What it means is now every drug test that is positive will be appealed to the USOC, if the USOC is the entity that ordered the arbitration. USEF had no choice in lifting the suspension.
I’m interested in what new evidence that wasn’t presented at the USE hearing caused the arbitrator to find that there was likelihood of Glekfe-Farmer prevailing on the merits. Seems to me that if there is new evidence, he should remand the matter to the USE for a new hearing.
The Arbitrator found, after reviewing an exhaustive list of discovery findings, that the USEF may have found differently at the hearing level had the information initially provided to them by their lab had been more thorough. While one may or may not agree with the outcome given the parties, personal feelings, etc., this finding does serve us all well as we who show are all subject to drug testing and hopefully accurate, dependable and lastly transparent and translatable results.
THIS, I keep thinking to myself, everything has pointed to them still using a banned substance. What could they have possibly provided or shown, that would give them any chance of prevailing, even if only appearing to have a potential case at this early point? Could it be at a technicality level like something regarding the handling of sampling was off? Not a lawyer, but would that mean they are appealing for something almost like a “mistrial” rather then appealing for actual innocence of injecting with Gaba? It seems like that would really be the only angle with the levels that tested?
Is there a source for this? I would love to read the arbitration decision(s).
That also doesn’t seem quite right given what I assume is the standard of review?
The arbitration would not be an appeal from the hearing. If required by the USOC, it would be limited to the “law” above the USEF and what issues can be raised in the context of USOC rules and precedents.
If it is not a USOC required hearing, then all bets are off because we don’t know on what “law” the arbitrator is relying or what issues fall within the referral to him.
How did the USOC get involved? Missed that.
I never pay much attention to the " That’s why I don’t show Hunters" crowd. If one has an A level competitive Hunter, one shows there. I don’t show Hunters anymore because I and my last competitive Hunter aged out and it’s gotten too pricey for somebody nearing retirement. If I had a competitive Hunter, and the money, I’d show it or have it shown under my name.
Decades ago I showed Arabs despite those who drugged or surgically altered ( that one keeps coming back too, still around just a few years ago). Showed Western on the old AHSA Pacific Coast Circuit plus QH, Paint breed shows and never drugged, bled, tied heads up overnight or beat the crap out of them though some others did.
Across the disciplines, most play it straight and enjoy their horses and the fact there are those that don’t is not a fair reason not to. And assuming it doesn’t go on across the board is really naive.
Many things don’t seem quite right.
What I gather from reading through all this stuff is that if you are a BNT, are a big money owner, or have big $ backing, it is relatively straightforward to hire an attorney and cause enough of a stink to get the federation to back off or get someone to help you push your agenda, whether it be a delay, a temporarily lifting of a suspension, or getting out of it altogether.
Large part of why I did not renew my membership for 2018 is because I too am fed up with the BS. When USEF adopts a zero tolerance policy then I will renew.
USEF depends on members to sit on committees and such, the good old boys club members keep their fingers on the lid of change then there’s the show managers who are scared of losing the business of big trainers paying lots of stall and entry fees. They aren’t going to endorse added enforcement or stewards or anything that might restrict their favorite exhibitors.
Think there was something recently about who could be on some of those committees disciplinary record wise???
Hear, hear. These threads have a tendency to devolve into hunter bashing with lots of hearsay and conjecture performed by a lot of people that haven’t even been to a rated hunter/jumper show.
I saw it downstream in this thread and also wanted to comment - there’s absolutely nothing wrong with people having 6 figure horses or trainers and grooms as long as they are training and competing honestly and ethically. The people with expensive horses and grooms are not automatically bad people or riders but I see that stereotype tossed around a lot in this forum (often to much fanfare).
I really wish we knew all the details. I am struggling to think in what context a fact-finders decision can be overturned based on the fact that a finder of fact COULD have found differently. I just can’t think of any context in which something can be over turned based upon the fact that reasonable minds could differ. This MUST be slightly misstated or else I am really at a loss to understand
findeight, we don’t have the facts about how this matter ended in arbitration. USOC complaints do end there, and a single arbitrator is common in Section 9 complaints.
Since the USEF Rules do not have a provision for arbitration, either USEF decided voluntarily to submit to an arbitrator, which it has never done in any previous case and the “law” and issues submitted to the arbitrator would be negotiated between the parties; or it was forced into it by the USOC, the only body with the power under its rules and governing organization to be able to do so.
The USOC rules do talk about due process, and my uninformed opinion would be that this is some sort of due process case.
Many years ago, I knew a lot about arbitration and how it works. I used to be one. The arbitrator is very limited in the kinds of issues that can be heard. Those issues are limited to the “contract” between and among the parties, and resort to arbitration must be agreed to in advance in the contract.
Basically the principle is that if I do not agree or have not agreed to arbitration, I can’t be forced into it.
Yep, I remember. But nowadays most members don’t have the time to go to the website, find the link and look over the hundreds of listed names. Or go to the pages with Rulings and Findings and what have you. Apparently non-members have no access at all. How does that help the sport ?
The information would be efficiently accessed in a printed magazine, like it used to be, where the equestrian public can see it. Although the list is copyrighted by USEF, perhaps for a few shekels they’d allow someone to publish it. USEF would make money, the magazine would pick up more subscribers/readers (good news for advertisers) and the horse show public gets the information it wants, and should have.
Just an idea…
vxf111- This is what I really don’t get either??? All the levels were above, its not like one sample was acceptable
Also- going back to the Kodachrome Coke finding, do we know at what levels he tested at? I would think that the finding levels for a contamination vs intentional administration would be very different. I have no experience what so ever though, so maybe the length of time a system takes to process could make it harder to tell? I would think if you started at a contamination level vs administration level you would still be able to make a reasonable argument for intended purpose vs true contamination (accident). I only bring this up since if the levels suggest an intentional administration, then shouldn’t someone be able to do a horse welfare investigation? It’s banned either way, but one is clearly abuse and should have serious consequences.
If these two do prevail and are let off on some sample mishandling technicality for the GABA, they clearly do not learn from their mistakes and I’m sure its only a matter of time before their next cocktail is found on another test. I can only hope that some good will prevail in the end.
Really, really disgusting
[I][B]I guess Larry can just show this month at WEF:
For these violation of the rules, the Hearing Committee members present directed that pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1b and GR703.1f, DAVID (LARRY) GLEFKE and DEBBIE BUCHANAN, be found not in good standing, suspended from membership, and forbidden from the privilege of taking any part whatsoever in any Licensed Competition for five months, and is excluded from all competition grounds during Licensed Competitions for that period: (1) as an exhibitor, participant or spectator; (2) from participating in all Federation affairs and activities, (3) from holding or exercising office in the Federation or in any Licensed Competition; and (4) from attending, observing or participating in any event, forum, meeting, program, clinic, task force, or committee of the Federation, sponsored by or conducted by the Federation, or held in connection with the Federation and any of its activities. The five-month suspension shall commence on February 1, 2017 and terminate at midnight on June 30, 2017. Any horse or horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his or hers, or shown in his or her name or for his or her reputation, (whether such interest was held at the time of the alleged violation or acquired thereafter), shall also be suspended, pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1c. Furthermore, the Hearing Committee directed that DAVID (LARRY) GLEFKE and DEBBIE BUCHANAN each be fined $5,000 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j. It was further directed that for these violations of the rules, all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by SYMBOLIC at said competition, must be returned for redistribution pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1g.[/B][/I]
Can you imagine being one of their clients trying to figure out the horse show schedule? You would have to create a new calendar with different colors for when your trainer is suspended and when he/she is not.
what did this one test positive for?
Cocaine :no:
And the horse is named “Symbolic.”
Maybe it’ll get a RF Amber Eyes/Fonteyn-style name change to “Ironic.”
I thought this was Kodachrome??? There are simply too many to track with these two
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
