Just tell the kids to use "Perfect Prep"

[hntrjmprpro45]

[QUOTE=NCRider;7650150]
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?[/QUOTE]

At the USHJA annual meeting this topic always comes up and we always have someone (or several someone’s) begging to bring back Ace because it would create a safer option than trying out new-and-not-yet illegal options. Their argument being that they wouldn’t have to resort to such lengths if they could just use Ace.

[Pennywell_Bay]

^^^ definitely a mixed message. USEF can’t police everything, developing tests to identify compounds can be expensive, so is testing with a liquid chromatographer- which may give them the answer. But how far does a sport have to go to police things? I actually don’t have an issue with PP, persay and don’t care if I show against people who use it. My mare is appropriate for hunters (and her ammy mamma) so if I get beat by someone who uses it, I guess I don’t really care. I, personally, don’t think it specifically works and doubt push to shove, it is a deciding factor if I get beat (unlike my spot to the dreaded white oxer, which I screw up repeatedly).

[cyriz_s_mom]

What is starting to be telling to me at this point (and yes, I’ve read the whole thread) is that the man himself hasn’t made any attempt to clarify or golly gee say “my bad” as was all but promised by not one but two people from JMR.

I think there are a couple of big picture issues. One, it’s extremely difficult to take one moment (or one trip in the case of a video) and seek training advice from a complete stranger and except it to be really helpful. How can it be without knowing the context…rider/horse history together and individually, was this their best or worst round, goals, unusual circumstances, etc. You could go on and on. Second, I believe that PP got its start in the western world and based on what I know about that world, it is even more drug riddled than the H/J world. The horses, for the most part, are just commodities and not intended to be long lasting partners of any kind. It’s about winning what you can with the animal while you can before it breaks and you move on to the next one. I fear that the A/AA H/J world is moving more and more towards that attitude and it saddens me, both for the horses and for the riders who never learn and experience the joys of training, working and accomplishing goals from hard work that so many of us old farts had the privilege (and curse) to experience. We’ve just become such an instant gratification society…sad.

[RugBug]

@cyriz's mom;7650167

What is starting to be telling to me at this point (and yes, I’ve read the whole thread) is that the man himself hasn’t made any attempt to clarify or golly gee say “my bad” as was all but promised by not one but two people from JMR.

Honestly, there is not a lot he can say that is going to appease anyone so I think silence is almost the better choice.

Right now, USEF would not consider his advice to be against the rules. Many of us would, but it’s really USEF that has the say. If he came on COTH and said that PP was not against the rules, he’d get the same response, or very similar, as CDP and JMR person. That’s a losing proposition.

He could offer mea culpa for giving chemical shortcut rather than training, but even then, I don’t think it would be accepted.

Really, he’s kind of damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.

[Trevelyan96]

Here’s my take.

Everyone gripes about situations that are mutually exclusive. We’ve created the monster by making it financially impossible for a trainer to make a living without having all of their students and horses on the A circuit year round.

• We don't want to see inexperienced riders at big shows.
• We don't want to see inexperienced horses at big shows.
• If you can't do 3'6" you shouldn't be showing.
• Local, low level shows should be for gaining experience.
• There are no 'local/low level shows, because we don't support them or the trainers who would use them.
• Top trainers are at big shows. if you want to learn from the best, even as a beginner, you're probably going to have yourself and your horse at the big shows.
• Everyone should ride their own horse, having trainer ride it is a cop out.
• Taking the edge off by lunging is a no-no.

Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

Well, sorry, but at some point, the inexperienced horse and/or rider has to go into the ring to become experienced, and it won’t always be pretty. Hopefully not together, but sometimes resources make that inevitable, and realistically you can’t ever predict how either will handle that ‘first’ time until you’re tacking up to go in the warm up. Please cut them a break, give them credit for trying, and cut the trainer trying to coach 10-20 students a break for doing what they can to get them in/out of the ring in one piece.

If horse is a little too up on on show day, and a tube of PP or a scoop of Smart Calm will get a less than perfect rider without a velcro seat around the ring safely for those first few trips plus give both horse and rider a positive experience - send them in the schooling ring or unjudged and get them the road experience they need. After a few safe experiences, they should both be able to get around without any mineral help. If not, either the rider or the horse isn’t suited to the sport, or the trainer isn’t doing their job. But you have to give them those first few confidence building experiences to get them started.

Its not the end of the world if a green horse or rider needs a little help to get some show mileage. It becomes a problem when the horse/rider combo has been showing for years with a cocktail of dex/mag and pulling in blues and year end points.

IMHO - I’m not interested in trying to judge someone else’s motives. I think the intent to cheat can easily be figured out by the level and intensity of the chemical help being provided, and at some point, USEF needs to draw a line that can be tested, not spout a bunch of meaningless language about ‘intent’. Does anyone actually think a tube of PP is going to make the horse jump higher, rounder, or with better knees?

And its interesting to see some posters scream about Smart Calm, but recommend a rider with show nerves see their doctor to get some anti-anxiety meds.

[BeeHoney]

Trev, you are talking about a very different situation. This horse and rider were perfectly safe and in the process of getting show miles in a fairly normal manner. I’m also not out to vilify the judge in this scenario. The main problem was that he said what a lot of people think (but don’t come right out and say), which is, if you are having trouble with a horse you need to work on your prep (meds, supplements, lunging) routine instead of working on training.

So here, even when there is a horse and rider who each are lovely and have a lot of potential but clearly a few things to work on and who don’t seem to have quite worked out their partnership–the first comment is go get yourself magic supplement X to fix the problem. It’s just a little sad to me when a judge comes right out and admits that before you even address riding and training issues you need to do something to get that horse quieted down. It’s the truth, though–a sedated look is rewarded well in the modern show ring. It’s not this particular judge’s fault that this is the current trend/style. It’s something that we as an industry need to fix.

I’m so glad that this conversation is being had because I think that the change that we need has to come from a change in the judging. People would focus more on training and less on “prep” if overly quiet or sedate horses were penalized, and horses with a little more style and energy were rewarded. I hope that the neither the judge in question nor JMR take offense at this thread. I don’t think that it was intended to criticize the judge or JMR but rather to spark spark discussion and change.

[gumshoe]

Quite easily in fact.

I’m not Robert Gage. I do not hold his opinion. Probably about a lot of things. Because someone else advocates it doesn’t mean I have to believe there is anything to it at all.

[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]

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=gumshoe;7650302]
Quite easily in fact.

I’m not Robert Gage. I do not hold his opinion. Probably about a lot of things. Because someone else advocates it doesn’t mean I have to believe there is anything to it at all.[/QUOTE]

Well, one of you is certainly wrong about its efficacy and/or value. It’s either “snake oil,” in which case you’d think someone as accomplished as Rob Gage would know this (and not suggest that the rider waste her money on it), OR it works well enough on most horses for him to publicly recommend it to a horse and rider he has no knowledge of beyond what he’s seen on a video and the little information provided by the rider. In which case, it wouldn’t be snake oil, but a generally reliable and effective calmative.

It can’t logically be both.

[vxf111]

repeat, sorry!

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Windsor1;7650321]
Well, one of you is certainly wrong about its efficacy and/or value. It’s either “snake oil,” in which case you’d think someone as accomplished as Rob Gage would know this (and not suggest that the rider waste her money on it), OR it works well enough on most horses for him to publicly recommend it to a horse and rider he has no knowledge of beyond what he’s seen on a video and the little information provided by the rider. In which case, it wouldn’t be snake oil, but a generally reliable and effective calmative.

It can’t logically be both.[/QUOTE]

It can be somewhere in the middle, which is where I come down.

I think a lot of these herbal calming supplements (including valerian, etc.) have some, albeit minimal effect. It depends on the amount of physiology of the horse, but I think at certain levels they can have a very very minimal effect.

I used Calm and Cool pellets when rehabbing horses on stall rest and it took a little of the edge off. Although I have never used Perfect Prep myself, I’ve seen it used and it appears to me to be about the same. It has a very minimal calming effect. It is certainly nowhere near as effective as a true sedative but it does have a very short lived, minimal calming effect. Do I think, in the grand scheme of things, that minimal effect has much overall effect on the horse’s performance in the ring-- probably not. Taking the edge off slightly won’t help a horse who wants to rush/run and it won’t make an unbalanced horse come off his forehand. But can it take a little bit of the top level of friskiness off, yes, on some horses. Do I think it has a significant effect overall, no, probably not.

Just like drinking coffee is not going to raise my IQ 10 points… but it might make me just a tiny, tiny bit sharper. Is my work product better because I am that tiny bit sharper, no probably not… but that doesn’t mean the caffeine had NO effect on me whatsoever.

I will note also, on a slight tangent, that there’s no doubt about how Perfect Prep is marketed…

http://perfectproductseq.com/product-line/calming-formulas/

It’s marked as having a calming effect when given to horses right before they show. Nothing about curing magnesium or vitamin/mineral deficiencies or anything of the sort. The company is blatantly saying they recommend using this product to calm horses while showing and that the product is “show safe,” whatever that means.

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7650334]
It can be somewhere in the middle, which is where I come down.[/QUOTE]

Sure. But “somewhere in the middle” is clearly still effective ENOUGH for Rob Gage to recommend it. Otherwise, logic dictates that he wouldn’t have.

Unless someone wants to suggest that he had an alternate motive for recommending it, that for some other reason he wants people to go out and uby Perfect Prep for reasons that have nothing to do with actually helping the horse and/or rider.

[hb]

The rider looks better in some of her other videos, and has shorter stirrups too. I wonder how much of what we saw on that video is a function of her having a badly sprained ankle.

Also, the horse didn’t look not calm. He looked inconsistent in his pace and not really on the aids.

[gumshoe]

I’m okay with that.

[QUOTE=Windsor1;7650321]
Well, one of you is certainly wrong about its efficacy and/or value. It’s either “snake oil,” in which case you’d think someone as accomplished as Rob Gage would know this (and not suggest that the rider waste her money on it), OR it works well enough on most horses for him to publicly recommend it to a horse and rider he has no knowledge of beyond what he’s seen on a video and the little information provided by the rider. In which case, it wouldn’t be snake oil, but a generally reliable and effective calmative.

It can’t logically be both.[/QUOTE]

[Trevelyan96]

I think the accusations of cheating are a bit much. Is calmness really considered ‘performancing enhancing’? Does anyone seriously feel that taking an unusual or uncharastic edge off a horse will make it jump higher, rounder, snap its knees up to its eyeballs or stretch out to give you a big enough stride to make 4 in the line instead of the 5 stride chip? Seriously? (rollseyes) Drugging it to the point where it doesn’t know it has an injury, yes, but giving it a supplement that makes it act like the same horse you ride week in/week out at home is just showing what he’s normally like.

With that reasoning, using a color enhancing shampoo on a bay or silver clean stuff on a yellowed tail for a model class are also cheating. I feel more strongly about fake tails than I do about PP.

I think USEF needs to draw a line on acceptable levels instead of encouraging competitors to ponder and speculate on the motives and intent of their peers.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Windsor1;7650346]
Sure. But “somewhere in the middle” is clearly still effective ENOUGH for Rob Gage to recommend it. Otherwise, logic dictates that he wouldn’t have.

Unless someone wants to suggest that he had an alternate motive for recommending it, that for some other reason he wants people to go out and uby Perfect Prep for reasons that have nothing to do with actually helping the horse and/or rider.[/QUOTE]

I guess I don’t understand why this is relevant to you. Clearly RG thinks PP has some efficacy. I don’t see that as being particularly important in the grand scheme of any of the various discussions on this thread.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Trevelyan96;7650383]
But is calmness really considered ‘performancing enhancing’? Does anyone seriously feel that sedating a horse will make it jump higher, rounder, snap its knees up to its eyeballs or stretch out to give you a big enough stride to make 4 in the line instead of the 5 stride chip? Seriously? Drugging it to the point where it doesn’t know it has an injury maybe, but giving it a supplement that makes it act like the same horse you ride week in/week out at home is just showing what he’s normally like.

With that reasoning, using a color enhancing shampoo on a bay or silver clean stuff on a yellowed tail for a model class are also cheating.[/QUOTE]

I believe there are rules about covering up markings. I am not as familiar with those because it’s not something I have ever had to deal with personally. IIRC not many years ago someone got set down for dying a POA so it could show under a different identify.

Calmness/manners is absolutely part of what is being judged in the hunters. Along with jumping ability and various other things. A horse that meets 10 fences and jumps a 10 but bucks/tosses its head in every corner isn’t pinning.

[Trevelyan96]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7650387]
I believe there are rules about covering up markings. I am not as familiar with those because it’s not something I have ever had to deal with personally. IIRC not many years ago someone got set down for dying a POA so it could show under a different identify.

Calmness/manners is absolutely part of what is being judged in the hunters. Along with jumping ability and various other things. A horse that meets 10 fences and jumps a 10 but bucks/tosses its head in every corner isn’t pinning.[/QUOTE]

My point is that many inexperienced horses are likely to not be themselves at a show, and a small amount of a calming supplement is most likely only going to have the effect of making them act ‘normal’ and give them positive mileage. I just don’t see it as an attempt to cheat if you’re trying to help your horse to be able to be who he normally is in a strange environment that is likely to make make him more apprehensive and excitable. IME, eventually, most horses settle down and need nothing after a few good experiences - and most of the people I’ve seen use a supplement only do it for their first few shows.

If they don’t have basic training and manners installed at home, PP is not going to make them look any better, because they still don’t know how to respond to aids. Ditto for the rider - having a horse that is dull to the aids is not going to ‘enhance’ your performace, and if you’re a poor rider - its going to highlight that fact very clearly!

I’m just very reluctant to assign motive or intent, and I think the USEF should do what they need to do so that competitors don’t start feeling paranoid and suspicious of each other. It does the industry no good to have its participants accusing each other of cheating over something that can and should be more clearly defined.

[IPEsq]

If calming a horse was ok in all instances, then tranqs wouldn’t be substances on the banned list for administration prior to competition. I’m not saying PP should be illegal, but the drug rules go beyond “performance enhancing” (though, I would argue that for a sport where part of the judging is based on temperament, then for some horses, giving a calming substance, whether or not a banned substance, would have a beneficial effect on performance).

USEF rules:

Any product is forbidden if it contains an ingredient that is a forbidden substance, or is a drug which might affect the performance of a horse and/or pony as a stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, analgesic, local anesthetic, psychotropic (mood and/or behavior altering) substance, or might interfere with drug testing procedures.

Comment to the WADA Protocol (which applies to FEI human athletes as well, for those who think that riders are always exempt from doping rules).

A substance shall be considered for inclusion on the Prohibited List if the substance is a masking agent or meets two of the following three criteria: (1) it has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance; (2) it represents a
potential or actual health risk; or (3) it is contrary to the spirit of sport.

[Midge]

[QUOTE=cyriz’s mom;7650167]
What is starting to be telling to me at this point (and yes, I’ve read the whole thread) is that the man himself hasn’t made any attempt to clarify or golly gee say “my bad” as was all but promised by not one but two people from JMR.[/QUOTE]

Perhaps he will clarify on JMR, but I doubt he will respond here. I would also think a kerfuffle on a public BB is not the most important thing on his plate so his timeline is probably not in line with the expectations of BB posters.

[Windsor1]

[QUOTE=vxf111;7650385]
I guess I don’t understand why this is relevant to you. Clearly RG thinks PP has some efficacy. I don’t see that as being particularly important in the grand scheme of any of the various discussions on this thread.[/QUOTE]

It’s not remotely relevant to me personally, but arguments that PP does not work effectively serve to excuse its use. And much of this thread, as far as I can tell, is about whether and when its use ought to be excused, or allowed, or ignored, or what have you.

Interestingly, one of the testimonials at the Perfect Products website praises Perfect Prep because it reduces the amount of lunging she feels she has to do with a horse with “old tendon injuries.” Now I understand that that isn’t the reason why Rob Gage recommended it, but that would still seem to be a pretty positive reason for using it that doesn’t involve just pinning higher in a class.