I no longer compete but I did care.
Past tense. I’m done.
There is no excuse for USEF to be so incompetent that they are unable to make proper rules.
There is plenty of money behind U.S. equestrian sport. If they are unwilling to use that money in a manner to ensure legally enforceable rules regarding horse welfare then they can take their place beside UAE endurance racing, as an equally weak and appalling lot of excuse makers.
Yes. I would appreciate some clarity about the procedural history.
I have been hesitating to post this for fear of “outing” the trainer but at this point I am not sure that would be a negative thing. A prominent trainer in the southeast (prominent, yet with a fairly small sized clientele) has bought 5 or 6 LCF horses for her amateur client. Not one of them has gone on to win with the amateur. Or with the trainer for that matter. That right there should tell you they are doing things to the horses that the rest of us can hardly fathom. And that this notion that “sharing the cocktail” goes on regularly is a myth. That is simply not common practice and many on this thread are guilty of pure conjecture. In my experience, when buying and selling horses at that level, the “prep” is explained and that entails lunging length of time, necessity of pro rides, and maybe what nsaid or ulcer meds the horse needs. It bothers me when people who don’t show on this level paint with a wide brush and just assume everyone is cheating so
egregiously. Not so.
Pretty sure I know who you’re referring to, and it continues to amaze me that she keeps going back to LCF to purchase horses when none of them seem to work out. I know I would never purchase from them simply because there is no way I could (nor would want to) replicate the program the horse was winning in.
PREACH!
Can answer that one. The testing lab does not screen for every substance known to man. Know people who had the wheels come of 6-8 weeks after purchase despite detailed (and expensive) PPEs with blood tests…but if the lab is not looking for human antipsychotics? Or " worked down " by being kept high all night? Or massive doses of Mag or other allowable substances regulators are still struggling with, a la tubeapalooza? Won’t show up.
Have to understad the game is to beat the test by figuring out what’s not included in the testing profile, yet, or massive dosing allowable substances that rapidly dissipate. The drug du jour is the one that won’t test.
Any of these cheaters today come up positive for Ace or Reserpine? That IS a careless mistake, switched bucket or incompetent barn help. They are much more sophisticated then that.
“Ms. Navin [Glefke/Farmer attorney] noted that the USEF’s statement failed to report the portion of the arbitrator’s ruling in which he opined that Farmer and Glefke are likely to prevail on the merits of their case at the February, 2018 arbitration. As such, he believed they should return to the show ring immediately. Ms. Navin noted that the USEF requested of the arbitrator to order confidentiality of the entire proceeding and Navin argued in favor of an open proceeding so that the membership would be able to follow the evidence collected.”
When reading through this it actually sounds like most of us agree there ARE good and ethical hunter riders/trainers and it is BS that those with true horsemanship have to compete with those who have no problem cheating or at the very least skirting the system.
While I don’t show “A” (although plan to this year as a new closer facility was built) I have ridden at barns who have lots of kids that do and no way no how were those horses getting any kind of banned substances. This situation does paint hunters in a bad light and that is unfortunate.
That’s not how I read this thread at all. I have seen several posters say “this is why I don’t do the hunters,” or propose that they are all cheaters and “the hunters are a joke.” I can assure that the vast majority, if not all, of the ribbon winners at indoors this year would have passed any drug test.
http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/glefke-farmer-back-in-the-show-ring-further-arbitration
“The interim ruling also noted that in Farmer and Glefke’s August hearing, the lack of an explanation for the ‘off the charts’ test results combined with the testimony of industry experts, ‘this Arbitrator determined that the Hearing Panel had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously in making its prior ruling. Subsequent discovery has now provided new information that was not considered by the Hearing Panel and was not previously considered by this Arbitrator that has tipped the scale in Claimant’s favor as to their likelihood of success on the merits.’”
Just so people know (and I am not suggesting you don’t know, BH). At a preliminary injunction hearing there are several factors to be weighed and limited evidence is presented. If one factor weighs strongly (irreparable harm or harm to the public, for example) that may mean the court (here the arbitrators) require less of a showing on the other factors. It’s a balancing test. The fact that on a PI hearing there was found to be “a likelihood of success on the merits” does not mean that KF/LG put on their full case and the USE put on its full case and ALL the facts were considered and the arbitrators found KF/LG’s case was the winning one. It really means more along the lines that KF/LG’s case was not frivolous and that they stand some reasonable chance of prevailing if the case goes to trial/arbitration. I suspect weighing heavily in favor of finding in their favor were some of the other factors as well. This does not mean they’re ultimately going to win. It does not mean they’re ultimately going to lose. It was not an evaluation of the full evidence that would be presented at trial/arbitration. It means in weighing the equities the arbitrators though they should be allowed to show pending a final determination on the imposition of sanctions.
I am disappointed in the lack of transparency and that apparently the USE is the one advocating for it. I understand that they don’t want to tip their hat too much on internal processes (this creating a roadmap for future cheaters to work around it) but this is really important and in the greater scheme of things I think transparency is good for the USE as well. Sunshine is the best of disinfectants.
:lol:
Me too. Those who work really hard and bring their horses along without an army of trainers and grooms, who didn’t spend six or seven digits on a horse. Those who simply love riding and showing. Because there are those who simply love winning and the horse is just a vehicle to get them a prize.
I hope people vote with their wallets and feet, and entries drop in 2018 like they fell off a cliff.
:lol::lol::lol:
I think that using “cocktail” and " prep" as one and the same can be confusing. I know my definition of prep is not the same as that of others. 0 I have my comfort levels as to what is prep and so be it.
idk, as I am not privy to that info, and it’s none of my business. I do know that horses she buys are not the famous ones, more like 2nd stringers, or the younger greener horses. If Kelly can’t ride em, they move them asap. But for sure, these are lovely horses. It’s been interesting for me to watch the progression from unrideable to winners, with out the use of whatever it is they get. Takes them about a season, but they are really good horses. I personally wouldn’t want to take the risk.
Shame on you USE for the latest (lifting the suspension). You might as well throw out all your drug rules and drug testing protocol because it means crap now.
And further, at a PI hearing you’re really likely only going to challenge the other’s side’s likelihood of prevailing on the merits if there’s some obvious legal deficiency with the claim. Not if there’s merely a factual dispute.
Example…
A sues B for breach of contract and moves for a PI. But the contract wasn’t between A and B, it was between B and C. B will probably argue at the hearing that A has no likelihood of success on the merits because A was not a contracting party. This is the sort of legal issue that can result in there being a denial of a motion for a PI. If A has no legal ground to stand on, A CAN’T win at trial.
A sues B for breach of contract. A and B are the parties to the contract. A thinks the contract meant B had to deliver 100 apples. B thinks the contract meant B had to deliver all the apples B grew, and B only grew 50 so only delivered 50. B is unlikely to raise (or successfully raise) at the PI hearing that A has no likelihood of success on the merits. This is a mixed question of fact/law. It will require more detailed evidence. If A and B are both parties to the contract and there’s some reasonable reading under which A could be right about what the contract means, A probably will be found to have a likelihood of success on the merits in the limited context of a PI hearing.
All a PI is supposed to do is preserve the status quo pending trial. It is not a FULL decision on the merits of the underlying case. It is just a chance for the court to decide whether the case might actually go forward and if, pending that time, something needs to be done so one party (or the public) isn’t prejudiced in an “undoable” manner in the meantime.
Now, when we get to actual trial, B might win. A’s reading of the contract might be not credible. Or the fact finder might just not believe it. But there probably is still enough to show a likelihood of success on the merits in the context of a PI. It’s a pretty low bar. There has to be no obvious legal reason why the party cannot win. It does NOT mean that that party has or will have the better evidence at trial or will prevail at trial.
Ok here is what I understand happened aside from the positive Ace test, the delaying drug tester and presenting wrong Horse and now the positive Coke test. The sample A was positive for GABA, sample B was tested and the numbers did not match Sample A’s but was still positive for GABA. Sample B was re tested and the numbers were very similar to Sample A and still positive for GABA. The defendants could have asked for Independent Lab to test Sample B and they didn’t. They just focused on Sample B’s first set of numbers.
What frustrates me is that we have to pay for USEF to develop a chemistry lab that is capable of staying way ahead of these cheaters that give their horses concoctions of lord knows what-concoctions that horses have to detox from. It is disgusting and disillusioning.
They never denied giving GABA. They just put the pressure on USEF to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the drug test is infallible. It is like a defense attorney demanding video of a crime. All the samples contained GABA. GABA is banned. Most people at Horse shows have no idea where to purchase GABA because most people don’t use their horses to conduct chemistry experiments.
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.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLlLtSG7xe4