This is beyond sick. Is this really commonplace in these disciplines?
4 Likes
Curious - how do you know thereâs been no false positives? How can you be sure? Has every person who has tested positive fessed up? Iâm assuming that you are directly involved in the testing program (possibly HR?), since it would be shocking if employees had access to that type of information without a need to know.
If youâre in the US, and were terminated due to a drug test that you can prove was falsely positive, or just utterly mishandled, youâd likely be able to bring a wrongful termination suit (yes, even if employed at will). So recourse in the US judicial system.
2 Likes
Regardless of policy for first time offenses- these people are repeat offenders. Any sensible organization would permanently ban Farmer.
Isnt it obvious that sheâs going to go back to showing and eventually get caught doing the same crap? And then what- a suspension that just so happens to be postponed until after a major show? And a measly fine? Wow.
To be fair I actually donât know the exact number of suspensions sheâs had- this info should be available to the public and easy to access⊠but itâs not.
Does anyone have an idea of how many infractions, suspensions, etc sheâs been given during her career?
I wonder how other sport organizations would handle this.
5 Likes
mad if they donât.
(canât believe itâs taken 2 full pages for someone to realise this. lol)
also add: the âCoke was in the environment due to dodgy groomâ defence was first used way back in either late 90s early noughties here in Oz by leading TB trainer (Gai Waterhouse)
is now the go to defence since the legal precedent was set, just like how now all those who fail doping tests will subsequently demand Arbitration and this same reply.
I thought Equestrian Australia was in need of some serious dental work on loose teeth, but yours?
LOL itâs gums are that shallow not even Implants will take, so wobbly dentures at best for all the money it demands from its clean members.
corikey.
1 Like
If there had been any false positives or mishandling then per the program requirements a Corrective Action Document is required to be written through our Corrective Action Program. These document (with personal information only withheld from the public) what happened and all corrective action taken as well as extent of condition. A review of these CA Documents is constantly being done by the Performance Improvement and Quality Assurance Departments to look for trends. If a possible trend is noted, a separate Corrective Action Document is written on the trend with number and type of occurrences, etc. Just recently there was a CA Document on a problem with the results of a âcontrolâ sample sent to one of the labs. Believe you me, if there were any problems with this program, we would know.
2 Likes
The point is I am certain her employer is not testing a full drug screen as they do for Olympic athletes. There have in fact been positives on the drug screens for elite athletes that resulted from substances that people did not think would be illegal. But I think an employer isnât paying for the exacting tests of athletics. They are looking for illegal drugs. Nobody cares if you are taking Ibuprophen or probably even Xanax.
Again, I ask the question- why do we pay a drug fee if this stuff keeps happening? And it is the smallest $ fee of all the fees. But if the USEF canât get it right in the biggest drug issue it seems to have had so far, what a waste of my $ and I donât want to pay it.
6 Likes
Absolutely not, as far as hunters go. This is the second time I can remember hearing of a positive test for it in about forty years. Maybe there have been other times, but I only know of two off the top of my head.
I donât follow Saddlebreds at all, so I canât speak to that discipline.
Ah, but how would you know? Not hunters, but a couple of years ago, Jane Clarkâs rider, a Canadian who switched to the US and has now switched back, was set down because Clarkâs horse tested positive for cocaine at WEF. Clark moved her horses to Ben Maher or Scott Brash right afterwards. IIRC, it was DesLauries (sp)
3 Likes
A. I was replying to a question that specifically asked about hunters and Saddlebreds. Not jumpers.
B. There is no way to prove a negative. I simply said I could only immediately recall two hunters that tested positive for traces of that substance in the last four decades. I would not call that a âcommonplaceâ occurrence, which was the question in the previous post.
C. As I remember it, the rider for Jane Clark was not set down. It was the trainer of record on the horse.
This might be a stretch, but how about trainers and riders not going to the shows KF and GL attend? Money talks and if enough people refuse to show perhaps the USE would actually take this seriously.
We can also publically shame and protest KF/GL at the shows. Hold protests?
My point here is not about what they are testing for, but the performance of the program itself. That is what would be important to me before anything else. It wouldnât matter what you test for if the program does not provide all the required elements to ensure each test is performed appropriately, the chain of custody is properly maintained and results are accurate. In addition, if I am paying for this service, then the USE should make all documentation on the program itself available to me. This should include all procedures, policies, audits (internal and external), self-assessments, benchmarking, lab performance results, etc. The start of enforcing rules on drugs administered to horses begins with this program.
2 Likes
I donât understand your logic ⊠how would the very basic of testing get paid for if not for the drug fee?
That is a great idea to refuse to show.
About the protests, could that be done on show grounds without show management throwing the protestors out?
Another thing to do is when farmer walks in the ring for a flat class, everyone else could walk out, leaving her alone in it. It would mean a loss of money for the remaining owners, but would make a huge statement.
I donât think people have the guts to go it though
8 Likes
Theyâre saying why pay for it if people who are caught keep getting off
8 Likes
Re: the PI⊠itâs not USE that is allowing KF and LG to show. Thatâs not USEâs decision. You realize that, right? They were ordered to do so as a result of apparently mandatory arbitration
3 Likes
The crucial question.
So far as Iâm concerned just about the only/most important thing the USEF does for me as an exhibitor is drug regulation. If they canât do that-- create a level playing field and a sport in which Iâm not competing alongside people who commit animal cruelty (killing a pony in the cross ties at Devon)-- what TF is the USEF worth, exactly?
I donât want to re-up my membership until this organization gets some teeth when it comes to this central animal welfare issue.
6 Likes
Fantastic idea! Donât you need at least three horses to fill the class? How about they walk out of O/F classes too? Can a judge not place KF due to the knowledge that she has been suspended for drug use and is basically forcing the law to get her own way?
The only thing I can hope for is that after the shows, she is found guilty, gets a lifetime suspension and all prize money has to be handed back. The horses also receive a lifetime ban and GL is banned.
3 Likes
but then there would be no testing at all. How would that work?
Yes, but the point is if testing is done/expensive/worthwhile/good-at-catching-cheaters, why bother if there are no real consequences to cheating? If the whole system is not only supposed to catch cheaters but deter the would-be cheaters, it doesnât work when one link in the chain is so deplorably weak.
I donât think it makes a ton of sense to ask âhow it would work if there were no testingâ when, arguably, it isnât âworkingâ with testing and too-light punishments now.
7 Likes
