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

[Go_Fish]

[QUOTE=ToTheNines;8273117]
Oh please before all the crabbng starts about Tracy’s horse appearing “slow”. It is large and leggy and big strided and slow-legged.

For all the non-hunter folks that come on here to crab about hunters. Hunters 101: “slow legged” horses appear slow because they are efficient. Hunters 101: You match your pace to the related distances. The winning round has an even pace. The big strided horse must go more slowly than the smaller-strided horse, or else we would have to change the lines for every horse.

I have loved the judging of the Pre-Green and International Derby this week. Those horses that can clip around are actually at an advantage these days. The judges are rewarding them.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. This has been repeated over and over to people who don’t know what they’re talking about, and it never seems to make a difference.

[caballogurl]

[QUOTE=Go Fish;8273838]
Thank you. This has been repeated over and over to people who don’t know what they’re talking about, and it never seems to make a difference.[/QUOTE]

You are missing the point here though. Yes there are horses that through training and genetics that have a large and leggy stride with impeccable pace. Personalized may very well be one of those horses. But it is not fair to horses like him or rider’s who through hard work and talent, achieve the epitome of perfection in the hunter world to have compete against those who cheat and use banned substances to achieve their end goal.

There are horses that are the epitome of a hunter god and they don’t need doping due to talent and training. However, others do take a short cut sometimes. Case in point in last year’s derby, Tori Colvin and Inclusive. How often Inclusive has been drugged, no one knows. Maybe it was a one time offense or maybe he was drugged every show…none of us really know. Either way it is truly disappointing for our sport because she is an idol to many young children and she is talented enough, she shouldn’t need to cheat. She also contributes to giving hunters a bad rap…something supporters of the hunter division should care about. I know for myself if I see or hear about jumper riders poling, putting Listerine and/or other chemicals on horses legs, and doing off-site schooling…it saddens me because it corrupts the sport and my heart breaks for the welfare of the horses involved.

The point is that there should be stiffer punishments towards owners, riders, and suspensions on the horse, so people are more reticent to take the risk. There will always be cheaters in any sport. There are cheaters in the eq, in the jumpers, in dressage, in western pleasure and heck probably in trail trial classes. All we can do is to try to catch more of them.

[Bo]

[QUOTE=m&m;8268270]
What does GABA do?[/QUOTE]

The GABA receptor | How does it work?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eBUJ-1vcjk

[MyssMyst]

[QUOTE=JenEM;8273745]
But that drug fee isn’t a hunter-specific fee. That’s for all USEF shows; I pay the same amount for a licensed Dressage show as I do for Hunters. And it’s not just A circuit riders paying that fee, it’s also riders doing the few B/C shows that are still out there, struggling to fill, and one-day Dressage shows, and Eventing. And presumably also things like Arabians and Driving, but I’ve never looked at their prizelists, so I’d be speculating. While every discipline certainly has its issues, quadrupling the USEF drug fee to allow increased testing of Hunters doesn’t seem fair to the other disciplines that make up USEF.

I don’t mind paying the drug fee as is, and in theory the call for increased testing is great. Even the testing of horses that fall, perhaps using the same definition Eventing has for Fall of Horse (because they all trip at some point, or bobble, but if both hip and shoulder hit the ground, yes, I do think that’s worth some followup), sounds great. But to do it, you’d have to have testers at every show, all year long, to ensure that there was the ability to do that. And the cost of that just seems astronomical.[/QUOTE]

Yup, I pay it in Arabs. Although, if it meant more testing for us, I wouldn’t mind it. I DO mind it if we pay more and have no testing to show for it. And yes, I’m one of those people doing this on a budget, so I totally get that it’s more money. For me, it’s a LOT of saving to get to do one show.

[jumpinjackflash]

I may be out of the loop on this stuff, but in the old days didn’t the Owner, Rider and Trainer all get suspended for stuff like that? And ALL of the Owners other horses as well??? now, THAT might have some impact.

[Darkwave]

There was a discussion a few weeks back about the new rule changes - http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?470920-USEF-s-New-Drug-Rule-passed-6-30-15-and-effective-12-1-2015-what-is-your-take

I wonder how that thread would have progressed if the new rule changes had been released AFTER these penalties, rather than before.

[AdultAmmieMommie]

http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/top-trainers-respond-tough-usef-penalties

Interesting to see what names popped up here.

[Pennywell_Bay]

If your horse tests positive for X, owner should have to pay for the full cost of the tests, in addition to the fines.

What does the money fined go to?

[skydy]

If the fines continue to increase, the testing fund should benefit.

[alittlegray]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8273638]
You could also have a rule that the horse is set down unless it was sold and USEF recorded with the new owner PRIOR to the results of the blood test being known. That protects an unwitting buyer but not someone who is going to shell game the horse around to friends to outwit the rules.[/QUOTE]

Not necessarily, unfortunately, as those who get drug tested and know the horse had a cocktail can easily “sell” (shell game) the horse to someone before the results are back - they already know they are most likely going to pop positive. So if the penalty doesn’t go into effect if the horse has been sold, they have a quick out if they suspect they will be failing a drug test. Once the penalty is cleared because the horse was “sold,” the new buyer will tragically discover their new purchase is lame or not suitable, and the original owner will graciously agree to buy it back. Set down avoided.

I wish it could be that easy! I wish to high heck we didn’t have to have this type of conversation at ALL - why can’t people win because they are truly the winners on that day instead of buying empty ribbons at the end of a syringe??

I have my reasons for thinking not all testing is random based on something that happened at Loudoun this summer, but it’s my impression that the judge got testers involved and I don’t have any concrete evidence to back it up. If someone wants to hear the long story I will lay it out. But I think simply and honestly testing those at the top and doing it consistently is the only real way drugging your horse to the win is going to stop. Does that mean champion and reserve of each division? Anyone who picks up a blue ribbon and maybe a few reds and yellows too? I’m not sure. Obviously the hard $$$ needs to be laid out to the membership so everyone can have knowledgeable input into the discussion about impact on fees, etc. But it does have to change.

Lastly, this year I have seen testers at every show, and this is the first time in all DD’s years of showing we’ve noticed them at all. So at least they are visible on the show grounds these days.

[CHT]

[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;8273651]
So why not suspend the owner from showing ANY horses, not just the one with the positive test, for a period of time?

I do realize the more than likely suspending the trainer will just lead to business as usual with somebody else signing the entry forms as it does now, but it at least might make people think twice …

In the case of big name owners with many horses and big name show barns, I don’t think just suspending one horse for a while is going to be all that big of a deal.[/QUOTE]

What if you have a generous owner, who has horses at a variety of barns, and one of the horses at one barn gets caught with medication on board. Should all the other barns/riders be punished?

[vxf111]

I don’t think people will transfer ownership 4-6 MONTHS before the test could even come back. And in the meantime lose points in the A/Os and other things where ownership matters?! When you have no choice (positive test) you might be desperate enough but no way all these big owners are going to miss half a year of photo ops because the horse might test. Or maybe the risk of having to do that is punitive enough?!

[Linny]

[QUOTE=Tackpud;8273130]
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.[/QUOTE]
This is where racing, which is what most people think about when they hear about “doping” of horses has the edge over showing. Stewards and other officials have the authority to demand testing for any horse who performs significantly above or below reasonable expectations, in addition to the standard of the top four finishers in each race. Of course, in racing the officials are less likely to be as closely associated with participants as they are in the show ring.

[alittlegray]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8274476]
I don’t think people will transfer ownership 4-6 MONTHS before the test could even come back. And in the meantime lose points in the A/Os and other things where ownership matters?! When you have no choice (positive test) you might be desperate enough but no way all these big owners are going to miss half a year of photo ops because the horse might test. Or maybe the risk of having to do that is punitive enough?![/QUOTE]

Yeah, maybe. I was thinking of the situations where the owner knows the horse got something and the test will be positive. Keep it as long as you can until before the word comes out, then buy it back. But you make a very good point about things like losing the chances to qualify where points have to be earned, etc.

[Sunflower]

The fine could easily be applied to the costs of more comprehensive testing of horses in shows. That is one way to address the costs of a better testing scheme.

[RaMa]

If you are thinking you “don’t drug” because you “only” give your horse products like “perfect prep” you should see this latest study comparing the effect of these oral magnesium products and Ace on a horses reaction … I totally agree that shows should NOT be giving PP or Quiessance as prizes at shows - certainly sends a mixed message.

Below is reference to a research study that looked at the effect of oral magnesium on the reaction time of horses…

The results were that the 10g dose of Mg, had the same effect in slowing reaction time to a stimulus as the normal (0.04mg/kg) dose of Ace, and significantly slowed the reaction time as compared to controls. In the further paper the authors also showed that Mg was normally cleared by the kidneys within 24 hrs of dosing but that the 10g dose had a significant effect on clearance of Ca and other electrolytes. The time to maximum blood levels of Mg were 102 hrs post dosing.
Refs:
Magnesium aspartate supplementation and reaction speed response in horses.
J.A.Dodd, G.Doran, P.Harris, G.K.Noble. Proceedings of 2015 Equine Science Society, JEVS, Vol 35,Number 5, May 2015. Pg 401.

[RaMa]

exactly… how many other “great trips” were medically enhanced?

[PonyPenny]

[QUOTE=RaMa;8274772]
exactly… how many other “great trips” were medically enhanced?[/QUOTE]

Same questions are asked at the Tour de France. It was determined that all the top riders had doped via the Lance Armstrong years. All the riders who testified against Armstrong who were still racing got various levels of suspensions. Armstrong was banned for life. I think all the top placing horses in at least the rated divisions and big equitation medals should be tested.

[Nickelodian]

I, as an owner, have two horses currently leased to two different barns. I have no participation in the care of one horse. The other I still am more hands on but at 8 months pregnant I guarantee you if she decided to go to a show I would not be participating at all. Let’s say one of my leased horses popped positive. Are you saying I should be punished and fined the same as the trainers of the barn where the horse is located?

Owners for a variety of reasons often have nothing to do with the care. Leased, investment horses, only show on the weekend whip the pro does it during the week, whatever. Be careful what you wish for.

[adcurtiss]

[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8274977]
I, as an owner, have two horses currently leased to two different barns. I have no participation in the care of one horse. The other I still am more hands on but at 8 months pregnant I guarantee you if she decided to go to a show I would not be participating at all. Let’s say one of my leased horses popped positive. Are you saying I should be punished and fined the same as the trainers of the barn where the horse is located?

Owners for a variety of reasons often have nothing to do with the care. Leased, investment horses, only show on the weekend whip the pro does it during the week, whatever. Be careful what you wish for.[/QUOTE]

I’ve been lurking on this thread for a while, and from my understanding I’d say that other people would say that if your lease horses popped positive, you should still be fined/suspended/etc. and because of that it would cause owners everywhere to be more involved in the care of their horses, even those who are leased out, and make sure that those horses who are, for all intents and purposes, under your care are not being drugged. The threat of you possibly getting in trouble for a horse that you are “hands off” about involving care might cause you to be a little more involved and make sure your horse is not being drugged. (I think that was poorly worded, but my brain is tired, so if you need me to further explain what I’m trying to say just let me know).

Now, I’m not sure if I agree with that, but, from my understanding, that is the line of thought. Please feel free to correct me if I am wrong as it’s definitely possible I could’ve misunderstood.

To me, the idea that makes the most sense is the horse being set down. That way everyone involved has to face the consequences… but once again I see Nickelodian’s case where she doesn’t have involvement with the horse. If the horse is set down, she loses potential money from the person leasing the horse because the horse can’t be competed on. It’s a slippery slope to go down. One one hand you want to punish everyone, on the other you want to punish only those involved (but how do you decide who is involved?).

I will be very interested to see how USEF decides to deal with this issue. I’m sure they have similar conversations… whatever they do I really hope that we can reverse this process or slow it down… I’m a junior riding entering my last junior year, and Tori Colvin has long been an idol of mine. It truly breaks my heart to know that she competed this horse while he had GABA in his system. As much as I don’t want to believe it, the tests don’t lie. I still believe that she is an outstanding rider and a rare talent, but it’s disappointing to hear that someone who always says she is so involved in the care of her horse was okay with her horse being drugged.