Thia ia a great post.
7 Likes
I believe she wasnāt allowed to attend since she is currently suspended and couldnāt due to a rule about being on the USEF grounds? Is that correct? Maybe I misread it at 2amā¦
I feel so badly for Kodachrome and his owner. Not to mention his late rider, Russell who loved that horseā¦
13 Likes
It seems hard to believe that the USE would not have allowed her to attend/participate remotely in a disciplinary hearing, notwithstanding the existing suspension, had she requested to do so. Their rules, their penalty. They could have either given her an exception to be on the grounds just for the hearing or allowed her to participate via video/telephone conference or other. It does make you question whether that was the actual primary motivation for non-attendance.
7 Likes
So, letās take their statement at face value: that she was willing to attend, but never received a response to their request for a waiver (her attorney implies the waiver was requested in advance of the hearing).
If that was the case, given all the history here, why didnāt the attorney have his client in the immediate vicinity, so that he could push for a ruling on the waiver, noting that she was ready and willing to participate upon granting of the waiver?
Unless he really didnāt want her at the hearingā¦
15 Likes
Cocaine is a local anesthetic that has historically been used not only for eye and nose surgery, but also for nerve blocks in other parts of the body and even spinal anesthesia. It is in the same class of drugs as Novocain or lidocaine.
It has some interesting side effects that have made it a drug of abuse. However, in the show horse setting, Iād guess it has much more utility as a local anesthetic to do nerve blocks to make a sore horse more comfortable. Because none of usāincluding the USEFācan possibly keep up with the creativity of back-of-the-stall-pharmacologist type cheaters in real time, I think it is important to take even ācontaminationā cases very seriously.
6 Likes
Or ask for a continuance after bringing up the issue of a waiver?
I just find it really odd that someone with counsel is giving as a reason for not attending a disciplinary hearing that she couldnāt because she was banned from attending. That seems like either trying to set the USE up for a due process challenge (that is bound to fail if she didnāt ask for permission to attend either in person or remotely) or because she didnāt want to attend but wanted some excuse as to why she didnāt.
Weāll never know her true motivations but it does seem odd that someone with counsel couldnāt manage to negotiate this issue so as to be able to attend, assuming she wanted to defend herself in that way.
2 Likes
The comments under the COTH article are interesting. Farmerās lawyer, one John J. Pappas, is all over accusing everyone of being jealous of Larry & Kelly and taking shots at other postersā spelling.
How very professional. I wonder if heās billing Kelly for the time he spends on social media ādefendingā her?
19 Likes
I donāt believe for a second that this was an āoh we didnāt dare risk having her there because of the prior disciplinary orderā situation - it was a strategy and a choice, plain and simple. If you havenāt gotten an answer on the waiver request, you pick up the phone, you email, you write letters, you force the issue, but you donāt show up and forfeit your clientās participation opportunity. You could even have her present and take up the waiver issue in person before they started the hearing. So IMO it is a convenient excuse for not having her there, whether to set up a due process challenge or to avoid having her give live testimony.
2 Likes
I donāt have a ton of sympathy for his owner. She knew, or should have known, what she was getting in to
4 Likes
oh puhleaseā¦owner had to know or is totally ignorant of what is common knowledge on the showgrounds (and recent public record).
The horse I feel bad for, he didnāt get to choose his new handlers. All others involved had choices and access to information.
9 Likes
Is he the Notre Dame grad? If so, undergrad 1967, law 1970, heās about 72 yoa.
ETA coke went out of favor when meth took over as the drug of choice to snort. Either way, never give an animal coke or meth in any way. Heart attacks, not sleeping for 24 hours, etc. I do wonder if a male horse experiences the same physical reaction that a human male does. Iāve interviewed truck drivers who drove from California to GA without a layover when high on snorted meth.
1 Like
Ugh, Iām sick to death of these repeat offenders getting slap on the wrist after slap on the wrist and continuing to compete and do business nearly uninterrupted. I really wish that the USEF would/could give such people a permanent ban if they donāt clean up their act after the first couple offenses. I think itās pathetic people who have repeatedly been caught drugging horses are allowed to continue to play. I realize that at least part of this is probably due to the risk of USEF being sued by (and likely losing to) deep pockets, but it would be nice if the legal system were to somehow stand up for animal welfare, fairness and clean sport.
8 Likes
This is from the COTH article:
Pappas explained that Farmer did not attend the hearing, held on Oct. 26, because of the previous suspension, which banned her from participating in all USEF affairs and activities including āattending, observing or participating in any event, forum, meeting, program, clinic, task force or committee of the Federation, sponsored by or conducted by the Federation, or held in connection with the Federation and any of its activities.ā
That has to be done through local county and state law enforcement. USE has very limited jurisdiction, only over USE events and functions, even when they do act.
Owners get a slap on the wrist, trainers get what sounds like harsher penalties but continue to operate their businesses, long as they stay off the showgrounds. On show days. Off days, they often can be there as USE does not own the grounds and no show is in progress.
If you added up the total " vacation time" for some of these people in the last, say, 15- 20 years? You are talking years off the grounds on show days.
I know Kodachromeās owner. There is no way in hell they would agree to drugging him with cocaine or anything for that matter. The horse is spectacular and doesnāt need this kind of crap. Russell did an amazing job bringing him along. When he passed away the horse was winning and doing it legitimately. I canāt imagine what possessed KF to pull a stunt like this with Kodachrome. The owner is a very stand up person and doesnāt play into this crap. I can guarantee that they knew nothing about this. They had him for sale for ages and when Russell starting winning on him he went off the market. They love this horse.
3 Likes
I realize Pappas said that. I question what was raised with the USE and whether there was a specific request for a waiver of the rule, a continuance of this hearing until she could participate, some sort of exemption to allow her to appear long-distance etc. I find it hard to believe that had she/her counsel properly asked for some relief, the USE would grant them none. I just find that extremely hard to believe.
Just because her counselās āspinā on the events was as reported above does not necessarily mean that is the entire story. No one thinks heās a disinterested source, do they? I think his online postings tell a pretty clear story as to whether heās acting as a partisan. And heās her counsel, so it does make sense that he be partisan.
Iād really be curious to know, because everything about these hearings (in general, not just of KF) is a lot less transparent than I wish it was.
4 Likes
I canāt believe no one is commenting on the Selma garber posts. Wow. Although I have to say that, for years, everybody just assumed she was complicit.
4 Likes
You sleep with dogs, you will get fleas. I have no doubt that the owner was aware of the storied past of these two ātrainersā. Everybody knows.
9 Likes
Iām not sure I even read the suspension to prohibit her appearance at a subsequent penalty hearing, but clearly thatās how KFās attorney read it.
Just taking what is reported in that article it would appear (and again itās not entirely clear) that the following chronology happenedā¦
KF/her counsel is notified of there being a hearing for Kodachromeās positive test
She/her counsel request a waiver of the prior suspension so she can appear
[No clarity on any back and forth, what the USE said in response, what was actually requested, whether the USE even agreed that the prior suspension prevented her appearance, etc.]
Hearing is 10/26/17
KFās counsel appears and says sheās not attending due to the suspension
[No clarity as to whether he requested a continuance on her behalf, objected to going forward without her, etc.]
Hearing went forward
She stipulated to the USEās case (my reading of that is that she agreed Kodachrome had cocaine in his system, she just wanted to argue that it wasnāt given to him intentionally by her for performance enhancement)
She presented only mitigating evidence (now fired coke-head groom contaminated the horse by accident)
Some was in the form of an affidavit
USE felt the affidavit lacked evidentiary support (Iām guessing identifying the groom and proving he was fired?)
USE felt determining whether they believe KFās testimony was a credibility issue
the USE did find mitigating factors in her favor and also felt there were factors justifying a harsher penalty as well
I say again, why is this not more transparent? Weāre all subject to these rules and procedures, why should it be secret what actually happens?
4 Likes
