Kelly Farmer Additional Suspension

[Rabiosa]

@kirbydog

No relationship. Amy’s maiden name was Towne, and she is a sweety. And ethical.

Great to know, thank you!

[Bent_Hickory]

@poltroon

I’m not sure how that is relevant to the question of environmental contamination from cocaine. The case you reference involves an error by a feed company. There’s no mystery as to how the drug got into the horse.

It’s relevant because the CoTH Cabal emphatically believes that only cheaters and careless owners/trainers/riders could ever be recipients of positive drug tests. Post after post demonstrate that the Cabal is either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging any other possibility, including environmental contamination, manufacturing contamination, or other factors.

@poltroon

It is a good example of why there is value in having an appeals process.

And yet the appeals process is flawed when even in the most certain and compelling of circumstances (e.g., Cargill’s admission that supplements were contaminated during manufacturing), the relevant federation is unwilling to back down because of their “‘paramount interest’ of imposing penalties for drug offenses.”

ETA: And note the FEI’s language: “’[P]aramount interest’ of imposing penalties…” Shouldn’t their “paramount interest” be with regard to ensuring “clean sport” or “horse welfare”?

[KellyS]

@Bent Hickory

So the evidence in the paper isn’t valid because it doesn’t align with your world view…?

Or the evidence in the paper isn’t valid because it doesn’t align with your anecdotal experience…?

Can you provide a link to the actual paper on PubMed? The link you provided is an article written about the data collected but it doesn’t provide a reference or link to a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That is where validity comes from.

And even if the data is published in a peer-reviewed journal, there would need to be additional studies done to actually confirm the findings and extrapolate them into a real-world setting.

[Bent_Hickory]

@KellyS

Can you provide a link to the actual paper on PubMed? The link you provided is an article written about the data collected but it doesn’t provide a reference or link to a paper published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal. That is where validity comes from.

And even if the data is published in a peer-reviewed journal, there would need to be additional studies done to actually confirm the findings and extrapolate them into a real-world setting.

The source is cited for what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

[DMK]

@Bent Hickory

It’s relevant because the CoTH Cabal emphatically believes that only cheaters and careless owners/trainers/riders could ever be recipients of positive drug tests. Post after post demonstrate that the Cabal is either unwilling or incapable of acknowledging any other possibility, including environmental contamination, manufacturing contamination, or other factors.

broad swath with that brush, much?

And yet the appeals process is flawed when even in the most certain and compelling of circumstances (e.g., Cargill’s admission that supplements were contaminated during manufacturing), the relevant federation is unwilling to back down because of their “‘paramount interest’ of imposing penalties for drug offenses.”

ETA: And note the FEI’s language: “’[P]aramount interest’ of imposing penalties…” Shouldn’t their “paramount interest” be with regard to ensuring “clean sport” or “horse welfare”?

Not quite. They DID remove the rider suspensions. Regardless of origin/intent, the horses in question did have a prohibited substance while competing. I think in this day and age I’m OK with a policy that enforces the idea that if your horse is accidentally/unintentionally contaminated it does not mitigate what actually happened to the horse. It may mitigate the rider/owner/trainer, but not the affected animal. If it did (in the eyes of the FEI/USEF) there would be a group of people that when given that inch, would be actively exploiting it for an additional 63,359 inches.

And we bought this on ourselves. For too long the industry and our governing body has been too lax in identifying and treating this growing problem (real and perceived) so this is the mess they have to clean up. And big messes call for industrial strength cleaners. That shit is rough on everyone. But if the industry and it’s enforcement arm had stepped up 15-20 years ago, maybe it wouldn’t be this severe of a correction.Too bad, so sad, but there’s some blame to go around here and it doesn’t all land on the governing bodies.

[KellyS]

@Bent Hickory

The source is cited for what it is, nothing more, nothing less.

I asked because you called the article a paper, and paper normally refers to a research paper that is destined for a peer-reviewed journal.

When I clicked on the link, I was surprised to find that it was only an article about the data found and what “they” thought it might mean. I don’t see anything to suggest that there is evidence to prove that horses testing positive for illegal or prohibited substances are doing so because of environmental exposure.

But I have no doubt it is a wonderful excuse to use if you’ve been caught drugging a horse. (And no, not using “you” to accuse you of doing this…this is directed at the pros doing it.)

[vineyridge]

To my thinking it isn’t fair to the rest of the competitors if a horse is competed with a banned drug in its system. It doesn’t matter how the drug got into the horse, it’s still competing with a banned drug in its system. The horse certainly does not care if it is suspended. Given the problems the FEI is having with drugged horses in competition, its ability to set down the horse is one of its primary weapons against the people who own, ride, train and care for them.

[Bent_Hickory]

@vineyridge

To my thinking it isn’t fair to the rest of the competitors if a horse is competed with a banned drug in its system. It doesn’t matter how the drug got into the horse, it’s still competing with a banned drug in its system. The horse certainly does not care if it is suspended.

I understand the premise of this position. But the federations could easily suspend the horse on this basis without assigning culpability or penalty to any person in certain circumstances.

And as technology evolves, there has to be a “common sense” threshold on banned substances below which a positive finding is not warranted. It’s untenable to argue that a single molecule of a banned substance found in a horse creates an unfair playing field.

[Bent_Hickory]

@DMK

broad swath with that brush, much?

Borrowed the brush from the Cabal.

[vineyridge]

@Bent Hickory

I understand the premise of this position. But the federations could easily suspend the horse on this basis without assigning culpability or penalty to any person in certain circumstances.

And as technology evolves, there has to be a “common sense” threshold on banned substances below which a positive finding is not warranted. It’s untenable to argue that a single molecule of a banned substance found in a horse creates an unfair playing field.

To some extent I agree with you. But you are asking for the establishment of thresholds for drugs that are prohibited as well as for those that occur naturally in the horse or have therapeutic uses. The kind of drugs that are prohibited completely don’t need to be around competition horses for any reason.

Establishing thresholds for all the prohibited substances would be outrageously expensive. It should be up to the trainers and barn personnel to kept prohibited drugs away from horses. Thresholds aren’t guaranteed because every horse metabolizes a drug different from other horses. And I can see a situation where competitors seek out horses who “won’t test”, just like they seek performance enhancements that “won’t test”. In every sport there are people who try to beat the tests; that’s been proved over and over again.

I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there weren’t some sort of unofficial threshold even for a prohibited drug where, if the amount is “a molecule”, prosecution doesn’t necessarily follow. I would assume that the governing bodies have prosecutorial discretion and can and do use it.

[poltroon]

@Bent Hickory

And as technology evolves, there has to be a “common sense” threshold on banned substances below which a positive finding is not warranted. It’s untenable to argue that a single molecule of a banned substance found in a horse creates an unfair playing field.

From reading quite a lot of USEF documents, it’s clear that they have in fact applied this common sense as applied to each different substance. There are the limits of what can be detected reliably, what might be a natural background level, and then a positive finding and it’s clear they have the concept of these three as different. They also seem to consider the specific issues with each drug - does it have therapeutic value, how quickly does it clear, etc. Cocaine is one that I recall as problematic because in hunters the use is in the withdrawal, so you are in fact looking for a signature of a dose given a bit ago… but also it has no therapeutic value and it is illegal to possess.

If trace levels of cocaine were from environmental contamination that was ubiquitous at showgrounds, you’d think at least 10% of all the samples would come back positive instead of 1-4 a year.

[MtnDrmz]

@poltroon

If trace levels of cocaine were from environmental contamination that was ubiquitous at showgrounds, you’d think at least 10% of all the samples would come back positive instead of 1-4 a year.

One would think!!!

I asked this a while back, but didn’t get an answer. Wouldn’t someone who is knowledgeable be able to tell the difference between environmental contamination level vs an intentional dosing level for a substance like cocaine. I would think contamination would be trace amounts, and even if its a day or two later, an intentional dosing would read higher? Am I totally off on that? It seems like someone who know should be able to make an inference based on the numbers if something was intentional or not. It’s never a good thing to have in your horse’s system, but I think if its appears intentional then there should be further investigation and horse wellfare issues should be addressed.

[DMK]

@Bent Hickory

Borrowed the brush from the Cabal.

Using methods you condemn is your go-to strategy?

[Classic]

So help me with this. Why are peope feeling sorry for them, cheering them on, and buying horses from them? So you buy a horse from them and have to give it cocain to perform?

[WB_Mom]

No dog in this fight, but thought it was interesting reading nonetheless.

https://nationalhbpa.com/an-in-depth-look-at-stall-contamination/

[findeight]

On soon a slightly different track here…anybody down at WEF who can share what the reaction has been to KF around the grounds and in the ring?

For the record, I am in favor of non draconian measures and some common sense in enforcement of drug rules…meaning an appeals process and generally innocent until proven guilty. In this mess, a single coke positive on it’s own is not the issue with LCF. It’s the lifetime record of major violations between them.

[Pennywell_Bay]

[URL=“https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1408218/”]https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/1408218/

​​​​​​https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8926734/
And in humans, if someone tests positive, hair tests will show the presence of cocaine metabolites which won’t be present for passive exposure vs true ingestion. Repeated use generally shows up- this is in people.

There are plenty of scientific articles (vs opinion pieces) that define passive exposure affects tests. If my horse tested positive I’d sure as hell petition for a hair sample test and pay for it myself.

2nd article subjects were low level positive when exposed to the crack SMOKE, not residual amount of coke left in a stall. I would be interested in how much cocaine metabolite was detected, as that may indicate passive exposure though positive is positive BUT trace amounts (as in a coke head groom touched my bit) would have BQL (below quantifiable limits) as tests are not so sensitive and do have sensitivity limits.

Think of it in terms most have heard about. You can have trace amounts of HIV in your system but test negative due to sensitivity of the test. It doesn’t mean you are not infected, it means you have BQL Of the virus. Similar applies to passive exposure for drugs. Plus the half life of cocaine is very short and it clears the system quickly. People test negative within 3-5 days Post use, longer if habitual users.

i hope the USEF have experts on their panel, as I’m not sure who sits on it. Having an expert in veterinary clinical pharmacology or clin pharm in general seems to be needed when people are lawyering up.

[Thylacine]

@AllOverFarm

Mark Bellissimo needs to step up and make a press release stating that anyone with an unresolved drug violation cannot show at his show until the matter is resolved.
This will set a precedent that he cares for the integrity of the Equestrian sport and for the welfare of the horses on his property .

:lol: spit :lol: snort :lol:

MB, step up & make statement?

Oh, how I long for the days when I too was optimistic/naive and thought anyone involved with horses cared deeply about their welfare and not just about the bottom line.

sigh

[Oliver4Ever]

Lord, have you seen what this magazine has become? So miss the old days…sniff. I am so glad I can shop for high end diamonds these days.

[OneStrideEater]

@Rabiosa

This is quite random, but I was looking into calling Amy Farmer who runs a local barn by me in Illinois for lessons, and I was wondering if she had any relation to Kelly Farmer. Does anyone know? She is out of Celebration Farm.

again, Rabiosa. Are these not things you would know with your mother having been in the “Chicagoland hunter jumper world”?