Tori is champion at talent search finals

[mvp]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8352719]
In my experience it is more often the mommies drugging the ponies than any trainer.[/QUOTE]

Really?

Where are those HOs getting the goods and the knowledge to be doing any of that hands-on stuff? I can see the trainer-cum-pony-mom finding a vein with a needle, but I can’t picture the manicured soccer mom busy with all her kids buying 9 tubes of PasteQuiet and putting those down the gullet of her daughter’s pony at 6 am. Is this woman and her kid even around the show that early?

[mvp]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8352731]
Pretty unusual to find a rotational in the hunter jumper ring. Jumps are flimsy with breakaway engineering pretty monitory. Not that it can’t happen, but haven’t seen one in many years. You’ll need to head out to th cross country course to try to find that scenario.[/QUOTE]

Well the USEF is categorically safe from this kind of litigation then!

FWIW, I think this kind of suit would start out with anyone and everyone surrounding the kid and horse named. And then the process of apportioning out causal power in the cascade of events would begin. Everyone would say, “I had nothing to do with it, blame someone else.” And even defending yourself against the hot potato of blame being thrown in your lap is expensive.

But my point was that if some attorney want to go up to the top and asked if the governing body of the sport de facto formed a contributing cause because its attempt to stop drugging was quite lax, known to be so, and there are other organizations out there who do better, I’m saying that the organization’s own history is making it vulnerable to this kind of argument.

The USEF might not be able to halt drugging or make horse showing entirely safe. But it had better demonstrate better than it has that it is trying hard.

[LJD]

It’s been mentioned before, but what if USEF started testing champion & reserve champion of every division in addition to random testing? In order to cover the additional cost, an additional $8 drug fee (or some other nominal amount) was taken out of your winnings.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=LJD;8352769]
It’s been mentioned before, but what if USEF started testing champion & reserve champion of every division in addition to random testing? In order to cover the additional cost, an additional $8 drug fee (or some other nominal amount) was taken out of your winnings.[/QUOTE]

Well that won’t cover the ones who are so doped up they can barely make it around the course, which is apparently a whole lot of horses.

With regards to taking the drug fee out of the winnings: does the horse owner get that back if the sample is negative?

[vxf111]

Diversion/side point…

Maybe it depends on how you define a rotational fall, but I have seen not totally infrequently horses get caught on rails in the hunters and rotate forward and fall. The Cambridge fall at Devon was sort of in this category. I agree that fixed jumps are far more likely to call a rotational fall but sometimes a horse can catch even a rail that falls and still tumble forward. I’ve seen it happen enough to say that when everything aligns, it can and does happen even with rails that are supposed to roll out of the cups.

[lauriep]

I am just not hearing realistic scenarios of what is actually going on in the rings, as far as how these horses are performing. I see quiet horses, however they got that way, but I literally NEVER see horses that make me think it was dangerous or that I would never get on it. They still use their ears, jump beautifully, get down the lines, their eyes are not glazed over. So, exactly at what shows are you seeing this? Because I am thinking you have NEVER seen this, either, and are espousing urban legends.

As far as suing the USEF, and I have no love for them, on what grounds? They can illustrate that they test regularly, but randomly, that they catch and prosecute offenders, and that they continually upgrade their tests for current substances. If a pony/horse had a fall that COULD be attributed conclusively to drugging, how would the USEF have any culpability? Just because that animal on that day had drugs in its system, doesn’t mean the USEF was negligent. How are they supposed to test every horse, and even if they did, that would only go to show how hard they are trying.

[chunky_munky]

I think in a court of law that the USEF could easily present evidence that they are diligent in their pursuit of eliminating the use of illegal drugs. Certainly you can sue everybody and my guess is someone has already done that at some point, but I think it would be a tough prove.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=lauriep;8352807]
I am just not hearing realistic scenarios of what is actually going on in the rings, as far as how these horses are performing. I see quiet horses, however they got that way, but I literally NEVER see horses that make me think it was dangerous or that I would never get on it. They still use their ears, jump beautifully, get down the lines, their eyes are not glazed over. So, exactly at what shows are you seeing this? Because I am thinking you have NEVER seen this, either, and are espousing urban legends.

As far as suing the USEF, and I have no love for them, on what grounds? They can illustrate that they test regularly, but randomly, that they catch and prosecute offenders, and that they continually upgrade their tests for current substances. If a pony/horse had a fall that COULD be attributed conclusively to drugging, how would the USEF have any culpability? Just because that animal on that day had drugs in its system, doesn’t mean the USEF was negligent. How are they supposed to test every horse, and even if they did, that would only go to show how hard they are trying.[/QUOTE]

To the point in your first paragraph.

It doesn’t matter how the rider gets hurt, if it turns out, the horse was in violation of USEF D&M rules AND someone with deep pockets and some rage wants to make the argument that one of the culpable parties was the governing body that did a half-assed job preventing the drugging, even as it knew that was going on and could have done otherwise. It doesn’t have to be a kid in pig tails on a pony flipping over an oxer. It could be any set of causes that coincides such that someone brings suit and wants to make this claim against the USEF.

And to the second paragraph: That absolutely is the heart of the matter-- either for the hypothetical legal argument I proposed or for the USEF in reality right now. The question is, in fact, whether or not the USEF has closed up all the holes in how it set up and enforces its D&M rules such that the organization is doing more than pay lip-service to that project while folks who benefit from the lax enforcement of drugging stay on its committees and keep claiming that it is impossible to do better.

When you ask the rhetorical question, “Surely you don’t mean to suggest that every horse get tested?!” or as someone above asked, “How about taking $8 out of the paycheck of every champion and reserve champion to cover the cost of the drug test associated with their win?”… those questions should not be seen as silly or rhetorical. Rather, the USEF should stand up and say, “Yeah… if that’s what it takes, testing every horse in the top-3 from leadline to grand prix, we’re going to do it until people really and truly stop drugging horses to win.”

I don’t see how the controlling organization gets to say “Well… cheaters gonna cheat… not much we can do; not much anyone can do.” Individual people writing here can logically and justly make that statement for themselves and hold that view of their world if they want. But the USEF isn’t a position to lie back and do the same. It is the buck-stopper. And I think it wouldn’t take much to convince a jury of the same.

[chunky_munky]

The USEF is a horse show organization, not a drug testing organization. That is not their purpose. It is not possible for them to completely police the actions of every person at the horse show. You could argue that they should, but I truly don’t think it would hold up in a court of law. And frankly, if they are doing such a bad job, how come all those names keep coming up on the suspension and fines list? They are obviously getting some results. They test many, many horses all year long. And personally, I would have a problem with them wanting to stick a needle in my pony’s neck every time it showed.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8352843]
The USEF is a horse show organization, not a drug testing organization. That is not their purpose. It is not possible for them to completely police the actions of every person at the horse show. You could argue that they should, but I truly don’t think it would hold up in a court of law. And frankly, if they are doing such a bad job, how come all those names keep coming up on the suspension and fines list? They are obviously getting some results. They test many, many horses all year long. And personally, I would have a problem with them wanting to stick a needle in my pony’s neck every time it showed.[/QUOTE]

That bolded part is not true. The USEF may not be dedicated drug-testing organization, but it has a helluva lot of apparatus that suggests that it is invested in the project. Unless, of course, all that was for show.

You can’t have it both ways: A bunch of rules, procedures and the rest that would make it appear that you intended to get a job done and, also, the claim that no one actually meant to do the job.

And to the point made in your second sentence. The fact that one won’t catch all of the cheaters or that it would be physically impossible (or economically impossible or politically possible) to do so does not absolve them of making a genuine and concerted effort to limit it.

And perhaps that’s the USEF’s defense: We should be satisfied with the threshold of enforcement that USEF has already chosen for itself. They just can’t do any better despite demand, despite claims to be invested in that project, and despite other organizations’ better drug regulation being available as models.

I think it’s not true that the USEF couldn’t do better, but I can see that argument being an awesome strategy. After all, you are in the horse showing world, probably a dues-paying member of the USEF, and you just made the argument. Now they’d just have to convince the non-horseing Man on the Street in our post-Lance Armstrong moment that horse show world is a special case. Even though the FEI does better and American Horse Racing tries harder than we do, you just can’t expect this group of rich hobbyists to do the same.

Look, if we collectively hadn’t let it get this far than maybe we wouldn’t have to submit to expensive, inconvenient things like increased drug testing. Arguing that we can’t make more stringent rules because “you don’t like it” doesn’t really speak to the question of whether or not the organization is, in fact and not merely in word, committed to achieving clean, safe sport. Our liking (or disliking) what it takes to get that done is, in part, a function how how bad things were allowed to get for so long.

[Soaponarope]

[QUOTE=mvp;8352760]
Well the USEF is categorically safe from this kind of litigation then!

FWIW, I think this kind of suit would start out with anyone and everyone surrounding the kid and horse named. And then the process of apportioning out causal power in the cascade of events would begin. Everyone would say, “I had nothing to do with it, blame someone else.” And even defending yourself against the hot potato of blame being thrown in your lap is expensive.

But my point was that if some attorney want to go up to the top and asked if the governing body of the sport de facto formed a contributing cause because its attempt to stop drugging was quite lax, known to be so, and there are other organizations out there who do better, I’m saying that the organization’s own history is making it vulnerable to this kind of argument.

The USEF might not be able to halt drugging or make horse showing entirely safe. But it had better demonstrate better than it has that it is trying hard.[/QUOTE]

I thought there was a new rule at any rate that any horse that crashes must be tested? But suppose the drug testers aren’t there the day it happens?

I don’t think rotational falls are that unusual in the hunters? I know of two riders moving up to bigger fences who took long spots to big oxers and horse caught a rail and went over. Ugh. I hope never to see that scenario again. The girl in the first one broke her back; massive shoulder damage and broken bones in the other one. Awful. It definitely happens. These were A and AA shows.

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8352719]
In my experience it is more often the mommies drugging the ponies than any trainer.[/QUOTE]

Ha!

[jhg140]

[QUOTE=Horseperson112;8352534]
Yes, she has owned horses for Tori in her personal name for a while. It’s just smart from a business perspective to form an LLC, but I find the name they chose for the LLC in conjunction with the timing of other events to be interesting.[/QUOTE]

The LLC existed 6 mos+ prior to the positive drug test

[chunky_munky]

[QUOTE=mvp;8352755]
Really?

Where are those HOs getting the goods and the knowledge to be doing any of that hands-on stuff? I can see the trainer-cum-pony-mom finding a vein with a needle, but I can’t picture the manicured soccer mom busy with all her kids buying 9 tubes of PasteQuiet and putting those down the gullet of her daughter’s pony at 6 am. Is this woman and her kid even around the show that early?[/QUOTE]

There are many very hands on pony moms, many that rode themselves. Meds and paraphernalia are easily purchased online and from vets. And underground meds are available to anybody that will pay for them. Never underestimate a pony mom.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8352731]
Pretty unusual to find a rotational in the hunter jumper ring. Jumps are flimsy with breakaway engineering pretty monitory. Not that it can’t happen, but haven’t seen one in many years. You’ll need to head out to th cross country course to try to find that scenario.[/QUOTE]

I had a horse rotate ass over ears cantering on the flat in an indoor with decent footing. And he wasn’t drugged. He did land on me but I was very lucky to not get seriously hurt.

Yes…it could happen.

[chunky_munky]

Sure, everybody has a story like that, but they are somewhat abnormal. True rotational falls are just not that common.

[skydy]

[QUOTE=jhg140;8352510]
KLD has owned jumpers for Tori for several years - Cafino was purchased at WEF 2015, and Take the High Road LLC was an entity at the time of that purchase, and was the listed owner of the horse.[/QUOTE]

It’s nice that someone is supplying jumpers for Miss Colvin. I hope that KLD sets a good example, expects strict adherence to the rules, and that Miss Colvin will move to the jumpers and continue what looks to be a very promising career.

I watched the junior jumpers (on line) closely today. I was looking for a discernible difference in Tori’s riding compared to other, quite successful, juniors.

I noticed her very quiet hands immediately and continued to concentrate on watching each rider’s hands.
Her horse was not always behaving well , but her hands…It’s no wonder that horses go well for her.

I hope very much for her to succeed in her adult career.

I hope that her connections, being aware of the huge influence they have in ensuring her future happiness and success as a rider and human being, will care for her enough not to let her down and that as an adult , she will know who to listen to.

It must be a difficult situation to be so talented and so young.

Good luck kiddo!

[vxf111]

[QUOTE=chunky munky;8353055]
There are many very hands on pony moms, many that rode themselves. Meds and paraphernalia are easily purchased online and from vets. And underground meds are available to anybody that will pay for them. Never underestimate a pony mom.[/QUOTE]

And I would add that there’s a general atmosphere in the horse world where people are used to having therapeutic drugs on hand and for non-vet techs to know how to do IM injections-- and that’s considered OK. So maybe that breeds an atmosphere that bleeds into calming drugs seeming similarly OK?

Just anecdotally, I think in the H/J world it’s considered normal to have some bute and banamine on hand. And for Jane Q. Owner or her barn manager to give IM Adequan and similar. Equine vets seem to often accept this as acceptable or even good practice. I don’t think you see that same attitude with dog/cat vets. They don’t expect there to be a sleeve of Previcoxx at home just in case, or for the average dog owner to be capable of giving an IM shot.

For example, my cat was recently ill. The vet suggested keeping him an extra night to give him one more shot of an anti-vomiting medication. I said “if it’s sub-q or IM, you can give me the dose, I’ll give it to him tomorrow.” She just about fell over. I don’t think the average cat owner can give a shot. If it had been a horse, I think it would have been almost an expectation that either the owner, barn manager, trainer, or SOMEONE where the horse lived was capable of giving a shot.

There’s a sort of casualness about non-vets giving medicines in the horse world. I am not suggesting that’s bad. I like being able to give a couple of grams of bute for a minor tweak without having to throw my horse on the trailer and head to the clinic-- but perhaps that’s the start of the culture that thinks it’s okay for non-vets to be administering medicines and making judgment calls about when they’re appropriate?

I dunno… I just throw it out there. In a world in which meds are all around and non-vets give them… maybe the line starts blurring a little?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

Being a lawyer too…I wouldn’t want to be explaining it to the court about how freak the accident was on the drugged horse. Remembering that the case will likely be brought by the kids parents’ health insurance company who will be looking for any and all deep pockets.

I can think of several liability lawsuits that HAVE already happened that I thought were ridiculous…and whether one wins in defending against one…it costs money. I remember the law suit against Morven Park and a hunt when a riders horse stepped in a groundhog hole out hunting.

eta: I’m not being pearl clutching but absolutely do see the real risk of liability. Obviously the highest is with the coach/trainer but yes, a smart lawyer might take a run at the USEF as well.

[IPEsq]

In a civil suit for personal injury, the range of behaviors that are culpable go from intentional to reckless to negligent except in situations where the law is strict liability. I honestly don’t see how you would establish causation even if you could get close to suggesting USEF was negligent in the hypothetical injured kid on drugged horse case, should the individual claim even allow liability for negligence.