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

[hype]

There are a lot of things that would need to change to clean up the sport but the number one thing to do is to make the penalties so great that it really isn’t worth it to take the gamble.

What if the said horse who was drugged was out for a year regardless of who owned it? Ditto with the rider and the trainer? Certainly makes things much more risky. A year suspension can end a junior’s career prematurely, can ruin a trainer’s business and can make a horse much less valuable. Money talks…

There are always people who will consider the risk/reward before they do anything.

Another thought is to have the champion and reserve tested for drugs. Do you think that will deter people? I do. What about in bigger money classes testing the top 5 or top 10 in huge classes? That would deter a lot of people from attempting to drug their horses.

You wouldn’t have to test Ch/Res for every division. That would be a random draw with which divisions were to be tested once the testers go to the horse show grounds. I’d also say that there should be some discretion as to additional testing by the steward etc if a horse looks drugged.

Even with very strict penalties, you will still have people a step ahead of the game. Using the latest and greatest before there is a reliable test for it but at least there would be some “bite” to a drug infraction.

[axl]

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8268750]
For a minute, my eyes glazed over and I thought I was reading a letter by Betsy Andreu. (Cycling reference)[/QUOTE]

:lol:

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8273110]
I don’t think the term “slow canter” is being used in the way you think it is. It’s not “slow” in terms of the horse moving at the rate of a turtle. I think of the term as meaning it’s a long stride where the legs are moving smoothly, but there is still plenty of impulsion, as opposed to a horse who is moving his legs quickly and looks rushed. “Slow canter” in this case does not mean that the horse is not covering ground at a good pace.

And I’ve said this before: if you are basing your opinion on a live feed, you are not seeing at all what the trips look like in real life. But it’s the nature of this board to be negative and crabby about everything hunters, so I’m expecting to see a lot of excuses for why I’m totally wrong.[/QUOTE]

You are completely right on all counts but I think you might be a voice crying in the wilderness:) I am new to this board and although I agree that there are problems in the sport, they are the EXACT SAME problems that have plagued the sport since the dawn of time. Is there a forum somewhere online to talk about the positive aspects of the sport? Presumably, they outweigh the negatives even for the most grumpy posters here or they wouldn’t participate, right?

[Tackpud]

[QUOTE=caballogurl;8273064]

Does anyone know if a steward or a judge can request a horse be tested? My understanding was no, at least for a judge. But I have not thoroughly researched the subject.[/QUOTE]

No. Neither a judge nor a steward can flag a horse for testing. The only mandatory testing is after a collapse, not a trip and fall or because someone thinks the horse looks drugged.

[axl]

[QUOTE=Flash44;8269312]
LOL, beginning as a 9 year old low intermediate rider, Flash Jr showed ponies and horses at the MD State Fair with the horse ring sandwiched in between the transit train and the ferris wheel and some machine gun sounding carnival game. Yes, they learned to deal with it.[/QUOTE]

The only times my Budman ever got “bitted up” were at the MD State Fair and the Preakness parade, which also required a set of draw reins after kids started throwing whippersnappers at his feet. :no: He was still rideable, but he sure was freaked, poor thing.

[RugBug]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8273039]

I’m not at all implying that Jen drugs her horses, but if a stumble and fall is going to create outrage and a demand for a drug test the way it did for Bases Loaded, the same should apply to ANY horse that stumbles and falls in the show ring.[/QUOTE]

Okay, I probably shouldn’t post as I haven’t seen the footage of the fall today, BUT, I will say the outrage over Based Loaded wasn’t because he stumbled, it was the combination of the stumble and him going around looking stoned out of his mind. If that is the case with Jen’s horse today…then by all means, test it and outrage away!

[mroades]

Jen’s horse actually looked like it lost consciousness for a few seconds…but he did not look drugged, just stunned, as it went ass over teakettle

[ynl063w]

I’m just saying that if everyone is going to go apesh!t about drugs every time they see something out of the ordinary on a live feed, they should at least be consistent about it no matter who it happens to.

And someone please look at Inclusive’s classic round in the hunter derby finals last year and tell me that that horse looked drugged.

Is this National Reading Incomprehension Day or something?

[mroades]

For what its worth I 100% agree with you, test em all that fall down go boom!

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8273222]
I’m just saying that if everyone is going to go apesh!t about drugs every time they see something out of the ordinary on a live feed, they should at least be consistent about it no matter who it happens to.

And someone please look at Inclusive’s classic round in the hunter derby finals last year and tell me that that horse looked drugged.

Is this National Reading Incomprehension Day or something?[/QUOTE]

Every day is National Reading Incomprehension Day on the internet. And of course, the horses that need medicating the most rarely look drugged. The question is what they would go like without the medication.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=mroades;8273230]
For what its worth I 100% agree with you, test em all that fall down go boom![/QUOTE]

I’m not weighing in at all about who should be tested under what circumstances; that’s up to USEF. I just can’t believe that the majority of people here on the forums who seem to be so passionate about a cause are completely unable to discuss that cause in a way that is consistent, fair, and intelligent.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8273234]
And of course, the horses that need medicating the most rarely look drugged.[/QUOTE]

You are new to the COTH forums, so you don’t yet know that 99% of the people who post here can totally tell by watching a live feed which horses are drugged and which ones are not. You’ll see. They will let you know. Stayed tuned and learn from the experts.

[bjd2013]

[QUOTE=huntersgonewild;8273234]
The question is what they would go like without the medication.[/QUOTE]

Out of control probably A friend of mine had a top Junior Hunter (Won at Devon, and Indoors, etc.) And he was only successful with her in her trainers program. He only showed 2-3 times maybe after she was done with him, and it was a train wreck. Horse would surge to the jumps take off afterwards, etc. It was bad.

I know what it took to get the horse to the ring, and she rode well too, but he was nuts. Couldn’t ride him at home, and only jumped and did stuff at the shows. So I would imagine a lot of those horses are like that. And if you read the articles The Chronicle does, a lot of people say they don’t ride them
hard or do a lot at home.

[Lord_Helpus]

[QUOTE=caballogurl;8273064]
ynl063w - I agree if a horse falls or looks extremely loopy, a steward or judge should flag the horse for testing. But from my discussions with a judge a few years back, judges are not allowed to flag a horse for testing even if they are highly suspicious the horse has been doped. My understanding is testing is completely random. Now I am not sure if a steward can flag a horse for testing. I do believe if a horse passes away at a show, blood is required.

Does anyone know if a steward or a judge can request a horse be tested? My understanding was no, at least for a judge. But I have not thoroughly researched the subject.[/QUOTE]

Back when I was a steward, testing was supposed to be random. And, officially, an official of the show was not supposed to say anything (on the chance that an official had it in for an exhibitor and could get certain horses tested because of the animus between the 2 people.). However, there were ways around it (seeming innocent comment when in hearing range of a tester).

Technically, a tester has a list of horses in each class to be tested: 2nd and 5th class 111. First and 3rd in class 222. The choices of horses is random by design.

For those who are calling for more testing, how much would each of you be willing to pay for a substantial increase in numbers?

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8273244]
You are new to the COTH forums, so you don’t yet know that 99% of the people who post here can totally tell by watching a live feed which horses are drugged and which ones are not. You’ll see. They will let you know. Stayed tuned and learn from the experts.[/QUOTE]

Thank goodness that I have come to a place where I can be properly educated. :winkgrin:

[mvp]

[QUOTE=bjd2013;8272916]
But you’ll NEVER stop cheating. Ever. End of story. In any and every sport there will ALWAYS be someone who can get around the rules. And sadly, cheaters usually win.[/QUOTE]

You don’t think the USEF could think of a penalty so bad no one hoping to stay in their career as horse trainer would risk being caught drugging a horse?

The “cheaters will be cheaters” argument is weak. The world-- particularly a made up club like the USEF-- can go any way those in charge of it would like.

[lmlacross]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8273260]

For those who are calling for more testing, how much would each of you be willing to pay for a substantial increase in numbers?[/QUOTE]

This is the million-dollar question (maybe literally). I’ve read multiple suggestions here that Champion and Reserve in every recognized A-show division should be tested. Assuming this is physically feasible (or could be made so), how much would each of you who suggested it be willing to pay in increased fees (to cover additional manpower, supplies, etc.) in order to make that reality?

My guess is that actual implementation cost of such a suggestion would be astronomical. I’m not currently a USEF member, but my small-timey self isn’t so hot on absorbing the (potentially significant) cost of deterring the unethical.

[m_m1]

[QUOTE=bjd2013;8272955]
And if we get FEI strict, the horses are going to have to suffer more than they already do. Something has to give.[/QUOTE]

Explain?

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=mvp;8273277]
You don’t think the USEF could think of a penalty so bad no one hoping to stay in their career as horse trainer would risk being caught drugging a horse?

The “cheaters will be cheaters” argument is weak. The world-- particularly a made up club like the USEF-- can go any way those in charge of it would like.[/QUOTE]

I completely, 100% agree with every word of this. The only thing I’d like to add is that there will always be an obvious delay between the time that the cheaters start using the “latest and greatest” drug du jour as soon as said drug “hits the streets”, and USEF can develop and implement a reliable test for it. But that’s an issue that just can’t be overcome; your suggestion for penalties is so easy to do that it should be a no-brainer, because no one can possibly know when that new test will be available. I thought it was strange that USEF leaked the fact that they were closing in on a test for GABA. They should have kept quiet about it.

[bjd2013]

[QUOTE=mvp;8273277]
You don’t think the USEF could think of a penalty so bad no one hoping to stay in their career as horse trainer would risk being caught drugging a horse?

The “cheaters will be cheaters” argument is weak. The world-- particularly a made up club like the USEF-- can go any way those in charge of it would like.[/QUOTE]

Then why haven’t they? And it may be weak, but it’s true. And they will until they’re somehow stopped, but I doubt that will ever happen.