Yes, but they were not trying to argue that. They were trying to show that in an experiment, horses given GABA weren’t falling over or doing alarming things. I honestly thought it was ridiculous testimony and did not help their cause. They paid around $7000 to that “expert.”
3 Likes
I’m planning to contact him as well.
4 Likes
I forget the gory details about Eric Lamaze not wanted at Spruce meadows but EC forced him to accept EL or they would pull horses from Team competitions. Can’t win these fights!
actually they had to rescind this because FEI threatened to pull their world cup rankings and basically would of ruined them, if they enforced the ban! It was major suckage as they wanted him banned from competing their but higher ups showed their true colours!
3 Likes
I am of course hugely disappointed in this development, but all of you expressing your disgust at USEF should be aware that this isn’t their choice, that they have rules that they have to follow both as any organization with bylaws does and in particular related to their obligations as the National Governing Body for equestrian sport which ties them to USOC and the Ted Stevens Act. USEF attorneys are fighting this and they lost a battle for a preliminary injunction, but it doesn’t mean they’ll lose the final case. vxf111 laid out some of the reasons why in a case like this that it might be found that the potential for harm to our litigants, Farmer and Glefke, is so great that a preliminary injunction might be granted. Indeed, I think we all agree that the harm of barring them from sport for 18 months/ 2 years is indeed high and significant, which is why we all want it.
I would not take anything that Romm or Navin was quoted as saying in that article at face value personally. They are trying to spin this for their clients, who after all have a lot of expensive horses to sell. The Chronicle is just quoting them, not doing independent verification of those claims. If you’ve read the transcripts and claims made in other cases they’ve handled, they don’t all pan out in the end. I do recommend reading those cases for those of you snowed in.
As for the claim that “now everyone” will appeal these cases, it seems to me they are very very expensive to fight. I would be interested in hearing from someone who knows, but I doubt you’re able to appeal the Hearing Committee for less than $50k and it seems to me that people have spent into the six figures, just making a wild-assed guess given the amount of lawyer and witness time.
Part of the reason we pay our fees to the Federation is for them to pay their attorneys to fight these cases as hard as they can. Having read documents for the other cases, I’ll take our lawyers over theirs any day.
As for why Farmer’s Kodachrome suspension doesn’t start until 2019, that is of course because suspensions are set with fixed start and end times and they expected her to be suspended until that new one started. Really, the rules don’t envision people stacking up these suspensions quite so quickly. I’m sure if it makes sense to change them, that they will, just as there was a clear rule change in response to the Colvin positive.
Here’s hoping we win the next round.
16 Likes
I agree 100%, and well stated. The USE brought the initial case, decided it against KF/LG, and now is defending their finding before the arbitration panel (which has yet to decide the merits). They hired experts and put on a case at every stage of the proceeding. They have been defending, again and again, their right to suspend KF/LG.
I understand being angry but I don’t understand being angry at USE. They’re doing exactly what we want them to do-- impose sanctions and stand behind them. They didn’t choose to lift the suspension to allow KF/LG to show this winter, that is as a result of an arbitration decision against the USE. I don’t know what more some of you want from the USE? To be infallible? To be never subject to a higher authority on review? I’m not sure how realistic that is.
Look, I get it. We want the sanctions to have teeth. But in this specific instance, the USE was trying to give its sanctions teeth and they’re still trying. Be angry/frustrated if you want but direct it towards the arbitrators and not the USE. If you think a ref makes a bad call, you don’t blame the player who whose touchdown was overturned, do you?
11 Likes
“Then the show managers must step up and ban them from the show grounds. KF and GL abuse their horses, plain and simple.”
I would be absolutely shocked if this ever happened. And class entries would be a lot lighter at WEF. What exactly would qualify as abusive? Is several hours in a bitting rig abusive (remember long ago the article about the prep for the junior horse Monday Morning? It involved “the ropes,” which if memory serves, was basically a bitting rig. I think that was Jack Towell, prepping the horse for Liza. I don’t know that it was hours, but that does happen.) Is putting one on the walker for several hours abusive? Is bringing one back from the schooling ring with bloody sides abusive? Is medicating one so it can show with sore suspensories abusive? What about administering dex each week? The people who get written up for their wins? Yeah, this is how plenty of them get there. Like I said, I think it’s hard to be uber successful and take the time to behave ethically and do things right. I don’t agree with it, but that’s what goes on. I bet if people talked to grooms and braiders, it would fry their eggs. And part of the problem is, our governing bodies can’t do anything about it if it doesn’t happen on the grounds during a horse show. I wish USE/USHJA would investigat what their pro members are doing, but they don’t. I’ve tried in the past, and … crickets.
4 Likes
That’s correct. Rules like that are in place so that you can’t hold a private show and invited only your close friends over to contend for USEF points, etc.
3 Likes
No , I don’t. However the Ref is calling a subjective on the spot judgement, not a positive drug result. The NFL seems to have their lab protocol in order. I’m not positive , but I can’t remember when the lab results of an NFL players drug test has been reversed. The penalty perhaps, but the lab results, no. There may be a case that I am not aware of, but I would be surprised if it is a recent case.
I bought a horse that had been stapled by a vet. The story was he was rehabbing from an injury sustained on import and the vet for the rehab facility stapled him. It was out by the time i got him. I couldn’t believe such a thing existed!
1 Like
The lab results haven’t been reversed in this case either?! I think part of the frustration at the USE comes from misunderstanding what is happening. There has been NO MERITS DECISION BY THE ARBITRATORS. No one has decided anything about the validity of the USE testing in this case.
4 Likes
I don’t know. It seems that the arbitrators have decided that the lab results are in question?
No that hasn’t been decided. At all. Again, there has been no merits decision at all. See post #255 for a differentiation of the PI standard versus the merits.
1 Like
1 infraction is 1 too many, however, taking in to account the slim chance of environmental exposure or an honest mistake, I wish the USEF would implement a 3 strike rule. 1 could truly be an accident (or not), 2 less likely this is a mistake and 3- too bad so sad you are done.
9 Likes
Actually, I am upset with all the owners, parents, pros, and riders that continue to support this. Whether doping the horse, or doping rider (Eventing thread), I am sick of people that continually let this type of horse management and horsemanship continue. I understand giving the benefit of the doubt, blah blah blah. But when people continually show you who they are, believe them. But, people will continue to make excuses or stick their heads in the sand about stuff and in the end, people always choose what is more important to them. It is telling.
4 Likes
Where did you get that information? I know firsthand that an accused child molester was not permitted at a horse show per management discretion.
1 Like
Actually, I think going to a “Three Strikes” rule (with a public data base) is good. It gives the inveterate cheaters more rope with which to hang themselves.
Sure, anyone can make the mistake once.
If you know you are banned forever at your third offense, you’ll bust a** to not make the same mistake a second time. Should that happen, and you are still mistake-prone, you know you have to really, really clean things up or risk the loss of your career. And if everyone is playing by those rules, your would-be clients might look you up in the “2 strikes” category and be suspicious.
Strike three? That tells your would-be clients and buyers exactly who you are… because no one would get to those known and serious consequences without putting in some concerted effort.
9 Likes
At the moment, there is no evidence that USEF has done anything wrong in this case or anything other than what we (who want strict enforcement) would want them to do.
In the process of the appeals, the arbitrator has chosen to delay the suspension until his hearing and ruling is complete.
Something to understand is that as USEF Is giving their penalties greater teeth and consequence - what we say we want - naturally the people getting them, who have significant financial resources, are going to fight back a lot harder than when the penalty is just a month vacation and a couple thousand dollars. It’s completely expected to see these appeals.
Let me give you a hypothetical case that may help clarify the matter.
Let’s say Susie Creamcheese, beloved of this board as a brilliant and compassionate horsewoman, found herself with a positive for an inexplicable drug with her 16 year old superhorse. USEF suspends her for a period that includes the Olympic trials. The appeal hearing will not take place until after the first trial.
The arbitrator in that case might well decide that the potential harm from not letting her attempt the trials if it turns out that she wins the appeal is irreversable, so he allows her to contest them. After all, if she loses the appeal, it’s a simple matter to disqualify her from the trials and move everyone up a slot, but if she wins, there’s no way to do a do over.
So she is allowed to do the trials, but halfway through, the arbitrator finds against her, the suspension is reinstated, and her right to contest the trials is removed, as are her winnings during that time.
This is not unlike what happened in the Brigid Colvin/Inclusive case, where she had been suspended during a time that barred her from attending the equitation finals and watching her daughter contend them. She won the injunction that allowed her to attend those shows and watch Tori compete, but lost the case in the end. (See http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/brigid…ederation-inc/ )
7 Likes
So, am I confused or did the way USEF handled the different samples prove to be very sketchy and one of the reasons we are having all this additional drama?
There is a claim by the defending attorney in a single quote to the press but there is no objective reporting that this is so.
This group of attorneys has handled quite a few of these cases that have gone to appeal and become public, so you can read for yourself the claims they have made for various clients and which ones have prevailed.
2 Likes
