I had one tested on July 19th. The sample hit the system on July 21st, and the result was posted on August 11th.
So, in my most recent experience, drug testing is getting faster.
On the whole perfect prep sponsorship issue, Perfect Products makes other products besides perfect prep. I am not sure USEF has the luxury of turning down that much sponsorship money because ONE of the products it makes theoretically violates the spirit of the rules. I say theoretically because vitamin B and magnesium have physical benefits to the horse as well (why they are added to feed too). Using bute also arguably violates the spirit of the rules because it certainly enhances performance but it has a therapeutic purpose so it is allowed within threshold levels. The ingredients in perfect prep also have therapeutic benefits to the horse’s physiology. We all know a physically comfortable horse is a calmer, more pliable horse. That is very different than altering brain chemistry (GABA) or cardiovascular function (IV magnesium) to produce a sedated effect.
I have this wild idea of legalizing medications and supplements but making it so you have to have a vet’s prescription to be administered. Just like in humans. Also legalize things such as ace, dex, etc. but make owners pay a fee to have them administered by vets at the show.
All of the criminalization and legalization of drugs continues to drive competitors to alternative means of getting by. I agree that the nature of the law is good but I don’t think you can criminalize folks in to compliance. If it’s not ace, it dex, if it’s not dex, it’s gaba, if it’s not gaba, it’s perfect prep, if it’s not perfect prep, it’s 4 hours of lunging and 4 hours of riding.
Take a look at drug rules for reiners and get back to me.
[QUOTE=alteringwego;8275971]
I have this wild idea of legalizing medications and supplements but making it so you have to have a vet’s prescription to be administered. Just like in humans. Also legalize things such as ace, dex, etc. but make owners pay a fee to have them administered by vets at the show.
All of the criminalization and legalization of drugs continues to drive competitors to alternative means of getting by. I agree that the nature of the law is good but I don’t think you can criminalize folks in to compliance. If it’s not ace, it dex, if it’s not dex, it’s gaba, if it’s not gaba, it’s perfect prep, if it’s not perfect prep, it’s 4 hours of lunging and 4 hours of riding.
Take a look at drug rules for reiners and get back to me.[/QUOTE]
Yes, but I think vets are more susceptible to coercion than are human doctors.
I can tell you that vets working for big training barns already feel pressure from trainers to do This n That to get a horse fixed up, pronto and into the ring. Some vets I’ve had tell me that they’ve had trainers making the medical decisions-- leaving a list of which horse should get which joint injected during a visit.
If you are the one guy with a truck and some student loan debt trying to keep a trainer’s account with 40+ horses, and the pro says he needs prescribed IV magnesium for his horses, what is that guy going to do?
Much better to make the governing organization that policeman in this case than the single practitioner who can ill-afford refusing a big client.
[QUOTE=alteringwego;8275971]
I have this wild idea of legalizing medications and supplements but making it so you have to have a vet’s prescription to be administered. Just like in humans. Also legalize things such as ace, dex, etc. but make owners pay a fee to have them administered by vets at the show.
All of the criminalization and legalization of drugs continues to drive competitors to alternative means of getting by. I agree that the nature of the law is good but I don’t think you can criminalize folks in to compliance. If it’s not ace, it dex, if it’s not dex, it’s gaba, if it’s not gaba, it’s perfect prep, if it’s not perfect prep, it’s 4 hours of lunging and 4 hours of riding.
Take a look at drug rules for reiners and get back to me.[/QUOTE]
Are reiners not governed by the same D&M rules under USEF as everyone else?
[QUOTE=Sunflower;8275801]
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.[/QUOTE]
I dunno…why do people in other sports with mandatory testing who KNOW FOR A FACT they will be tested on a given day still try to cheat? You see it in cycling and track and field etc. etc. You see it in Olympics level show jumping. Sometimes it’s a “mistaken” use of a steroid cream or something. I mean, you would think that it would be a deterrent in these other sports, but you still see headlines about dopers all the time. The urge to win will always be stronger for some people. The better testing gets, the more deterrent factor is there for some people. But a definite, this will clean up the sport once and for all? No way. I don’t have that much faith in humanity.
[QUOTE=alteringwego;8275971]
I have this wild idea of legalizing medications and supplements but making it so you have to have a vet’s prescription to be administered. Just like in humans. Also legalize things such as ace, dex, etc. but make owners pay a fee to have them administered by vets at the show.
All of the criminalization and legalization of drugs continues to drive competitors to alternative means of getting by. I agree that the nature of the law is good but I don’t think you can criminalize folks in to compliance. If it’s not ace, it dex, if it’s not dex, it’s gaba, if it’s not gaba, it’s perfect prep, if it’s not perfect prep, it’s 4 hours of lunging and 4 hours of riding.
Take a look at drug rules for reiners and get back to me.[/QUOTE]
You have a point. I’ve been showing since the dark ages and drugging/medicating has always been a problem and it always will be a problem. The only change is that it will get more expensive to catch the cheaters. But no matter how hard you try, the powers that be will always be one step behind those people looking for an edge.
The NCHA has allowed “therapeutic” doses of Acepromazine as long as it’s administered by a licensed vet. Nobody’s died yet. I seem to remember that the NRHA also allowed it, but added Ace to the banned substances list as a condition of reining becoming part of FEI competitions and the WEG.
At least Ace is a known drug and it’s side effects are well-known. If it’s administered by a licensed vet at the show, the chances of over medicating or giving a substance that will harm the horse down the road are a lot less. It also might stop the excessive lunging that in my opinion, is far worse…it’s just legal to cripple your horse by running it around on a small circle for hours at every show so its quiet in the ring.
[QUOTE=fourfillies;8268200]
Certainly Dr. Parker will find that $300 administrative fee onerous. The freight to return will be more. USEF/USHJA continued efforts to exact “meaningful change” hard at work here for sure. Pathetic for our “sport”.[/QUOTE]
And any winnings. What is more onerous is her association with the violations.
If they wanted to get tough on it, they’d keep the fines and add a 3 strikes rule.
1nce can be an honest mistake, I think it can happen. I think ignorance is not excuse but it can be a mistake.
2ce is walking the line.
3rd time you are banned from USEF competitions for X YEARS or forever.
Some BNTs would be long gone.
I don’t know the logistics as in for how long, all the horses that may be in a barn multiply the chance of mistakes. But I do know that in the 38 years I have been with a BNT, lots of clients, lots of horses (and young horses) he or his wife have never been set down. So competing clean can be done.
(And no, it isn’t that he’s never been caught.) We’ve been test many times. Huh, and now that I think about it for a LONG stretch we had a high school kid feeding and doing supplements and (shocker) never a mistake or mix up with a banned substance.
[QUOTE=Go Fish;8276191]
You have a point. I’ve been showing since the dark ages and drugging/medicating has always been a problem and it always will be a problem. The only change is that it will get more expensive to catch the cheaters. But no matter how hard you try, the powers that be will always be one step behind those people looking for an edge.
The NCHA has allowed “therapeutic” doses of Acepromazine as long as it’s administered by a licensed vet. Nobody’s died yet. I seem to remember that the NRHA also allowed it, but added Ace to the banned substances list as a condition of reining becoming part of FEI competitions and the WEG.
At least Ace is a known drug and it’s side effects are well-known. If it’s administered by a licensed vet at the show, the chances of over medicating or giving a substance that will harm the horse down the road are a lot less. It also might stop the excessive lunging that in my opinion, is far worse…it’s just legal to cripple your horse by running it around on a small circle for hours at every show so its quiet in the ring.[/QUOTE]
I think anyone who has shown for a long time completely agrees with this . But I think the opportunity for that approach is long gone, never to return.
Have not read the entire thread, but it certainly is a topic that is disturbing especially regarding the hunters.
I am mainly a dressage person, but like my horses to cross train and show in other arenas to keep things interesting for them. The bit I’ve inquired and have heard through the grapevine is that it is far easier to list the trainers who don’t cheat around here via various cocktails. If I can know this as an outsider, the clients must know too and to me it has to start there with the owners to speak up and say no, I don’t want my horse drugged to show or every time I ride in a lesson. There are some who even carry around syringes while teaching lessons and as soon as a horse or pony gives a hairy eyeball, boom, they get drugged, even with the kid/client right there watching on board.
I can understand a bit of ace or dex for the first few times out at a schooling show, but once you are ready to play in the big leagues then no. And yes, lunging forever is bad - so ride them out and also as far as judging goes, don’t penalize a few markers of enthusiasm - like a slight head tossing after a clever jump.
Also not okay, but have heard of trainers not letting the horses sleep at night via blowing whistles to startle them throughout the night so they are super tired and sleepy the next day. Sad, really…
But owners can make a huge difference by speaking up, threatening to leave, etc. - more so than drug testing and penalties I believe.
[QUOTE=alteringwego;8275971]
I have this wild idea of legalizing medications and supplements but making it so you have to have a vet’s prescription to be administered. Just like in humans. Also legalize things such as ace, dex, etc. but make owners pay a fee to have them administered by vets at the show.
All of the criminalization and legalization of drugs continues to drive competitors to alternative means of getting by. I agree that the nature of the law is good but I don’t think you can criminalize folks in to compliance. If it’s not ace, it dex, if it’s not dex, it’s gaba, if it’s not gaba, it’s perfect prep, if it’s not perfect prep, it’s 4 hours of lunging and 4 hours of riding.
Take a look at drug rules for reiners and get back to me.[/QUOTE]
Wish this would work – unfortunately much of these meds are from that source – maybe without a script, but enforcing writing a script is next to impossible – this is why setting the horse down makes so much sense, no chasing or defining or identifying the “responsible” party - the horse tests positive, it gets set down
For those that talk about the expense of testing the winners, for a few years (like since this BB began) a few of us have suggested that you don’t have to test ALL the winners. Which classes (outside of obvious big ones like perhaps 1-6 at a the derby finals, etc.) can be random in such a way even the testers don’t know until they get to the show. Meaning you test 1st-3rd in [insert division class] or Ch/Reserve + 1 winner in division Y, as well as X random horses in other divisions. Maybe it’s 5 divisions but the division selection is random and from USEF, not in the hands of the tester.
That would have the added bonus of taking the perceived bias out of it (“I was tested, it was a witch hunt!” No, you won a lot. That’s a good thing, now let’s make sure it’s a good thing) and also quite frankly, if your drugging protocol doesn’t get you much in the way of top finishes, I really don’t think anyone is beating down the door to copy you (Drugging. Yer doin’ it wrong). Either way, it’s just as likely you get picked up in a random test as you are likely to be tested today.
And if you saw the testers at the gate and feared you would win your way into a positive test you could always throw the class (I have a humorous vision of an ammy level of chips suddenly happening in a 1st year class, but I has a dark sense of humor). If you do, damn near everyone is going to suspect what happened and losing was a tiny bit of justice in itself. Not full justice, but at least some.
But as long as I have been involved in some level in this sport, coming from racing, I have never figured out the logic behind not testing the winners.
[QUOTE=Calamber;8276206]
And any winnings. What is more onerous is her association with the violations.[/QUOTE]
She ought to know that all might not be clean since Scott Stewart is one of her primary trainers, and he’s been dinged multiple times for many years for drugging. Perhaps to her winning is more important than association with violations and violators.
[QUOTE=vineyridge;8276626]
She ought to know that all might not be clean since Scott Stewart is one of her primary trainers, and he’s been dinged multiple times for many years for drugging. Perhaps to her winning is more important than association with violations and violators.[/QUOTE]
Technically Scott’s violations were for over medicating not using illegal drugs. There is a difference.
For those saying legalize Ace - that is a drug that acts to alter the horse’s level
of consciousness - not something the USEF would ever allow. Some horses have an adverse reaction to Ace and trainers have no idea which ones or how to overcome the reaction. I can’t imagine a vet saying “Sure I’ll give your horse Ace before you jump it around a course” - talk about a lawsuit waiting to happen. The USEF would just be looking at a massive lawsuit should someone get hurt while
riding on Ace.
Every option has a dark cloud over it.
[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]
The all-or-nothing approach will shut down every aspect of enforcement, because nothing will get the right result every time.
The answer is that it is the same as a breach of any contract. If the contract value is enough (and in many of these cases it may well be), you sue. You may not get blood from this turnip, but you will have a heavy impact on the life of the cheater being sued and so create a punitive consequence for the breach.
Until it is resolved the lawsuit is part of that person’s financial status and is given heavy weight by most standard credit processes, from car loans to credit cards to mortgages. Depending on the suit, it could shut down many of their financial options even while nothing active is happening on the suit. It may be worth filing even if the person who was wronged has little to gain from filing the suit.
All of these points are just as true for the current testing protocol. If this is the argument, why test at all, why even have rules about meds? The current procedure is also expensive and it is full of gaping holes. The lack of a perfect solution is not a valid argument to give up, especially if a protocol could significantly lessen cheating.
This is a scientific fact: The most effective way to regulate behavior is not punitive. It is to remove or significantly lessen the incentive to do the wrong thing, and increase the rewards for doing the right thing. It’s much easier if people regulate themselves because they want to, than it is to try to discover, catch and deliver consequences to the bad actors.
What is the source of the incentive to cheat with drugs? Fix that and the problem will solve itself.
Wouldn’t that be easier? Why isn’t it?
One thing I’m certain is true: Fixing the incentive would be far, far cheaper than testing and enforcing sanctions. If that’s not so, explain the cost comparison, and then thanks for explaining a terribly flawed system. 
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8276694]
All of these points are just as true for the current testing protocol. If this is the argument, why test at all, why even have rules about meds? The current procedure is also expensive and it is full of gaping holes. The lack of a perfect solution is not a valid argument to give up, especially if a protocol could significantly lessen cheating.[/QUOTE]
I don’t disagree with you. I disagreed with this: “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.”
And I’ll also leave this here: http://velonews.competitor.com/2015/08/news/the-test-that-caught-tom-danielson_381086
And compare it with this:
http://cyclingtips.com.au/2015/08/tom-danielson-reveals-positive-test-for-synthetic-testosterone/
Anything sound familiar? I can guarantee Tommie D is no chemical mastermind. In fact, he’s on a team who has made it their mission to “clean up the sport”.
[QUOTE=OverandOnward;8276699]
One thing I’m certain is true: Fixing the incentive would be far, far cheaper than testing and enforcing sanctions. If that’s not so, explain the cost comparison, and then thanks for explaining a terribly flawed system. :)[/QUOTE]
The incentive is to win. If the current method of identifying those who are breaking the rules by collecting samples and testing AFTER the classes have already been completed is abolished, judges would have to find a way to identify those who are breaking the rules at the time the classes are running, and then NOT pin those horses. Obviously that would cost nothing, but I can’t imagine how it could possibly be done. There are already enough complaints about how subjective hunter judging is; can you imagine what would happen if judges started guessing who is using banned substances/over-medicating and who isn’t?
We’ve been focusing the conversation on the owners’ responsibility in all this, but I’m also wondering what this is going to do to the catch riding aspect of hunters if the riders are going to be subject to suspensions.
[QUOTE=ynl063w;8276732]
The incentive is to win. If the current method of identifying those who are breaking the rules by collecting samples and testing AFTER the classes have already been completed is abolished, judges would have to find a way to identify those who are breaking the rules at the time the classes are running, and then NOT pin those horses. Obviously that would cost nothing, but I can’t imagine how it could possibly be done. There are already enough complaints about how subjective hunter judging is; can you imagine what would happen if judges started guessing who is using banned substances/over-medicating and who isn’t?[/QUOTE]
Completely missed my point. COMPLETELY. :winkgrin:
