In the 90’s every international horse got meticulously blood tested at home to see how much bute or ban they could tolerate and remain under FEI permitted levels. There was a lot of 5, 5, 7 going on. In retrospect I find that WAY preferable to the nefarious chemistry that seems to be the norm these days, both with painkillers, an inexplicable amount of calmers, blood boosters and the masking drugs.
Also sticking your horse in a whirlpool made of a muck tub, a horse vacuum and a bag of ice was wicked effective. Horses would bound into it like a kid in a swimming hole.
10 Likes
Question: when a horse is treated by the US vets is the owner/rider billed for it? Wouldn’t they know it’s happening because of the invoices or does the US team vets pay for it?
2 Likes
Maybe there is a flat fee that is a comprehensive charge?
I’d assume USEF pays, since they are “leasing” the horse. Sort of. That’s one of those grey areas you’d need to see the contract!
5 Likes
Was there really a contract though? Or was it more of an agreement/waiver?
1 Like
@Jealoushe
Well, most of the time, we get vet invoices well after the vet has seen our horses, so, no, I don’t think that would have tipped her off.
Also, if you re-read both KC Branscomb’s and Branscomb Farm’s FB pages, her accounting of the situation was that the groom called her from stabling to say that the horse was getting-or was about to get–shots from the vet, and he (the groom, Pepe) was concerned.
So, she had some awareness–and I am not faulting her. All the decisions for the horse’s care fall back on USEF, as per the contract…so the decisions seem to have been made and implemented as such.
@fivestrideline --agreed, as there was other info on the FB posts that suggested USEF paid for travel too. And since the horse was on loan to USEF…makes sense.
5 Likes
@fivestrideline - this post from earlier actually links the “horse loan agreement” in question.
1 Like
Ah, yep I couldn’t remember if it had been posted or just talked about!
1 Like
Has this provision been brought up yet:
“The USEF and the horse owner(s) understand that under all normal circumstances the horse(s) will be ridden/driven exclusively by _________________________________. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Chef d’Equipe reserves the right to change the rider/driver/vaulter, if, in his/her opinion, the best interests of the USEF will be served by doing so, providing the change is not in conflict with FEI rules.”
I wonder if that has been implemented, and under what circumstances.
3 Likes
Maybe it’s language that was used in earlier iterations of these sort of agreements from a different era, and they just left it in there?
Just spitballing.
1 Like
I vaguely remember way back in the day hearing a story from my trainer that a rider got swapped to a different horse or that it was something that happened regularly at the Olympics. Again, third hand info - maybe someone remembers the exact circumstance.
This used to be done at WEG. I think the last time was Kentucky, when we all held our breath for Hickstead.
5 Likes
That was different - it was the final part of the class for the top 4, and you knew if you made the top 4 it would happen.
This agreement specifies that USEF could decide it would swap you off your mount if it benefits USEF to do so.
7 Likes
Ah yes. Switching horses and being re-assigned a mount are very different. Thanks.
4 Likes
Looking back at the agreement, I’m struck by the following paragraphs…
It is understood that the horse owner(s) must certify, by signing the USEF application for the above competition,
that they have received and read the Selection Procedures for the Team; USEF Code of Conduct; USEF Release, Assumption
of Risk, Waiver, and Indemnification; and USEF Safe Sport Policy and agree to bound by them.
It is further understood that as required in the FEI General and Veterinary Regulations, the USEF’s duly appointed
Chef d’Equipe has final responsibility for general management, schooling, declaration and scratching of entries, and the
observance of veterinary administration for all Team horses.
The USEF does not carry insurance on any horses placed in its custody and cannot be responsible for any accident,
lameness, illness, or injury that could happen during stabling, training, transportation or competition. You may, of course,
maintain your own insurance coverage.
By signing this agreement the horse owner(s) give their full permission to the USEF and its agents to administer
medication to their horse(s) in the interest of the horse(s) welfare and well being during the loan period.
Certainly after this situation, USEF will need to update the agreement. I would imagine many owners might hesitate to sign one. With the 2024 Olympics looming, is there any indication they have revised the agreement and made significant changes?
8 Likes
ok I wasn’t meaning she’s to blame or anything just curious how it worked. When I leased my mare for Pan Ams we were still responsible for the vet bills if they had an emergency. We also had to get insurance for them for the event.
2 Likes
That used to be standard, maybe as late as the 1980s, and it’s also part of the story in International Velvet, which was based on the story of Markham being destroyed on the plane on the way to the 1964 Olympics. Mike Plumb was switched to another horse, Bold Minstrel, who he had not competed before, and won a silver medal. (check the link if you don’t know the story of this horse!)
It used to be that if you loaned the horse to the team the coach had a great deal of practical leeway to reassign combinations, and also that there were certain horses that were loaned for the team without a rider (Blue Stone was one of those). However, the owners and riders put their feet down and were no longer willing to lend under those terms.
Is the clause there so that someone can exercise or school the horse? Surely it’s no longer the case that anyone else could be entered as the rider for the competition. I can’t imagine why this would need to be in a release or why you’d ever do it without the rider’s consent.
7 Likes
My parents came back from the 68 Olympics with a story of this being attempted, but the parents of the rider (the alternate) that was going to be pulled off the horse threatened to withdraw the horse and it didn’t happen. Neither the horse nor rider in question competed. Since I know someone will ask it was the eventing team.
3 Likes
I don’t think so, based on the use of the word “exclusively.”
If it’s John Miller’s name in the blank - then under the first sentence the horse will be ridden “exclusively by John Miller.” The second sentence changes that rider if the best interests of USEF are served by doing so.
The whole thing read like a holdover from 40 years prior (and I appreciate that link!) But given that the agreement was for the 2020 games, and presumably is identical or very similar to what people were still signing up to recently, it seems bizarre it was still being included.
Just a thought, you were leasing your horse to the Pan Am organizers for use in an event by whichever contestant drew it, not as a EC horse so the agreement would likely be different.
5 Likes
