[QUOTE=gumshoe;6758343]
One of the pages posted said the necropsy was required by insurance.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, that’s what I remember, too. And in an ancient thread, I assumed that Mandarino, who owned Humble, did not submit a claim.
The Ted Stevens Act applies to any NGB that represents the USA in the Olympics and some aspects of it apply to the grassroots levels as well as to elite athletes. For example, one of the reasons it was written at all was because one of the governing bodies was restricting the rights of women to compete and interestingly, now that I think about it… given the latest shenanigans by the FEI about non-sanctioned events, it limits the ability of an NGB to deny eligibility for the Olympic type competitions over things like sponsorship.
This is the USOC due process list:
"The USOC recommends the following be included in such a hearing:
• Notice of the specific charges or alleged violations in writing, and possible consequences if the charges are found to be true;
• Reasonable time between receipt of the notice of charges and the hearing within which to prepare a defense;
• The right to have the hearing conducted at such a time and place so as to make it practicable for the person charged to attend;
• A hearing before a disinterested and impartial body of fact finders;
• The right to be assisted in the presentation of one’s case at the hearing, including the assistance of legal council, if desired;
• The right to call witnesses and present oral and written evidence and argument;
• The right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses;
• The right to have a record made of the hearing if desired;
• The burden of proof shall be on the proponent of the charge, which burden shall be at least a “preponderance of the evidence” unless the NGB requires or provides for a higher burden of proof;
• A written decision, with reasons therefore, based solely on the evidence of record, handed down in a timely fashion;
• Written notice of appeal procedures, if the decision is adverse to the person charged, and prompt and fair adjudication of the appeal.
To me the real question about whether the Act would apply is less about pony hunters not being an international discipline, and more about Mandarino being an athlete. She’s not, and I don’t think the ponies count as athletes for the purposes of the Act either. I haven’t reread the text recently, but believe it would only apply to riders, not trainers and owners.
[QUOTE=poltroon;6758580]
The Ted Stevens Act applies to any NGB that represents the USA in the Olympics and some aspects of it apply to the grassroots levels as well as to elite athletes. For example, one of the reasons it was written at all was because one of the governing bodies was restricting the rights of women to compete and interestingly, now that I think about it… given the latest shenanigans by the FEI about non-sanctioned events, it limits the ability of an NGB to deny eligibility for the Olympic type competitions over things like sponsorship.
This is the USOC due process list:
To me the real question about whether the Act would apply is less about pony hunters not being an international discipline, and more about Mandarino being an athlete. She’s not, and I don’t think the ponies count as athletes for the purposes of the Act either. I haven’t reread the text recently, but believe it would only apply to riders, not trainers and owners.[/QUOTE]
Nothing would be finer— and more embarrassing-- than a body as august as the USOC having to step into fix the USEF’s f-up because a pony to be ridden by a child was drugged to death.
With horse racing, John Q. Public might be able to understand the financial incentive for drugging a money-making horse. But a kid’s pony?
You can’t make this stuff up!
Do you think that this will do any difference ?:
http://www.dressage-news.com/?p=19064
Has Chrystine Tauber in any way been involved in working against drugging?
Drug Testing of Horses in Pioneering Expansion to Training Ring in Germany
As earlier been described, Europe follows FEI rules and their “zerotolerance” policy when it comes to drugs. There are tests being performed at shows but now the germans has extended that into the training ring with funding and help from the German OC…
Trying to keep horses healthy - A movie about about equine locomotion
I found this video at a swedish website. The opposite approach, keep horses healthy and showing without drugging.
It´s a study Professor Lars Roepstorff doing concerning the horse biomechanic. Professor Lars Roepstorffs is really big here on trying to find better footing, better training methods and so on from a scientific perspective to make the horses healthy and happy.
It´s really interesting and I hope they will publish a series of videos when the study is finished! Right now there´s 2 videos published and in it´s in english 
The Facts About USEF Protests & What USEF Members Should Know about the Ted Stevens Act and the USOC Rules and Regs for NGB’s and the USOC’s Due Process Checklist.
The USOC is already involved in mediating a resolution between the USEF and AHF. The USOC was responsible for the USEF releases the transcripts that were fully paid for and being held against USEF Rules and Regs and responsible for the release of the rulings.
I found this information on the BayerDVM website pertaining to Legend:
ADVERSE REACTIONS:
No local or systemic side effects were observed in the Legend Injectable Solution clinical field trials with either intravenous or intra-articular injections.
Post-Approval Experience: While all adverse reactions are not reported, the following adverse reactions are based on voluntary post-approval reporting for Legend Injectable Solution:
Following intravenous use: Occasional depression, lethargy, and fever.
Following intra-articular (Legend Injectable Solution - 2 mL only) use: lameness, joint effusion, joint or injection site swelling, and joint pain.
For medical emergencies or to report adverse reactions, call 1-800-422-9874.
I intend to contact Bayer and speak to them about the sudden death of a pony following a routine injection of their product.
You are being sarcastic…right?
[QUOTE=Freebird!;6759258]
You are being sarcastic…right?[/QUOTE]
Don’t you think Bayer would be interested in knowing that an animal died immediately after the reported administration of Legend?
[QUOTE=2bayboys;6759266]
Don’t you think Bayer would be interested in knowing that an animal died immediately after the reported administration of Legend?[/QUOTE]
I think Bayer would.
Hmmm…true. In that case, maybe we should be contacting the makers of Robaxon, Dex and Baninime?
[QUOTE=Freebird!;6759285]
Hmmm…true. In that case, maybe we should be contacting the makers of Robaxon, Dex and Baninime?[/QUOTE]
None of those things were in the injection (allegedly) that was given properly (allegedly) moments before the pony dropped dead. It appears that what EM is claiming is that she injected Legend, properly, did not nick an artery, and the pony dropped dead from that moments later. Heck YES Bayer should know about that claim!
Most race trainers do not bill anything near what a kid Pony trainer on a major circuit does i.e 2 to 4k a MONTH not including extras. Race trainers depend on a percentage of anything the horse wins and may be tempted to “enhance” it’s chances or giving it “help” to keep going when it shouldn’t to generate those dollars.
The kid Pony trainer needs to keep the gravy train on the track via basic training and board charges at the home barn when the Pony is gone, lessons at home, day care charges at shows, schooling charges at shows, prep fees at shows, class coaching fees at shows, set up fees, hauling fees et al and may be tempted to “enhance” the amount of time it can generate income from said charges by “helping” the Pony keep going when it shouldn’t to generate all those bills to the owner.
I don’t see any difference at all.
Well there is no syringe with traces of Legend, the groom who reportedly either witnessed or actually gave the injection has disappeared and the necropsy was too late for any meaningful blood toxicology…even if Legend was detectable since it’s not really a drug.
But they are certainly being trashed publically as a possible trigger in the Pony’s massive allergic reaction and dropping dead. Many will read it on the net and assume this really reliable product is actually unsafe and not use it. And tell their friends. All because of what EM personally has said on the net.
Liable suit? Her lawyers need more work.
[QUOTE=LucyShow;6758790]
Do you think that this will do any difference ?:
http://www.dressage-news.com/?p=19064
Has Chrystine Tauber in any way been involved in working against drugging?[/QUOTE]
Don’t know, but not impressed by her non-sequitur answer to a question about the success of the British team as funded by a public lottery. She discusses the causes of the USET’s poor competition results, being careful to praise their performances along the way, and talking about things the need to rebuild.
Yeah. And also, no reference to funding it all or the original question about how the Brits did that.
Perhaps, OT and irrelevant, but I’d like to see a Top Official apply her brains or balls to answering a question asked, not evading it.
[QUOTE=vxf111;6759269]
I think Bayer would.[/QUOTE]
And it would be useful to know what Bayer has to say.
[QUOTE=findeight;6759312]
Most race trainers do not bill anything near what a kid Pony trainer on a major circuit does i.e 2 to 4k a MONTH not including extras…
I don’t see any difference at all.[/QUOTE]
What I meant is that Walmart Shopper understands that race horses win money, providing an understandable temptation to do what you have to make them win.
Not only are show horses not known for making fortunes for people, but kids in pigtails on ponies doesn’t look like it has an obvious connection to money that would compel adults to drug animals to win.
And by all rights, Walmart Shopper would be correct. Horsers know how much money is actually at stake, but the person outside our world forces us to take a step back and reexamine from a fresh prespective.
Innocent question here. Why did all the other non hunter/jumpers disciplines - Saddlebreds, Morgans, etc. - who are under the USEF umbrella agree to be governed by an organization and a law strictly targeting Olympic “athletes?”
I suspect an amendment to the USEF By-Laws is in the works.
[QUOTE=Ruby G. Weber;6760069]
Innocent question here. Why did all the other non hunter/jumpers disciplines - Saddlebreds, Morgans, etc. - who are under the USEF umbrella agree to be governed by an organization and a law strictly targeting Olympic “athletes?”
I suspect an amendment to the USEF By-Laws is in the works.[/QUOTE]
The IOC did this by requiring only 1 governing body for any olympic sport. Thus the AHSA/USET model collapsed. Thus, those disciplines were collateral damage.
