Say it isn't so....Inclusive on USEF Drug List

[QUOTE=longtimelurker;8270815]
bjd2013
Of course, she’s their scapegoat. I’m sure she got a pay off too.

(sorry - double-quoting went awry).

Why does it matter? What do the intricacies of their relationship (which I’m quite sure no one on this board knows about) have to do with this issue? Both Brigid Colvin and Betsee Parker are free-thinking adults who are totally capable of making their own decisions. And really, you’re SURE? I’m so tired of the rampant and vicious speculation about their relationship in particular. Oy.[/QUOTE]

Their partnership matters for two reasons in this discussion.

  1. It speaks to the issue of how credible the defense is that says “Well, yes, I signed an entry blank saying that I was responsible for my horses not competing while drugged. But I didn’t actually know whether or not that was happening, so I should be let off.” It matters because— among the set of adults who could sign up for this responsibility and may not know what horse got what-- there may have been some collusion.

  2. It matters, too, because the USEF is trying to tighten up on what I’d call “straw man signatories”-- grooms or show moms or other “disposable” people signing up to take the fall for D&M infractions so that the horse’s showing, kid or whatever can continue. If Parker and Colvin Sr. negotiated a deal in which Colvin acted as that disposable signatory in a way that would have been worse had Parker signed it, then the USEF should know that folks are already looking for work-arounds to their latest effort to tighten things up.

Whoops. My bad. :smiley:

I find it very odd that two people would have signed as trainer on the same horse at the same event. Can’t say i have ever seen that done before.

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8270538]
I have often thought that owners should be penalized (as opposed to merely returning prizes). If the owner of the horse was set down, even for a month, he/she might become more proactive in finding out what is going into her horse on show days.

The current system of “don’t ask, don’t tell” encourages owners to actively ignore what their trainer is doing to get their horse to the ring.

30 years ago I was guilty of that attitude. At first because I was naive, then because I did not want to know; what I didn’t know couldn’t hurt me.

USEF needs to enact rules that tell the owner “What you don’t know CAN hurt you. [So it would behoove you to ask and to only train with trainers who take your horse to the ring clean of all banned substances].”

Trainers do what they do because their customers want results. I am certainly not exonerating cheaters, but I am also laying a large % of blame on owners who foster this “I want to win more than I want to win fairly. If my trainer gets caught, that is his problem, not mine” attitude.[/QUOTE]

I think that is one of the reasons for the new “responsible person” rule. No more trainers who aren’t even at the show signing and no more owners sticking their heads in the sand.

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8271431]
I find it very odd that two people would have signed as trainer on the same horse at the same event. Can’t say i have ever seen that done before.[/QUOTE]

I thought that was odd too. And I’m not sure why people are referring to Brigid Colvin as a scapegoat when she and tori, per the COTH article, are the ones who have care, custody, and control of the horse. Even if Andre is standing at the ring watching tori ride Parker’s horses, he does not fit the entry form definition of trainer and should not be signing as such.

[QUOTE=mvp;8271414]
TIt matters, too, because the USEF is trying to tighten up on what I’d call “straw man signatories”-- grooms or show moms or other “disposable” people signing up to take the fall for D&M infractions so that the horse’s showing, kid or whatever can continue. [/QUOTE]

I get your point. But one thought (and I know we’ve discussed before) - what is the definition of “trainer”? Is that defined anywhere.

I’ve heard some people say that it’s the person responsible for the training and care of the horse - but I couldn’t find that from a quick scan of the rulebook.

Sometimes to me, it seems that the assumption on this board is that “trainer” should be signed by “the person whose suspension will most damage the barn/stable/program he/she is associated with.” I.e. the big name trainer. But I’m not sure that’s the right answer - it’s just the one we want. Because we want to see the BNT go down, not the stable manager.

Where is “trainer” defined?

[QUOTE=findeight;8271173]
Ummmm…not seeing means nothing. There’s always been a few violations over in the sandbox. I actually noticed the PP tubes in the trash about 2 years back when I spectated at a Dressage show and witnessed an Ammy rider asking her companion if Horsie had his vitamins. Friend I was there to watch said she sometimes hears somebody telling a rider having a rough warm up to have the groom take the horse back to the stall to pee…common codes for a little chemical help.

Its around.[/QUOTE]

Maybe where you are. But I was not oblivious for 20 years. None of the many dressage trainers I know in Houston have ever been sat down for drug violations. It doesn’t happen because you need your horse to be FORWARD to score well in dressage. I am not saying dressage is better then hunters (I show hunters now) but using calming drugs/supplements is not an issue on the rated or local circuit in this area. Again, maybe different where you live.

Many of the rated shows are at the same facility and I guarantee you the trash cans are filled with Perfect Prep or similar things at the A rated hunter shows and they are NOT at the dressage shows. I have been to both in the past year.

Now, does that mean there is NEVER a drug violation in dressage. No. But my guess is they are more often than not of the bute/banamine/previcox variety. I have yet to see a thread on the dressage board about a BNT sat down for using calming medications or one bemoaning the problem of drugging dressage horses.

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8271440]
I thought that was odd too. And I’m not sure why people are referring to Brigid Colvin as a scapegoat when she and tori, per the COTH article, are the ones who have care, custody, and control of the horse. Even if Andre is standing at the ring watching tori ride Parker’s horses, he does not fit the entry form definition of trainer and should not be signing as such.[/QUOTE]

I’m referring her to one because she isn’t the trainer. If she signs and they get caught, big deal. She doesn’t have clients, or horses, unlike a professional that does. She can still do her job, just not at shows whereas an Andre or someone, it’s their livelihood and can’t afford to get laid down.

[QUOTE=bjd2013;8271456]
I’m referring her to one because she isn’t the trainer. If she signs and they get caught, big deal. She doesn’t have clients, or horses, unlike a professional that does. She can still do her job, just not at shows whereas an Andre or someone, it’s their livelihood and can’t afford to get laid down.[/QUOTE]

This goes right to my point above:

Is the “trainer” the person with “care, custody, and control”? (and where did we get that language?)

Or is the “trainer” the person who “can’t afford to get laid down”?

The second definition has some emotional appeal, but is also vindictive, and has less likelihood of being connected to the person who actually did the drugging than the first definition.

[QUOTE=findeight;8271412]
Yeah so why, in this case, are there two months difference between the start and end dates for two people signing as trainers on the same entry blank for the same horse at the same show?

Still haven’t thought of or read anything with an answer for that one,[/QUOTE]after posting the question here I read the replies to the COTH article on FB and someone suggested that BC was delayed because she contested it and that took some time.

I think I also posted this up thread, but just in case.

What it means to sign as trainer is defined in the USEF rules

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8271431]
I find it very odd that two people would have signed as trainer on the same horse at the same event. Can’t say i have ever seen that done before.[/QUOTE]

Is it 100% clear that both suspensions are from 1 show?! The dates differ…

[QUOTE=vxf111;8271478]
What it means to sign as trainer is defined in the USEF rules[/QUOTE]

Where? Not challenging you - I know it has to be somewhere - I just had no luck in finding it. I looked in GR 7 and GR 9. Of course, I’m multi-tasking, so quite likely I overlooked it.

Er…never mind. Found it. Conveniently located in the section called “definitions”. Imagine that.

[I]GR147 Trainer

  1. Any adult, or adults who has the responsibility for the care, training, custody or per

formance of a horse.
2. Said person must sign the entry blank of any Licensed Competition whether said
person be an owner, rider, agent and/or coach as well as trainer.
3. Where a minor exhibitor has no trainer, a parent or guardian must sign and assume
responsibility of trainer.
4. The name of the trainer must be designated as such on the entry blank. See also
GR404.[/I]

So… the trainer could be the person handling the care of the horse (i.e. the barn manager) or the person responsible for the performance of the horse (the BNT, to my thinking).

Somebody will always Do drugs. In every sport, and if you race cars someone will try to skip the rules. We live in a World were perfection is wanted.
The problem will never be completly solved. But the people involved have to get harder punishments. The wellfare of the horse is first! The FEI and Most european countries take the rider as the responsible person. For the US i think taking rider and trainer in would be a Solution. If people can not show because of stuff the trainer managed they all would be more interested to stay within the rules. Just imagine pony moms taking trainers to court because their kids can not show.

A bit like in food production: normally grown is not as pretty but it tastes so much better. People just have to relearn that Taste

The new rule approved on 6/6/15 to be in effect for 2016 competition year. GR 404.0 Tracking #080-15 Draft #1 Approved
RULE CHANGE TYPE
EFFECTIVE
BOARD ACTION
Extraordinary 12/1/2015 Approved 6/30/2015
EO REASON
to ensure that this rule is in effect for the 2016 competition year.
PROPOSED CHANGE
GR404 Responsibility and Accountability of Trainers [CHAPTER ] change to read:
GR404 Responsibility and Accountability of Trainers and other Persons Responsible
1.Trainers and other Persons Responsible, in the absence of substantial evidence to the contrary, are responsible and accountable under the penalty provisions of these rules. The trainer and other Persons Responsible are not relieved from such responsibility as a result of the lack or insufficiency of stable security.
2.The Persons Responsible may include the rider who rides, vaults, or drives the horse and/or pony during a competition, and/or the Owner, Trainer, and other Support Personnel.
3. Support Personnel is defined to include but is not limited to grooms, handlers, longeurs, and veterinarians may be regarded as additional Persons Responsible if they are present at the competition or have made a relevant decision about the horse and/or pony.
4. A trainer is defined as any adult or adults who has or shares the responsibility for the care, training, custody, condition, or performance of a horse and/or pony. Said person must sign the entry blank of any Licensed Competition whether said person be a trainer, owner, rider, agent and/or coach. Where a minor exhibitor has no trainer, then a parent, guardian or agent or representative thereof must sign the entry blank and assume responsibility as trainer. The name of the trainer must be designated as such on the entry blank. It is the responsibility of trainers as well as competition management to see that entry blanks contain all of the required information. The responsibilities of a trainer include, but are not limited, to the following:
a. for the condition of a horse or pony at a Licensed Competition (whether or not they have signed an entry blank),
b. to guard each horse and/or pony at, and sufficiently prior to, a Licensed Competition such as to prevent the administration by anyone of, or its exposure to, any forbidden substance, and
c. to know all of the provisions of this Chapter 4 (including any advisories or interpretations published in equestrian) and all other rules and regulations of the Federation and the penalty provisions of said rules. For purposes of this rule, substantial evidence means affirmative evidence of such a clear and definite nature as to establish that said trainer, or any employee or agent of the trainer, was, in fact, not responsible or accountable for the condition of the horse and/or pony. If any trainer is prevented from performing his or her duties, including responsibility for the condition of the horses and/or ponies in his or her care, by illness or other cause, or is absent from any Licensed Competition where horses and/or ponies under his or her care are entered and stabled, he or she must immediately notify the competition secretary and, at the same time, a substitute must be appointed by the trainer and such substitute must place his or her name on the entry blank forthwith. Such substitution does not relieve the regular trainer of his/her responsibility and accountability under this rule; however, the substitute trainer is equally responsible and accountable for the condition of such horses and/or ponies.
5. The trainer and owner acknowledge that the trainer represents the owner regarding horses and/or ponies being trained or managed, entries, scratches for any reason and any act performed on any horse and/or pony under the care and custody of the trainer.
6. In the case of a horse and/or pony competing under the Therapeutic Substance Provisions, any trainer or other Person Responsible subject to these rules who actually administers, attempts to administer, instructs, aids, conspires with another to administer or employs anyone who administers or attempts to administer a forbidden substance to a horse and/or pony which might affect the performance of said horse and/or pony at a competition licensed by the Federation without complying with GR411, is subject to the penalties provided in GR406.
7. Any trainer or Person Responsible subject to these rules who administers, attempts to administer, instructs, aids, conspires with another to administer or employs anyone who administers or attempts to administer any substance to a horse and/or pony by injection or by any other route of administration, whether the substance is forbidden or permitted, in the competition ring of a competition licensed by the Federation during a scheduled class, is subject to the penalties provided in GR406.

The FEI prohibits the horse which was given the illegal medication from showing during the period of the suspension.

I read on this thread that such a move should be instituted, but others pointed out the difficulity in dealing with a subsequent sale of the horse, etc.

Not sure how the FEI solves these problems, but currently Steve Guerdat (winner of the World Cup in Las Vegas last April) has been suspended, as has the horse.

http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/guerdat-nino-des-buissonnets-will-remain-suspended-europeans

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8271519]
The FEI prohibits the horse which was given the illegal medication from showing during the period of the suspension.

I read on this thread that such a move should be instituted, but others pointed out the difficulity in dealing with a subsequent sale of the horse, etc.

Not sure how the FEI solves these problems, but currently Steve Guerdat (winner of the World Cup in Las Vegas last April) has been suspended, as has the horse.

http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/guerdat-nino-des-buissonnets-will-remain-suspended-europeans[/QUOTE]

I think the article says that the provisional suspensions on the riders have been lifted but they were not lifted on the horses so Steve can show in the Europeans but not on the suspended horse.

Yes, Blue Hors Matine moves her tail and is expressive with it. The judges choose not to interpret it as tension or a lack of submission, based on the rest of the horse’s expression and body language. Or to the extent that they do in certain moments, it’s only costing her a small amount because overall the performance is so fluid and relaxed. IE: this is not a wringing tail from a horse that is in pain or crabby.

The performance would not be better if the tail was dead.

[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8271526]
I think the article says that the provisional suspensions on the riders have been lifted but they were not lifted on the horses so Steve can show in the Europeans but not on the suspended horse.[/QUOTE]

Correct. Steve had been showing and jumped on the Nations Cup team at Dublin. However not with Nasa or Nino (the horses who tested). I think he showed pretty compelling evidence at the hearing that it was a feed contamination thus the lifting of the provisional suspension.

[QUOTE=busylady;8270692]

I’m curious how people feel about the players involved knowing what we know now. … I’m frankly shocked that COTH did an article on it (great job COTH). … Will we still see the rider on the cover of magazines (al la Scott Stewart after his set down)? Will you still be in awe when you see Tori lay down a 90, or 100, point round?[/QUOTE]

I was glad that COTH covered the story, and surprised like many others that they did. I felt the same way when they covered former dressage team rider Tina Konyot’s FEI yellow card at the recent Jr/YR championships.

Hopefully COTH, other magazines and catalogs will be more discerning when choosing whom to feature on their covers. If the media ostracizes these folks, that would send a clear and refreshing message.

As for being “in awe” of Tori C. if she gets a high score round in hunters, I can’t join the bandwagon. She’s a nice rider, of course. But I’d be in awe of the HORSE doing that. Honestly sometimes the horses she rides look stoned (eg Ovation in 2014 at Wellington)

Just MHO.