As the governing body of the sport, the USEF is responsible to ensure, to the best of their ability, that the rules are followed. At this point, it still does not seem as if it has taken the steps needed to truly put teeth in their enforcement policies. Enforcement ultimately has to contain provisions to permanently remove everyone associated with multiple serious infractions occurring within a reasonable time period. This is a no-brainer for all sports. Why it continues to elude the USEF is a question we all can answer for ourselves - itâs painfully obvious. How sad for the sport.
I do feel the USEF is trying to change, and I do appreciate that, but by looking at this case it still has a way to go. There will be no reason whatsoever for anyone to change their practices unless the ultimate penalty is not communicated and enforced. I would have absolutely no sympathy for anyone who gets a lifetime ban, as it would most certainly involve a history of serious infractions. I also heartily agree that positive drug tests at recognized shows should be available to the membership, including the riders/trainers/owners involved. This is an excellent tool for prospective buyers who might be honest folk - and we are out there!
I know a lot of us do hope the USEF can work through these difficult challenges. A self-assessment against other governing bodies is a great tool, as well as benchmarking trips. The membership as a whole would become much more supportive when we can see concrete changes, as well as specific efforts undertaken to improve, such as those mentioned above. What will 2018 bring? It is always possible it will be seen as the âyear of changeâ, for the USEF and the sport. Kick On USEF!
Or as someone else has mentioned, you give the same penalty to a rider who kicks a horse as to someone whose horse tests positive for cocaine in competition, the latter with no factual evidence to excuse the rider.
Goes back to penalizing the owners of record or nothing is going to change. Partnerships, corperations, LLCs make identifying an actual owner challenging but it has to happen.
Law Enforcement is not really interested in an animal with traces of an illegal substance, they might act if a criminal complaint was filed but with no way to prove who, when and even in what jurisdiction it was administered? May as well just charge the horse with possession. Not going to happen.
USEF is primarily a hobby club with no law enforcement authority BUT they can go after the source of the money that supports repeat violaters, the owners. Still think thatâs needed or nothing will change. Enforce the rules on the books already but include the repeat violator owners.
That episode was about insurance fraud when horses were electrocuted to make it look like colic. Iâm a big L&O fan. 
So in the committeeâs reasoning, being a habitual offender would not result in a higher penalty. In fact, you might interpret this as saying that she should get a lesser penalty because sheâs already served enough penalties for violations. In any sane world having a past history of similar offenses gets you in more trouble, not less.
This is whole business is why I donât follow hunter competitions. At least the eventers are taking the speed themselves.
I found it very odd that her stated reason for not attending the hearing was that since she is already suspended she isnât allowed to come defend herself?
Dont be so sure they arenât sharing uppers and downers, especially at non required testing levels/competitions.
Trainers and clients need to STOP buying horses form them. The Plaid Horse on Facebook even shared a Facebook post of one of their sale horses, people were commenting on how lovely the horse is and so on. Really? It is a money game, everyone wants a piece of the sale and the horse pays the price. I think there should be a governing body that horse sellers have to report to. Maybe horses over a certain amount? If they were also suspended from selling horses for drugs and/or skimming money off sale would be great.
Didnât I read a while back that FBI was going to get involved with Animal Abuse? So who is responsible for care and custody of a âdruggedâ animal? Come on, this canât be hard to figure out.
Also, IMO, those officials of USEF who are giving out this insulting slap on the wrist punishment should ALL BE OUTED,
named in full on how they voted. Let the chips fall where they may.
That is more or less the right question: How many grams of coke does it take to produce a positive test in a horse? I donât think the old âthereâs cocaine residue on cashâ excuse works. Any pharmacological types know the answer to my question?
I remember reading long ago about shady horse dealers who would give cocaine to horses that suffered from moldy corn disease. The horse would act like they were sound in the brain and nervous system until the cocaine wore off and the horse became worthless once the destruction of the horseâs brain was obvious. I canât remember the name of the book, but it was by an old horse trader who had been fooled this way once.
And there is an old saying from back in those days âmoonshine for humans and cocaine for the horsesâ, so people have been drugging horses with cocaine for a long time. That means that there is a good chance that knowledge of how to drug horses with cocaine still exists in the darker side of the horse business.
So the answer according to the paper below is it doesnât take a whole lot of cocaine to make a horse test positive. Granted, the paper is 11/12 years oldâŠbut it says that a 1mg dose has the potential to give a positive result. The threshold for metabolites is set higher than that detection limit (at least in racing at the time of publication). I read another paper that said they were able to get performance enhancement with 50-100mg doses (IV) in racehorses, which is all I can find thatâs been studied. Another article did say that in order to get the desired high-then-crash effect, the does would need to be much larger. (I have no idea how much largerâŠI donât know that itâs been studiedâŠor at least published.) I canât find anywhere the levels of metabolites benzoylecgonine (BZE) and ecgonine methyl ester (EME) found in KFâs horseâŠbut I imagine those numbers would be telling in the environmental contaminant (which is a thing) vs doped horse question.
At least International, they generally are.
I am 100% for a permanent searchable database, so that owners and parents can be empowered to make appropriate choices about the professionals they engage. Sadly Iâve suggested this to USEF more than once, and have been laughed at (literally).
DLG is the reason USEF needs a three strikes rule.
What possible, logical reason could there be (other than the USE not really giving a damn about its penalties) for the infractions to NOT be listed online and be searchable by name, horseâs name, drug, and date/show?
USE possibly wants to make it more difficult to show its members, particularly BNTâs in a bad lightâŠprotect their own, as it were
The members & even non-members who show at a rated show, pay a drug fee. I realize this fee pays for drug testing, but, I feel since we are paying we should at least be able to look online and search a data base of who has been tested & weather the outcome was, among other info regarding the testing. ( show, trainer, etc)
listing a drug test on a show record would be mostly helpful to the honest people. If you were looking at a show record of a sale pony and noted it was champion 3 times in the last few months, and also was drug tested twice without incident⊠it helps give people extra incite into the ponies performance record.
also⊠if you were looking for a potential trainer. It sure would be nice to see if they have any past infractions, and how many negative drug tests have been done under their name. The good & the bad needs to be documented & easily be found online.
When they made the rule change proposal, they said it was to âprotect the privacyâ of the members affected.
Personally, I have trouble buying the âcontaminationâ excuse. I really canât speak to how may grooms, trainers, or clients are using cocaine in horsesâ stalls or in the feed room at the LCF operation, so admittedly I could be speaking out of ignorance. In any case, not only do I not buy it, I think that contamination in general is a weak excuse. While Iâm sure there are bona fide cases of contamination, if you allow it as an âexcuseâ every cheater is going to claim that.
While none of us can pinpoint for sure the reason for giving cocaine to a hunter, cocaine is a local anesthetic (numbing agent) and could theoretically be injected for nerve blocks to make a sore horse sound prior to competition. Remember there are far more strange substances being injected for this purpose, such as cobra venom.
Cheaters are absolutely notorious for their creativity. I donât find it difficult to picture a win-at-any-cost cheater choosing to do nerve blocks using cocaine in a horse with some foot soreness (or using it in some other manner that we canât even imagine), with the back up plan of claiming âcontaminationâ should the cocaine be picked up on a drug test. While there still would assuredly be some penalties, the penalties might be less given a plausible excuse (they certainly were in this case). There is a long history in our sport of cheaters using unconventional substances in unconventional ways to achieve results.
The contamination excuse is brilliant because itâs easy for other people/public opinion to believe. The USEF might or might not believe it, but itâs a story that I think a lot of people in the industry (including potential clients) would believe. Some people might even feel sorry for the penalized trainer/s for being held responsible for the actions of some careless drug addicted groom. They would believe it because they would be thinking the same thing weâve been discussing all alongâcocaine is a stimulant and who would give a stimulant to a hunter? Few people are aware of cocaineâs local anesthetic properties and potential other uses.
grooms/stable hands obviously get paid far too much if theyâre buying enough coke that theyâre leaving lines of the stuff lying around "contaminating horses stables.
Wot. A Load. Of. BS.
seems that turning up to and facing ones accusers could lead to actual disciplinary action, whereas NOT turning up to face them gets one a pretty cosy 5grand/2mth holiday - meh where do I sign up?!
these rule makers should be on stage in NYC at the leading Comedy Clubs, coz theyâre jokes.
