This is what I was remembering!
1 Like
Exactly my thoughts. The Selevit without testing selenium levels⊠the not uncommon potential for a reaction⊠the lack of notification to the owner⊠unnecessary, tragic and heartbreaking. 
8 Likes
Strange enough it was actually run as an FEI event under the Pan Ams. I looked for my agreement in my emails but I think I have a printed copy, going to try and dig it out.
3 Likes
That is interesting to read. Let us know if you find your hard copy!
2 Likes
I am usually one to remind people not to jump to conclusions. But. Giving selevit is such a huge mistake/bad judgement call. Thereâs no way they had ran bloodwork for selenium levels. I canât see a path where that doesnât fall directly on the shoulders of the vet, who should have known better.
Itâs like giving a diabetic insulin because they are faint without checking blood sugar first. Maybe itâs okay the first few patients you do that on⊠but one day, one of those patients is going to need sugar, not insulin.
22 Likes
I agree. When I first read âoff labelâ I thought it must be something like OsphosâŠused so often on NQR horses. Then I looked at the label with nothing mentioning horses.
I understand what you are saying⊠however, we were just discussing the USEF loan agreement a few posts back, and I went back and looked at the actual document someone else linked previously, and one paragraph in particular seems noteworthyâŠ
It is further understood that as required in the FEI General and Veterinary Regulations, the USEFâs duly appointed
Chef dâEquipe has final responsibility for general management, schooling, declaration and scratching of entries, and the
observance of veterinary administration for all Team horses.
Anyway⊠multiple people on this thread have said all along that at this level, decisions are made by a management team. And if selevit was being administered off label to mitigate muscle soreness, and to not only help the horse get through his final jog but also perform his best in the final leg⊠I would assume a few different members of the management team thought this was a good idea, and it wasnât necessarily the independent decision of the team vet.
I guess the team vet could have and maybe should have said âIâm not giving selevit. We havenât tested the horseâs selenium levels and the risks of giving it outweigh any possible benefit in terms of reducing muscle soreness.â But⊠as has become quite clear during this discussion⊠it seems like thatâs not typical at this level. Everyone is trying to keep the horses as comfortable as possible and maintain a competitive edge.
5 Likes
Look here:
3 Likes
I think that happened way back in the day when the chef dâequipe could basically pick anyone he wanted for the teams, and assign the horses as he saw fit.
I think that would cause a mass riot today. Especially given the prices on these horses.
9 Likes
Even if others in management said âwe want this doneâ as a medical professional, the vet should have refused without further testing. Whether or not it was his idea, he was the medical professional on site and it was his duty to provide care for the horse. He failed in providing the best treatment he could.
If I go to the hospital to have my appendix taken out, and the hospital CEO tells the surgeon to amputate my foot, does that mean the surgeon isnât at blame? No; it just means two people are at blame. It certainly doesnât protect the surgeon from my lawsuit.
Now, I will say, that I donât know how contentious this position is for veterinary care in FEI competition. He may have felt that if he said no he would loose his job. Thatâs not an excuse, but if thatâs the case thatâs a culture change that needs to be addressed.
Every year it seems, USEF has some concerning controversy come out that stems from âwe did it like this back in the dayâ. I feel like they are constantly playing catch up instead of trying to be ahead of the ball. This contract worked 40 years ago when no one had a cell phone and a horse could need treatment when the owner was in another country and couldnât be reached for hours or maybe days. But No one has looked at this since and gone, âgosh, seems like this might be outdated. Time to get the contract lawyers on thisâ?
18 Likes
I think it is essentially what Hardin is saying (in her FB post), while the owner is claiming she and her vet were left out of the decision-making process. It seems unlikely that the horseâs entire team was left out of the decision on how to treat the horse. But I also canât see why the owner would lie, especially so publically (when presumably it would be easy to disprove if there were witnesses who saw her be informed etc). Who knows perhaps one day we will have an answer in court documents I guess
2 Likes
But this contract is from 2020, and owners are signing what is a legally binding document granting that permission to USEF.
Maybe itâs my lawyer paranoia shining through, but I am shocked USEF was able to get the owners of such valuable animals to sign this in the first place.
17 Likes
I donât doubt the owner was left in the dark but I do doubt the vet didnât tell ANYONE else. I think the lone gunman rogue vet who wonât be rehired (problem solved! No changes needed!) is an awfully convenient fall man for no systematic accountability from any other party admitting they consented as the person who represented having care and custody of the horse. If I polled 50 random owners at WEF and asked them what medications their horse had in its system, I doubt many would get it right.
9 Likes
Thx! I did not see that on the link I posted above.
If this was a typical owner, sure. But the âteamâ in Riyadh was KC, Pepe, Jill, and Rudy. None of those people were going to not tell KC that the horse was getting meds when she specifically said not to give him meds unless they cleared it with her. Pepe even called her to tell her. Thereâs not a chance in hell that the vet told Rudy or Jill and they didnât run it by KC or Pepe and just said âoh ya, no problem.â As has been said before, KC bred and raised this horse, she lives on the farm where he was born and lived for 14 years. Sheâs more involved than almost every owner Iâve met.
Whether or not the vet ran the injection protocol by the USEF team is unknown, but at the end of the day itâs the vetâs responsibility to keep the horse alive, and if he injected something this dangerous (he did), thatâs on him, no one else.
17 Likes
I absolutely agree that KC is extremely involved and knowledgeable about her horse. Didnât mean to have it appear I suggested otherwise.
4 Likes
Understood. Maybe the vet told the USET management (or they told him what to give), but either way, heâs responsible for knowing what heâs giving.
3 Likes
The loan agreement states that the Chef DâEquipe has a degree of oversight when it comes to veterinary decisions. What that means in practice? I donât know. But thatâs a piece of the situation that is also not getting discussed in articles yet.
5 Likes
When I referred to management team above as the people who might have made the decision, I was referring to the USEF people managing the whole team, not the horseâs personal caregivers.
7 Likes
And what does it and doesnât it cover, and were amendments made to itâŠ
.
2 Likes
