More links from Facebook. I don’t have time to sift through the zillion pages but the transcripts of the hearings are public if anyone is interested:
Day 1:
Day 2:
http://www.ratemyhorsepro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/USEF-Glefke-Farmer-6-7-2017-Day-2-Final.pdf
I beg to differ.
There are plenty of people at the shows who do things the right way. But that doesn’t get headlines or attention. If you look at the numbers involved, the vast, vast majority of drug tests from shows have clean results. It’s only a tiny percentage that test positive for anything.
Personally, I’ve had horses tested dozens of times over the years, with absolutely clean results. So I know for a fact that cheating is not something “everybody” does in order to show and win.
Agree 100%
I can’t even fathom being able to rationalize or sympathize with people who have such an extensive history of offenses. Many of which would be considered abuse if it were done to another animal.
They also cheat (and thus, in my eyes, stealing prize money - Farmer surpassed $1 million ~4 years ago) and I feel like these two have damaged the reputation of showing hunters. What’s the point of showing clean? If you have no shame like these two then the already insignificant repercussions become even more laughable.
I hope USEF cleans up whatever went wrong with its lab.
Do we know the nature of the problem in this case yet?
It’s important to have a fair process for everyone. It’s also important to have a drug testing program that effectively catches and punishes cheaters. Neither is possible without good protocols and science.
Outrageous!
LF and KF are cheaters looking for a way to justify their actions.
Are you KF??
do you use perfect prep? There are plenty of people who use “legal” means to drug their horses to improve performance, reduce nervousness, calm them down. IN reality, any form of behavior altering medication is illegal according to USEF rules. They just don’t enforce it in this manner. Using perfect prep and other “legal” calming agents are the norm nowadays.
:lol::lol::lol: The CoTH Cabal just can’t contemplate a differing opinion! :lol::lol::lol:
As a matter of fact, I do not use Perfect Prep. Thanks for asking.
Be careful MHM – you’re challenging the CoTH Cabal’s world view!
Wasn’t there something about the B sample moving freezers without a paper trail of how that happened? I’m guessing it started to look messier when they got into the depths of discovery. If, for example, the lab could not confirm chain of custody or perhaps even that the “B sample” tested actually came from this horse, then there’s no way USE can stand by the lab results.
Wouldn’t be the first time. :lol:
A different opinion that is outrageous because this is a repeat offender who is trying to get away with cheating yet again…
Your omniscience regarding their guilt in this case apparently isn’t sufficient evidence for the USEF to move forward.
My sister works in anatomic pathology at a medical college in the Midwest, and I can assure you that biopsy samples and hematology samples must be handled with the utmost due diligence. The chain of custody and process is everything. It is the essence of the test, basically. USEF is learning this rule the hardest and most public way, unfortunately.
As I understand it, the A sample tested positive and I haven’t seen anything disproving or denying that. It’s the B sample, (which LG and KF requested be tested as it is their right to do) which was mishandled. This is not an exoneration, it’s a full dismissal due to improper handling of the B sample. Once made aware of this, the USEF had no choice. It’s a matter of due process whether we like it or not.
I finally found and posted the links from Rate My Horse Pro to the hearing transcripts a page or so back but unfortunately they aren’t edited so there’s several hundred pages of testimony. I did a random skim and yes, the handling of the specimens did seem to be an issue. Hopefully at some point a journalist will read through them and highlight the relevant points. It is kind of important because it’s a question of 1. why did the problem arise in this particular instance and 2. is the mishandling a pervasive issue?
I’m wondering if Glefke/Farmer had some inside information about the USEF lab, because normally B samples are tested by another and completely independent lab if the second sampling is requested. Glefke/Farmer requested that their B sample be tested by the USEF lab. That is a large deviation from what most people do with positives.
A conspiracy theorist would look into all the lab personnel and procedures.
What is disheartening is that it is a small percentage of people who are using drugs on their horses- and even more distressing is it is the same repeat offenders in many cases who are at the top of the sport. That says a lot about the values that horse show people have - I am friends with people who have made mistakes- but I don’t go around hypocritically pointing fingers at others or trying to sweep under the rug what they have done- the problem with the druggers is that their supporters do just that- defend them instead of taking a look at their actions and more importantly where they go from those actions and consequences- if its the same old same old then supporting them as friends or in business is a choice one can make but please spare the rest of us any outrage over anything in relation to horses and showing. The tests must be conducted in a fair way and the investigation of anyone must also be done with the utmost presumption of innocence - that is the way our values should work- in this case the sample was not treated properly by the lab it is only fair to throw this out- this is the way a true justice system works- look at the shut and closed cases where a murderer or rapists walks free because of technicalities. I don’t know what the fail safe is- but for the fairness of everyone it must be without a doubt and all steps followed to the letter.
My understanding, from following this case and from talking with others who have been subject to other USEF drug enforcement actions, is that the USEF dictates where the second sample is sent. The only option of the accused is whether or not to have the second sample tested; the accused is not permitted to select an “independent” lab to test the second sample.
Thank them??? THANK THEM??? For what? Showing us all that lawyering up is the way to circumvent the D&M rules? Gee, thanks. This isn’t a first or even a second offense. Those of you who say you love horses are sadly remiss when you defend and exonerate the very people that are actually engaged in their abuse. Disgusting.
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
