Just tell the kids to use "Perfect Prep"

[vxf111]

Apparently there are the rules.

The formal USEF interpretation of the rules as promulgated by the USEF to explain the rules.

What USEF will tell you over the phone, depending on who you talk to.

What USEF judges think (what does that mean anyway? Was every single solitary judge polled? Why does it matter? Why not ask 1000 pastry chefs what they think? Neither the judges nor chefs promulgate nor enforce these rules so although I would expect any USEF member, including judges to KNOW the rule, I would not give any special weight to a judge’s interpretation)

And it need not be consistent.

I find it hard to believe that the USEF will say one thing in writing but tell you something entirely opposite when you call-- but even if they did… how are you supposed to rely on that if/when you get brought up on a violation? Well, yes, I see that what I am doing is in flagrant violation of your written rules and interpretations-- but I called so and so and she told me it was ok? Talk about a broken system. Why should anyone follow the rules? Just keep calling USEF and speaking to people until you find someone who gives you the answer you want!

[Halt_Near_X]

Mikes MCS, I mentioned this thread, view counts, and the number of people struggling to understand the rules.

From the conversation that followed, I didn’t have the impression that they would be offering any sort of clarification (here, in their literature, etc) any time soon. I would love to be proven wrong on this.

On the other hand, if 1,000 people DID contact USEF and made it clear they were actively interested in understanding the rules and that there is a lot of confusion/uncertainty about the rules, maybe they would do something.

[ridingagain]

[QUOTE=hntrjmprpro45;7648844]
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.[/QUOTE]

Exactly! It is very disappointing to see the USEF turning a blind eye and a well known judge advocating the use of a performance altering substance as a short cut to training. Where is the spirit of horsemanship in this? JMR is a site that many juniors use to get advice and RG is someone they look up to, so he is perpetuating the problem in the hunter/eq ring of just “drugging” the horse to be successful.

I think where I draw the line is - am I giving the horse something to help him, ie. joint injections for pain, or is it something to get a better ribbon, to hell with the horse’s health and well-being. I realize you can’t police intent, but it is very disturbing that the horse’s health is deemed secondary to getting good ribbons. It all comes down to the almighty dollar.

I would love to hear George Morris’ opinions on this. How about it, COTH? An interview with GM and RG.

[AffirmedHope]

[QUOTE=ridingagain;7649749]
Exactly! It is very disappointing to see the USEF turning a blind eye and a well known judge advocating the use of a performance altering substance as a short cut to training. Where is the spirit of horsemanship in this? JMR is a site that many juniors use to get advice and RG is someone they look up to, so he is perpetuating the problem in the hunter/eq ring of just “drugging” the horse to be successful.

I think where I draw the line is - am I giving the horse something to help him, ie. joint injections for pain, or is it something to get a better ribbon, to hell with the horse’s health and well-being. I realize you can’t police intent, but it is very disturbing that the horse’s health is deemed secondary to getting good ribbons. It all comes down to the almighty dollar.

I would love to hear George Morris’ opinions on this. How about it, COTH? An interview with GM and RG.[/QUOTE]

There was a GM clinic near me not that long ago. I wish this came up before that because I would have had no issue asking him what he thinks about trainers and apparently judges advocating the use of majical paste. Somehow I don’t think he’d give a damn whether or not it was on drug list and not “technically” against the rules.

[french_fry]

[QUOTE=Nickelodian;7649623]
I don’t agree. The horse gets quick before and after the jump, then the girl slows him down tooooo much only to build back to the next jump.[/QUOTE]

Truth. It doesn’t matter if the horse is actually walking between the jumps if he makes that big bid a couple of strides out.

Not that I’m criticizing the rider; I mean, that ride looked like my first lesson in the outdoor this spring. A big overexaggerated whoaaa between the jumps that doesn’t actually help when you can’t stop that surge forward once they get close.

[Tiramit]

Something to ponder…

What if a judge witnesses one horse receiving PP before a class that then ends up in a tie with another horse (go with me here). Should the judge pin the other horse above the PP horse or discount the PP completely?

[MIKES_MCS]

I think perhaps if we all copy and paste the post pertaining to actual phone conversation and send it to a rules committee member , or all of them, perhaps we might get and answer . I think I am going to try this .
In Robert Gages defense, ( a person I do not know) I would have to say he is following the SOP of MANY top BNT’s in using PP. This is a fast tracked world where the majority of the Junior client base push a button on a keyboard get an instant result. I am not saying this is right, I am saying this is our reality. SO the advice he gave to this Junior may have come from a place of , if this is her last junior year and she is on a green horse there is not sufficient time to train her or it, so recommending trainers little helper may have seemed a very cost and time effective way to achieve a positive result . Again not the right way but this is our world now . What he really may have thought was there are ( as pointed out by many posters) claring holes in her education , and since he isn’t going to say , get a better trainer this was his recommendation , “Trainer in a tube”
The real issue now is , what are the rules and that needs clarification from the governing body in writing, It cannot be left to interpretation !

[gumshoe]

Does anyone really believe that PP is “trainer in a tube”? I think you are giving this snake oil far more credit than it’s due. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. If you know someone you are competing against is using it and you pin higher, give yourself a pat on the back. Afterall, the “cheater” had a huge advantage over you. If you believe that this stuff is actually all that.

[EventerAJ]

If PP is not technically illegal, should it be publicly noted which horses are on it?

In a racing program, if a horse is given Lasix for a race, there is an “L” in the med column. Should the tube-prepped h/j horses have a “PP” next to their name in the interest of fairness? I mean, if it’s not illegal, what harm is there in the outside world knowing it? In US racing, Lasix is so prevalent a horse running without Lasix could almost be at a disadvantage. Has it become that way with Perfect Prep? Something that isn’t “technically” performance enhancing, but pretty much is so everyone uses it just in case?

Would a judge care if there was a “PP” next to the horse’s name on the card?

[PonyPenny]

[QUOTE=EventerAJ;7649859]
If PP is not technically illegal, should it be publicly noted which horses are on it?

In a racing program, if a horse is given Lasix for a race, there is an “L” in the med column. Should the tube-prepped h/j horses have a “PP” next to their name in the interest of fairness? I mean, if it’s not illegal, what harm is there in the outside world knowing it? In US racing, Lasix is so prevalent a horse running without Lasix could almost be at a disadvantage. Has it become that way with Perfect Prep? Something that isn’t “technically” performance enhancing, but pretty much is so everyone uses it just in case?

Would a judge care if there was a “PP” next to the horse’s name on the card?[/QUOTE]

Really? Horses are on all types of supplements or medications. Some to alter their behavior I’m sure, others for a legitimate reason. It really doesn’t matter to me if a horse is on Perfect Prep. I feel it is better than lunging them to death.

[PonyPenny]

[QUOTE=Tiramit;7649785]
Something to ponder…

What if a judge witnesses one horse receiving PP before a class that then ends up in a tie with another horse (go with me here). Should the judge pin the other horse above the PP horse or discount the PP completely?[/QUOTE]

So the same could be said for a judge witnesses a horse getting dex or any other medication or supplement. What about a horse being lunged to death at a show? A judges job is to judge what is in the ring.

[AffirmedHope]

[QUOTE=gumshoe;7649830]
Does anyone really believe that PP is “trainer in a tube”? I think you are giving this snake oil far more credit than it’s due. If you don’t like it, don’t use it. If you know someone you are competing against is using it and you pin higher, give yourself a pat on the back. Afterall, the “cheater” had a huge advantage over you. If you believe that this stuff is actually all that.[/QUOTE]

Because a BNT advocating a supposed quick fix instead of proper training is wrong! It’s not about it being effective, it’s about once again people pushing an easy fix instead of putting in the time and effort necessary.

Our industry is very much “I want results as fast as possible” and treating these creatures like machines. We always complain about the dumbing down of our sport and always talk about how it needs to be fixed and go back to real riding. This needs to be encouraged from the leaders in our sport and it’s sickening to see one of those leaders encourage grabbing a tube of paste instead of putting in the time and work necessary to train up a horse.

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=gumshoe;7649830]
Does anyone really believe that PP is “trainer in a tube”? I think you are giving this snake oil far more credit than it’s due.[/QUOTE]

You seem to want to completely dismiss its efficacy (“snake oil”) for its intended purpose, and yet . . . Rob Gage recommended it to a rider seeking his advice.

How do you reconcile those two things?

[2bayboys]

[QUOTE=Windsor1;7649929]
You seem to want to completely dismiss its efficacy (“snake oil”) for its intended purpose, and yet . . . Rob Gage recommended it to a rider seeking his advice.

How do you reconcile those two things?[/QUOTE]

Ahhh, the logic trap.

Either he gave bad advice because he told the rider to use a calming supplement rather than real and effective training, or he gave bad advice because he advocated using a substance that doesn’t actually work. Tough one.

Is anybody willing to admit they believe that Gage gave good advice to this rider?

[hntrjmprpro45]

I personally don’t think PP does much and I realize that it doesn’t cause any harm to the horse. However, it is the attitude from the pros that is harmful.

The problem arises when we have a horse at a show that isn’t competing up to our expectations and we refuse to ask the HARD questions (Are there any training gaps? Is this horse suitable AND sound enough to compete at this level? Is the rider capable of riding this horse at this level? Is this horse fit enough to compete in the number of classes/shows we have entered? Am I simply being unrealistic in my goals?). Instead, we jump to using things like PP, dex and lunging to quiet down a horse, or we have our trainers do an entire division to warm up our horses. Then we have to use so many NSAIDs to keep our overworked horses sound (or at least not head bobbing lame) that USEF has to have guidelines on how much/what combos we can give. And we do so many shows per year that there are arguments about a rule change to determine how many days after injecting joints you must wait before you show. Because people can’t simply take a week off of showing, they want to be able to inject on the Monday between shows.

[Nickelodian]

I’m guessing this girl got much more advice than she ever bargained for posting her video to JMR!

[Lady_Eboshi]

[QUOTE=2bayboys;7649975]
Ahhh, the logic trap.

Either he gave bad advice because he told the rider to use a calming supplement rather than real and effective training, or he gave bad advice because he advocated using a substance that doesn’t actually work. Tough one.

Is anybody willing to admit they believe that Gage gave good advice to this rider?[/QUOTE]

I believe that “calming supplements” are mostly a placebo effect calming . . . the RIDER! If the rider believes the horse will be calm, the odds of that happening are considerably increased. :winkgrin:

Maybe we need to cut out the horse as the middleman . . .

[asterix]

hntrjumperpro, you are right on the money.

The problem is not this somewhat hair-splitting argument over whether PP is “legal” or what RG actually meant by telling the rider to use it (not sure why this is in dispute…seems like he meant…use it…)…and the problem is certainly not suggesting it is “better than LTD” or that it doesn’t really work after all.

The problem is that somehow much of this sport seems to have gotten itself into a place where the concepts of training, of suitability, and of a learning curve, for god’s sake, of horse AND rider, are completely out of the equation.

Sometimes in eventing we bring along a horse who just doesn’t want to be an event horse. In most cases, the horse ends up with a new job. I am absolutely certain that there are people who use illegal (or even legal) substances, or LTD, and so on. But I promise you this is viewed as both unusual and WRONG where it is known.

Find a way to have a sport that can be enjoyed without all this “prep.” It shouldn’t have to take high dollar horses, tubes of PP, dex, and a pro warmup to have someone be able to safely and happily jump around a simple course of 3’ fences. It certainly shouldn’t be the NORM. Do you see that THAT is what is wrong???
Not a prolonged argument over which grey is more grey. :rolleyes:

[Pennywell_Bay]

Fact is PP’s ingredients are “legal”, though giving it with the intent to calm/slow a horse down is against the “spirit” of the rule (which states nothing should be given to a horse with the intent of altering its behavior).

The main issue people started commenting on (as I see it) is instead of addressing the somewhat obvious (from the video) issues (rider’s stirrups appear too long, saddle pad is going to fall off-fit issue?) on a lovely eq rider, the advice was to administer the horse PP. People were suprised and disapointed. I don’t want to be told to give my horse something in a clinic. I want to be told to ride more without stirrups, soften my arms, whatever might help my riding.

PP’s contents are legal, they won’t “test” postiive. So the USEF won’t penalize a horse/rider/trainer for using it and that is probably the gist of what they were trying to say over the phone. These nutra-ceuticals have been around. Whether they work or not is a whole 'nother thread. The quick fix of “give your horse a calming supplement” is what people are questioning.

[NCRider]

[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;7650137]
Fact is PP’s ingredients are “legal”, though giving it with the intent to calm/slow a horse down is against the “spirit” of the rule (which states nothing should be given to a horse with the intent of altering its behavior).

The main issue people started commenting on (as I see it) is instead of addressing the somewhat obvious (from the video) issues (rider’s stirrups appear too long, saddle pad is going to fall off-fit issue?) on a lovely eq rider, the advice was to administer the horse PP. People were suprised and disapointed. I don’t want to be told to give my horse something in a clinic. I want to be told to ride more without stirrups, soften my arms, whatever might help my riding.

PP’s contents are legal, they won’t “test” postiive. So the USEF won’t penalize a horse/rider/trainer for using it and that is probably the gist of what they were trying to say over the phone. These nutra-cueticals have been around. Whether they work or not is a whole 'nother thread. The quick fix of “give your horse a calming supplement” is what people are questioning.[/QUOTE]

I wonder if some of the mixed message from the USEF on this particular calming agent is because of a resignation that competitors will do anything to win and will always find some way to make their horses like automatons at shows and TPTB would rather have PP be administered than the more dangerous alternatives, because it’s too much to ask that people buy appropriate horses, learn to ride and accept that it’s not all about the ribbons. I’d be curious to know if PP has replaced LTD, dex, etc. or if it’s in addition to all of that, like the cherry on top. Anyone?

ETA It’s not just h/j. I know eventers who would never ever dream of giving a horse the typical drug cocktail from the hunter circuit but who didn’t think twice about using PP before a dressage test.