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

[Sunset_Ponies]

Many people on this thread have advocated for testing champion and reserve, or testing the top contenders at the big finals. I’m not sure how many people know this but during the 2013 Pony Finals the top three ponies in every class were tested. This went for both the hunters and jumpers. I know this because two of the three ponies that I took that year were tested because of this. As far as I know, no one was caught doing anything naughty as a result…

As an additional thought, I’ve always wondered if ever single test that gets done actually gets tested?

[mroades]

yes, blew the vein, horse almost died, never able to compete again. She sued and I am not sure what damages she won but I know she got something.

[m_m1]

[QUOTE=alittlegray;8274409]

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.[/QUOTE]

What happened?

[kdow]

[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8275245]
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.[/QUOTE]

So if the owner is on the hook too, it is on the owner to put more pressure on the trainer to follow the rules. So you’d have something in your training contract that specified that under no conditions was the horse to show medicated, and should the horse test positive because the trainer was slipping him something anyway, the trainer faces xyz penalty from the owner in addition to the USEF penalties. Idea is to squeeze the bad actors from as many sides as possible so it is harder for them to weasel out.

If you had a horse leased, same thing - you’d put some kind of terms and penalties in the contract that detailed what would happen if the horse was drugged while under the care and control of the leasee or the leasee’s trainer or whomever.

[vxf111]

How many people suggesting all these side contracts have ever successfully negotiated to have even one signed in the equine context?! How many trainers are ready to negotiate individual behavior codes with each client?! Seems unrealistic to me… Even a clean trainer is going to tell you to take a hike cuz its too much hassle.

Good luck enforcing the penalties without the time and hassle of court too!

[Nickelodian]

[QUOTE=kdow;8275363]
So if the owner is on the hook too, it is on the owner to put more pressure on the trainer to follow the rules. So you’d have something in your training contract that specified that under no conditions was the horse to show medicated, and should the horse test positive because the trainer was slipping him something anyway, the trainer faces xyz penalty from the owner in addition to the USEF penalties. Idea is to squeeze the bad actors from as many sides as possible so it is harder for them to weasel out.

If you had a horse leased, same thing - you’d put some kind of terms and penalties in the contract that detailed what would happen if the horse was drugged while under the care and control of the leasee or the leasee’s trainer or whomever.[/QUOTE]

I have clauses in both my leases which speak to medication. Injections. Veterinary care. Etc. I am such a PITA owner honestly. But why would my little lease cause a trainer to follow the rules any more than the threat of the governing association? What we’re talking about here is an OWNER being set down for a horse that is not in his/her care. Period. If my lease says “don’t give any illegal substance per USEF rules” and the horse pops positive, if the owner were to be eligible for fines and suspension I’m screwed. Nothing in the lease would protect me against it. I can say maybe the trainer is responsible for any fines. But that doesn’t keep me from getting suspended or my name being drug through the mud on these very boards.

Cheaters are cheaters. They won’t care about my terms any more than they care about USEF rules. Probably less so.

[kdow]

[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8275387]
I have clauses in both my leases which speak to medication. Injections. Veterinary care. Etc. I am such a PITA owner honestly. But why would my little lease cause a trainer to follow the rules any more than the threat of the governing association? What we’re talking about here is an OWNER being set down for a horse that is not in his/her care. Period. If my lease says “don’t give any illegal substance per USEF rules” and the horse pops positive, if the owner were to be eligible for finds and suspension I’m screwed. Nothing in the lease would protect me against it. I can say maybe the trainer is associated for any fines. But that doesn’t keep me from getting suspended.

Cheaters are cheaters. They won’t care about my terms any more than they care about USEF rules. Probably less so.[/QUOTE]

I think the hope would be that owners would stop giving horses to trainers where there were previous infractions, thus putting them out of business.

If this would actually work, I do not know. As pointed out, actually enforcing a contract can be a big giant PITA.

I do think it would help if USEF were more consistent with regards to the attitude towards Perfect Prep and the like. Even if a product contains no useful ingredients of any kind, giving something that you believe to have a performance altering effect is against the spirit of the rules even if you argue it isn’t against the letter as there are no banned substances. As long as USEF is ignoring the spirit of things and allowing sponsorships which include ads for things everyone knows are used at least because someone believes it’s an effective calming aid, it isn’t sending a very strong message to knock it off. It ends up coming across more “nudge nudge wink wink just make sure we have plausible deniability as an organization” - which isn’t going to discourage cheating effectively at all.

(Plus arguments about judging standards, considering some personality and “brilliance” to be desirable so there is less motivation to drug the horse into behaving like a robot, etc etc.)

[caballogurl]

[QUOTE=kdow;8275402]
I think the hope would be that owners would stop giving horses to trainers where there were previous infractions, thus putting them out of business.[/QUOTE]

If the lease is properly recorded with USEF, the “owner”/lessee on record would be the one receiving the punishment. Now if horses were suspended, then obviously that would negatively impact the legal owner of the horse. But like Kdow said, don’t lease your horse to a trainer that has a history or reputation for doping.

I know from talking to grooms and assistants, which trainers in my area dope and which do not. I would be very reticent to lease any horse, but I would never do so without do an extensive background check on the trainer and you can ask around “off the record” to find out if they dope. Bring a six pack of beer and talk to their grooms around 7pm at show and that is usually around the time the horses get their "cocktails ":lol:. Also, you could put a clause in the lease in regards to damages owed to the owner if the horse is sat down for doping. For example, lets say eight months into a twelve month lease, your horse is suspended for six months. So effectively your horse is suspended from showing two months past the conclusion of the lease. The penalty could be a fixed figure plus the cost of two months lease. I am not attorney, but I believe that would be an enforceable contract. It would just be a matter of collecting the money.

[vxf111]

How exactly do you think you enforce a contract when the other party won’t cooperate?! Through what free/cheap/easy/legal enforcement method?!

[Madeline]

[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 think that it was pointed out earlier in the thread that a horse out on a formal, registered-with-USEF lease became the responsibility of the person leasing the horse and their connections.

[Lord_Helpus]

\

[QUOTE=vxf111;8275543]
How exactly do you think you enforce a contract when the other party won’t cooperate?! Through what free/cheap/easy/legal enforcement method?![/QUOTE]

I think you are about 4 steps down the road from the original issue: what kind of punishment would deter people from drugging their horses.

IF that idea passes, then IF you lease your horse, then IF the horse gets drugged, then IF a lengthy suspension is handed down, then IF the suspension lasts longer than the lease, then IF the Lessee breeches the contract, THEN your question may be relevant.

Why not focus on the first issue – that of suspending the horse in addition to the Responsible Party. The FEI either does not care what their members do if a horse is suspended while leased or sold, or the people involved have put language into their contracts that deal with such a situation.

But TPTB don’t give a rat’s patootie what we think anyway. This is all hypothetical. However, for the sake of this discussion why not offer positive comments rather than be a Debbie Downer?

[Madeline]

[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8275245]
Because of a separate issue of the fact that registered leases are recorded as owners with USEF, I do not register my leases. [/QUOTE]

Well, if you don’t register the lease , you are not protected. Your choice.

[RockinHorse]

[QUOTE=Nickelodian;8275245]
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.[/QUOTE]

USEF does give protection to owners of lease horses through the recording of leases. If you choose not to take advantage of that, for whatever reason, then I don’t think you should complain about their stance on owner liability. I think you are on your own to find a way to protect yourself.

[Sunflower]

What would be a sure fire deterrence is to test ALL horses that are in line for points or money ( or horses of riders that are, for instance, junior equitation) with NOTHING to be awarded until a clean drug test is returned. The testing process would obviously need to be sped up, but it is difficult to fathom why it takes four months to get results. Any awards could be made provisionally, with checks paid only when drug test that is clean is returned, same with award of points. Do this all the way down to 10th place, or whatever is returning points/money for that class.

That would solve it all. There would be no chance of getting any money or points if riding a horse given illegal substances. The net would be cast to catch all. As it all, it sounds like it is so hit and miss that people can gamble on getting caught or not.

[vxf111]

LH that’s the point I have been trying to make all along

[Nickelodian]

[QUOTE=RockinHorse;8275606]
USEF does give protection to owners of lease horses through the recording of leases. If you choose not to take advantage of that, for whatever reason, then I don’t think you should complain about their stance on owner liability. I think you are on your own to find a way to protect yourself.[/QUOTE]

Choosing to quote this one as I knew it would come up as a theme. I am an A/O rider. My horse may or may not be for sale at some point in time. Two things I am concerned about. What happens when I get my horse back the weekend after the lease is over and I want to show him in the A/Os. USEF has told me I could not do so until the ownership was officially transferred back into my name. They have also told me I can “expedite” this transfer for a “small fee” in which case it will “only” take 4-6 weeks to happen. Otherwise it can take up to 12. 3 months of not being able to show my own horse because of a stupid rule that they record leasees as owners. I suspect this might not be true, but when I called USEF rules that is what they told me. I honestly haven’t cared that much to double check.

Second. If the horse were ever to be for sale, I want to be the recorded owner just in case someone had interest in a purchase. Otherwise there is absolutely zero connection to me. This makes me uncomfortable in a way I can’t really honestly verbalize very well. But I like myself being listed as the owner.

I don’t think that the USEF really offers any protection to registered leasers that I know of, however if I am wrong please correct me.

[sixteenhands]

[QUOTE=Lord Helpus;8275129]
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”). [/QUOTE]

Definition is in the FEI General Rules (GR).

GENERAL REGULATIONS
Article 118 - Person Responsible

1. The Person Responsible for a Horse has legal responsibility for that Horse, including responsibility under the GRs and the VRs and unless otherwise stated is liable under the Legal System (Chapter VIII).
2. It is the obligation of the Person Responsible and of every other person subject to the Statutes, GRs and Sport Rules to know the Statutes, GRs and relevant Sport Rules, and lack of such knowledge does not relieve these persons from liabilities under the Statutes, GRs and Sport Rules.
3. The Person Responsible shall be the Athlete who rides, vaults or drives the Horse during an Event, but the Owner and other Support Personnel including but not limited to grooms and veterinarians may be regarded as additional Persons Responsible if they are present at the
   Event or have made a relevant Decision about the Horse. In vaulting, the lunger shall be an
   additional Person Responsible.
4. Athlete under 18 years of age (Minor Athlete):
   4.1. If the Athlete is under 18 years of age when the entry is submitted, the NF or Chef d’Equipe must nominate a representative for the Athlete.
   4.2. The representative may be a parent of the Athlete, the Chef d’Equipe, the team coach, the team veterinarian, the Owner or some other responsible adult and shall be communicated to the OC and the NF with the entry.
   4.3. If the NF and Chef d’Equipe fail to nominate the representative, either parent of the Athlete may be considered as the representative.
   4.4. The Minor Athlete shall remain the Person Responsible, unless compelling circumstances warrant otherwise.
   4.5. The representative may represent the minor Person Responsible in all dealings with the OC, the NFs and the FEI Officials, including, but not limited to, witnessing the medication process.
   4.6. When the representative is from another NF than the Person Responsible’s, all communications
   shall take place through the Person Responsible’s NF.
5. The Person Responsible, together with the Chef d’Equipe if present, is responsible for the condition, fitness and management and for the declaring or “scratching” of each and every Horse under his jurisdiction.
6. The Person Responsible is responsible for any act performed in the stables to any Horse under his jurisdiction, by himself or by any other person with access to the Horse, and is responsible while riding, driving or exercising any Horse under his jurisdiction. The Person Responsible is
   not relieved from such responsibility as a result of the lack or insufficiency of stable security.
7. If, for any reason, the Person Responsible is unable or is prevented from caring for the Horses under his jurisdiction he must immediately notify the Secretary of the OC and the Veterinary Commission.
8. In the context of betting, the Person Responsible and/or any Support Personnel must not, by
   any manner whatsoever, infringe the principle of fair play, show non-sporting conduct, or attempt to influence the result of a Competition in a manner contrary to sporting ethics. Any violations of the above will be subject to Chapter VIII of the General Regulations and Chapter VIII of the Statutes.

[IPEsq]

[QUOTE=Sunflower;8275607]
What would be a sure fire deterrence is to test ALL horses that are in line for points or money ( or horses of riders that are, for instance, junior equitation) with NOTHING to be awarded until a clean drug test is returned. The testing process would obviously need to be sped up, but it is difficult to fathom why it takes four months to get results. Any awards could be made provisionally, with checks paid only when drug test that is clean is returned, same with award of points. Do this all the way down to 10th place, or whatever is returning points/money for that class.

That would solve it all. There would be no chance of getting any money or points if riding a horse given illegal substances. The net would be cast to catch all. As it all, it sounds like it is so hit and miss that people can gamble on getting caught or not.[/QUOTE]

You can test every horse at every show and it won’t stop cheaters. It may lessen cheating, but if we can learn anything from any sport with mandatory testing and year round testing and blood passports, etc., there will always be people trying to game the system, to stay a step ahead of the test technology. To implement such broad testing and to add the administrative nightmare of withholding prize money is just unworkable on so many levels.

[Sunflower]

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8275734]
You can test every horse at every show and it won’t stop cheaters. It may lessen cheating, but if we can learn anything from any sport with mandatory testing and year round testing and blood passports, etc., there will always be people trying to game the system, to stay a step ahead of the test technology. To implement such broad testing and to add the administrative nightmare of withholding prize money is just unworkable on so many levels.[/QUOTE]

I wonder.

How many people who knowingly give horses illegal substances do so with the idea that the chance of getting chosen for testing is relatively low, versus trying to be a sort of chemical mastermind that can outwit known testing? I would suspect it is the former rather than the latter-- meaning that comprehensive testing would deter the vast majority of knowing cheaters. There may always be some chemical mastermind at work intent on cheating tests, but I would guess they are a minority in the show world, as in other sports, and as well, the cost for trying to outwit tests increases as testing increases. At some point, there would be diminishing returns that makes it questionable that anyone other than the most extreme chemical mastermind determined to cheat no matter what would take the risk.

The problem of paying prize money is easy enough. Create an escrow account that holds the money. When an individual test is clean, generate payment.

[Single_Oxer]

Correct me if I am wrong but to answer a previous question, I do not think that USEF tests every sample they take.