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

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=RaMa;8274760]
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.[/QUOTE]

That study was based on magnesium aspartate, not magnesium sulfate or oxide, which are the formulations added to feed. One of the results from the study was that feed companies may start using the magnesium aspartate in feed instead of magnesium sulfate or oxide. The study was done by Waltham, which is an animal nutrition company. The ingredients in perfect prep and quiessence only list “magnesium” without specifying so I think you are leaping to a conclusion at this point to link this study to those supplements unless you know for a fact that perfect prep and quiessence contain magnesium aspartate. Have you asked either of the manufacturers?

ETA: A little further research shows that the magnesium used in the two supplements you mentioned is magnesium oxide, not magnesium aspartate.

[vxf111]

I would say that if someone has a formal lease recorded with the USEF, the person leasing the horse should sub for the owner in all infractions/penalties.

[OverandOnward]

[QUOTE=adcurtiss;8274990]
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).
…[/QUOTE]

This ^^^ is more effective than any sanction!

It’s a shame, actually, that it takes holding owners accountable through sanctions to get owners to take responsibility for sending the right message and even force those involved with their horses to do the right thing - or no longer be involved with the owner’s horse.

Owners don’t have to care for and prepare the horses to show themselves. But the owner does have the responsibility to choose the people who are involved with their horse, send the message and hold those people accountable for clean showing.

The owner has the greatest power in the industry to force change on the people who are actually administering illegal drugs to horses by withdrawing the horse from bad actors when there is clear evidence of prohibited drugs.

It’s about changing the motivation. Obviously some people now feel motivated to show with drugs - it gets them what they want. But trainers will be sure the horse shows clean if they know they will lose the business if it doesn’t.

Personally I have no sympathy for owners who hide from that responsibility. Let them suffer the sanctions. I don’t call it “generous” to allow other people to misuse one’s horse.

[inca]

I agree with vxf111 that with a signed lease the lessee should be considered the “owner” if you are going to start imposing penalties on the owner. I have leased 3 different horses and while I had the horse, the owner was in a different city and had zero control on what I did with the horse, at home or at a show. If I screwed up and gave bute too close to my class or gave Ace 4 days before a show to clip ears, there is no way the owner should be held accountable.

[janedoe726]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8275013]
I would say that if someone has a formal lease recorded with the USEF, the person leasing the horse should sub for the owner in all infractions/penalties.[/QUOTE]

This!

I think owners should be set down in the case of owner has someone showing his/her horse. Betsee Parker, for example since that’s where this thread all began.

Nickelodian, in your case, I would think the lessee would be the one to be set down. That’s just how I see it.

[RaMa]

Top 6 places of PreGreen, Hunter Derby should be automatically tested

[Lord_Helpus]

[QUOTE=RaMa;8275097]
Top 6 places of PreGreen, Hunter Derby should be automatically tested[/QUOTE]

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Where is the money all going to come from? I am sure everyone on here would love to have at least 3 horses per class tested. But no one wants to pay for it.

[RaMa]

How about the people that broke the rules? I am not talking about every class - lets just insure the most prestigious and visible hunter competitions - Derby & Pre- Green Incentive - are straight up and show WHO can really train a horse rather than just who is the best chemist.

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8275098]
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ Where is all going to come from? I am sure everyone on here would love to have at least 3 horses per class tested. But no one wants to pay for it.[/QUOTE]

[kdow]

Questions about owner responsibility might also bring about changes to the way the industry works - if the owner is hands off but faces a major penalty if the horse tests, why couldn’t there be a clause in the training contract about the issue? That is outside the realm of USEF to manage, but seems like something you might expect to see just as a result of owners wanting some way to penalize trainers for drugging and lying about it?

[IPEsq]

And think about the shows with multiple rings going. Even if you test blood, you have to have a tester available for each horse that you want to have tested at the time horse walks out of the ring. That’s a lot of manpower to pay for, not to mention the cost of testing itself. And how would that affect the timeline? I mean, it’s kind of nuts it can take 4 months to get a result back now. What happens when you drastically increase sample volume?

[mroades]

And to further muddy the waters, I have a friend whose horse was permanently injured by an inept tester drawing blood.

[Lord_Helpus]

I have just read the FEI Doping Rules. The “Responsible Party” is held accountable if drugs are found in a horse (despite my scanning pages of text, I could not find a definition of “Responsible Party”). A rule change now allows the FEI to charge additional Responsible Parties (not specifying what categories might be considered "RP"s, so there is wide latitude in including owners, agents, vets, etc).

In addition the rules now specifically note that grooms may be charged IN ADDITION TO the RP.

This new language must be what guided the USEF when amending its drug rules.

As mentioned, the FEI routinely disqualifies a drugged horse from competition. If FEI riders and owners can deal with the intricacies of such an event, it should not be hard for USEF members to follow suit. It is not up to the FEI/USEF to figure out what happens in the event of a sale or lease – it is up to the parties. And I am assuming that such transactions as sale/lease are included in the language contained in any bill of sale (just as it is normal to include language such as: “Seller warrants that the horse is not subject to any liens nor has been used as collateral for any loans made by Seller or his agents”).

All a US buyer/seller has to do is to get the boilerplate language which is already in use for transactions involving FEI horses.

[huntersgonewild]

Yes, the new rule was modeled after the FEI rule.

[Lord_Helpus]

[QUOTE=mroades;8275123]
And to further muddy the waters, I have a friend whose horse was permanently injured by an inept tester drawing blood.[/QUOTE]

Only licensed vets can pull blood, But that does not insure competence.

What happened? Did the vet blow a vein?

[JustJump]

If the blood from top 10 of all Finals, top three of all Classics and winners of any class offering money were drawn, and SUBJECT to testing…

it would not be necessary to actually test–but the POSSIBILITY would go a long way to deter use of forbidden substances.

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8275202]
Only licensed vets can pull blood, But that does not insure competence.

What happened? Did the vet blow a vein?[/QUOTE]

I’m curious too!

[Darkwave]

[QUOTE=JustJump;8275214]
If the blood from top 10 of all Finals, top three of all Classics and winners of any class offering money were drawn, and SUBJECT to testing…

it would not be necessary to actually test–but the POSSIBILITY would go a long way to deter use of forbidden substances.[/QUOTE]

In track and field, there is a program where some athletes volunteer to have blood drawn and stored, so that it can be tested in the future by tests not available today. Of course, there needs to be a solid system for storing the drawn blood securely.

[huntersgonewild]

[QUOTE=Darkwave;8275232]
In track and field, there is a program where some athletes volunteer to have blood drawn and stored, so that it can be tested in the future by tests not available today. Of course, there needs to be a solid system for storing the drawn blood securely.[/QUOTE]

I think the new rule allowing retention of frozen samples for retesting in the future (up to 3 years) goes into effect for the 2016 year.

[Nickelodian]

[QUOTE=vxf111;8275013]
I would say that if someone has a formal lease recorded with the USEF, the person leasing the horse should sub for the owner in all infractions/penalties.[/QUOTE]

Because of a separate issue of the fact that registered leases are recorded as owners with USEF, I do not register my leases. One of the horses doesn’t live in my same city and is showing across the nation. How in THE WORLD am I supposed to be responsible for what might or might not be put into their bodies 12 hours before an event. I vetted out the barns before I leased them as best I could and would never lease to a suspect barn. But still. If something were to happen should not be my responsibility. I don’t want to sell right now but I’m not going to have a horse sitting around just because I can’t show for the time being.

So often it is the case that the owner isn’t involved. The trainer and rider should hold responsibility.

[Go_Fish]

@adcurtiss;8274990

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).

That’s a lawsuit waiting to happen…