior written explanation of the rules.

And, for good measure… I do not see how USEF can square permitting PP for calming purposes in the show ring with this gem of a statement…

<<No rational justification for the presence of any substance that alters mental activity in a
horse in competition exists. >>

[OneGrayPony]

As I was one of the posters quoted, I’ll explain my statement a bit more. I didn’t think I needed to - but apparently I do.

If the USEF says you shouldn’t do something, and you do it, you are violating the spirit of the law. Yes, in my mind that makes it wrong. It’s what I teach my kids. It’s how I want my society to work.

Did Robert Gage commit an illegal (by US Law) act by recommending PP to a Junior riding a green horse? No. And I never asserted that.

Did Robert Gage tell a junior to use an illegal substance? No.

Did Robert Gage give a junior advice that violated the spirit (and thusly the intent) of the medicine laws of the USEF? Yes. Very much so.

Is it crappy, bad precedent setting advice? Yes. It’s the same advice that I overheard when a mother and daughter were talking to a trainer and a friend about estrone for her gelding (the conversation was, it will probably help him in the show ring behaviorally, so even if his hocks aren’t bad, let’s go ahead and give it to him). Very crappy (and the horse didn’t need it for his hocks, or his behavior).

Do I think he’s the worst thing that ever happened? No. But what I do think is that it’s indicative of how we think about this sport. And I personally, don’t like it.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Sing Mia Song;7648798]
Oh, I don’t think anyone said these products were “legal.” The problem is that the charge of violation is not enforceable because USEF has the burden of proving the violation through a test result.[/QUOTE]

I think a test result are one way the USEF could prove a violation (admittedly one of the better ways, but still only one of several ways). If someone was caught administering a substance (or if an eyewitness was willing to credibly testify that she saw the substance being administered), that would be another way. I realize that’s unlikely. I suppose circumstantial evidence like a trashcan full of empty tubes of Perfect Prep in someone’s grooming stall might also suffice. The USEF does have ways of proving a substance was administered other than a test result, it’s just perhaps not as strong evidence. I understand why they choose not to go after potential violators when the evidence is not strong, but that is different than stating that there is only a violation when a test result is possible.

[poltroon]

I think maybe people are overinterpreting the USEF statement about intent.

I think what they are saying is, as a practical matter, there needs to be both intent and a positive test of some kind for you to get an invitation to appear before the Hearing Committee. So, if you are giving your horse alfalfa cubes because you believe it will make him more hyper and thus a faster jumper, even though that might be against the intent as surely as cocaine, it’s not going to get you sanctioned - they won’t bring a case that’s solely about mind-reading, and there’s no prohibition on alfalfa.

HOWEVER.

One should note that the USEF rule book does not have a list of chemicals they consider performance altering. The drugs & medications group keeps the list and can add to it at any time. The tests change with some regularity and they consider new ones all the time as various new techniques of Better Living Through Chemistry become popular.

Thus, your calming supplement that doesn’t test now… might test next year, assuming it actually has some effect and a potential negative health impact for the horse. The USEF won’t necessarily send you or anyone else a memo when a new test develops. I think it’s likely that because of Humble et al, excessive magnesium will some day be on that list, just as professional cyclists discovered to their chagrin that things like blood doping could be detected and sanctioned.

All that said, I think PerfectPrep is likely a placebo for 95% of cases that is making someone a lot of money. (And, I think it’s dumb advice for a horse that is heavy on the forehand.)

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=poltroon;7648888]
I think maybe people are overinterpreting the USEF statement about intent.

I think what they are saying is, as a practical matter, there needs to be both intent and a positive test of some kind for you to get an invitation to appear before the Hearing Committee.[/QUOTE]

Maybe that’s what they MEANT to say but it’s not what they said…

<<to unnecessarily and artificially affect mentation (level of attention and clarity of focus) in a horse strictly for competitive gain, or to “improve its performance” in the
show ring, is therefore against the Federation’s rules.>>

That statement does not say anything about there needing to be a positive test. All there needs to be, if that statement is correct, is an affect on mentation for competitive or performance purposes.

Now, whether the USEF will choose to enforce a rule in the absence of a test result is a whole different issue. Choosing not to enforce a rule doesn’t make a rule not exist.

[inca]

[QUOTE=french fry;7648718]
Good lord, this is so exhausting. I would highly recommend that everyone ride and train their own horses as they see fit. If I was at a show and heard someone complaining about how using PP is cheating-even-if-it’s-not-technically-cheating I would laugh and assume it was sour grapes, much like people saying, “well her parents bought her a 100k horse!” or “her trainer rides her horse five days a week!” Of all the ridiculous things.

“I KNOW BETTER THAN USEF, DAMMIT!”

:lol:[/QUOTE]

Amen. I never had an issue with people deciding to use it. I still think it shouldn’t be casually recommended after watching a video of some rider you never met.

[Halt_Near_X]

@Coanteen;7648817

The should not in this case is a big deal - because while technically allowable (burden of proof being on USEF, and USEF having no way to test for whatever is in PP), according to Diana Tartal from USEF - as transcribed by HNX - a substance like that still should not be given. It does violate the spirit…

To be clear, my post is not a word-for-word transcription of Diana’s comments. It is my summary of the conversation.