Tori is champion at talent search finals

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8353229]
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.[/QUOTE]

I never said it would win. But I can think of fact patterns and statements that could possibly pass a motion to dismiss. Especially if the trainer has been found to have violated the rules in the past but was still permitted to train/show junior horses at sanctioned shows. It would smell very bad to those outside the sport. Think of other sports…do they let a coach who doped athletes still coach kids? I’m seeing the jump by those outside of the industry.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8353247]
I never said it would win. But I can think of fact patterns and statements that could possibly pass a motion to dismiss. Especially if the trainer has been found to have violated the rules in the past but was still permitted to train/show junior horses. It would smell very bad to those outside the sport.[/QUOTE]

The outside world doesn’t even know about this world, and if they did, they would most certainly not think of it as a “sport”. The general public has no interest in smelling the hunter/jumper world, let alone distinguishing the smell as “bad” versus “good”.

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8353266]
The outside world doesn’t even know about this world, and if they did, they would most certainly not think of it as a “sport”. The general public has no interest in smelling the hunter/jumper world, let alone distinguishing the smell as “bad” versus “good”.[/QUOTE]

your missing the point. We were discussing a hypothetical lawsuit…where judges/jury would be looking at the world closely to see who to tag with liability/culpability. And my point is if you even try and describe his world, including the doping to them…it would smell bad that the governing body doesn’t seriously sanction people that drug a horse ridden by a minor (and let’s them back in the game even after a suspension) in the sense of who should carry some of the culpability and whether the lack of action by the governing body and the foreseeable risk of injury was negligent conduct.

[Soaponarope]

Public ignorance of the HJ world doesn’t mean the sport shouldn’t be concerned nor does it mean that someone from the outside might not get a bee in their bonnet about the sport. More regulation from within would be a very good thing before some animal rights activist goes ballistic about horses with collapsed veins, 9tubeapoolza, etc… This is what happened with the NYC carriage horse debate which almost drove that industry out of business - but hopefully not. I’ve always thought there were child labor issues with our world as well. That flies totally under the radar right now. It’s actually the people outside the sport that we should be most worried about IMHO.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=bornfreenowexpensive;8353274]
your missing the point. We were discussing a hypothetical lawsuit…where judges/jury would be looking at the world closely to see who to tag with liability/culpability. And my point is if you even try and describe his world, including the doping to them…it would smell bad that the governing body doesn’t seriously sanction people that drug a horse ridden by a minor (and let’s them back in the game even after a suspension) in the sense of who should carry some of the culpability and whether the lack of action by the governing body and the foreseeable risk of injury was negligent conduct.[/QUOTE]

I was addressing your comment about how the hunter/jumper world would smell to the outside world. And I truly believe that the world at large doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the hunter/jumper world. If you disagree, so be it.

Let’s look at it this way. Most here seem to want the USEF to find a way to catch every single person who is not following the rules, no matter what it takes.

In most states today, possessing marijuana on your person is illegal. Therefore, the police force in every single town in all of America (well, except those in which marijuana is legal - those are like local, unrated shows that don’t have those rules in place) should assume that every single person is in possession of marijuana, and they should be expected to search every pedestrian and driver they come across and search them and their vehicles, if applicable, for possession of marijuana. Because it doesn’t matter if there is no evidence of marijuana possession; it must be assumed that every single person in every town in the USA is in possession of marijuana. How can you catch all the bad guys if you don’t make this assumption?

Are you willing to be stopped and searched every time you leave your home, even if you’ve never in your life been in possession of marijuana, so that those who ARE in possession can be caught? Or can you live with the fact that there might be some people who have a joint in their possession who won’t get caught, so that you can go about your perfectly legal life without being suspected of being guilty? Given this option, do you trust that the laws in place are there to target those who are using drugs in a way that is a danger to society, while at the same time protect those who have no involvement in illegal drugs at all?

And of course this would have to be paid for somehow. So how would you feel about a few hundred dollars added to your yearly taxes to cover it? Hey, it’s for the greater good, so why not?

Sobriety checkpoints are a good analogy to USEF drug testing. No police force can catch every drunk driver all the time. They do what they can, but they just can’t catch everyone. Again, life isn’t perfect, but you have to settle for the best you can do. USEF’s best might be better than what they are doing now, but they’ll never catch everyone, every time.

[IPEsq]

Let’s take the situation of GABA or IV Mag as the drug in the hypothetical lawsuit. Who would get sued besides the trainer or whoever gave the drug is the vet who supplied drugs with no therapeutic purpose. And the USEF has rules that ban these kinds of drugs with no therapeutic purpose. That USEF’s penalties and volume of testing have been isufficient to create a culture of clean sport is so far removed. Causation is probably going to be the “but for” standard here. So, kid wouldn’t have gotten hurt but for USEF’s action. No…too tenuous. The actors are the vets and the ones with the needle in hand. Sure, someone could try to sue USEF, but I think there is a good probability that it would get dismissed. But I don’t do injury cases and we have only made up facts, so this is just personal opinion.

[mvp]

[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]

Good advice, the bolded part.

Damn. I guess I have been hanging out with adults and po’ people for too long because I would not have expected the ladies you see in their hats and matchy-match outfits leading ponies at Devon to be the ones that would later do the drugging.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8353297]
I was addressing your comment about how the hunter/jumper world would smell to the outside world. And I truly believe that the world at large doesn’t give a rat’s ass about the hunter/jumper world. If you disagree, so be it.[/QUOTE]

With all due respect, you are still missing bornfreenowexpensive’s point, for the same reason you did last time and that she explained then: The whole premise of the thought experiment we are discussing is that the whole thing becomes a jury trial. So at least 12 members of the public needs to scrutinize our dirty laundry. And whether or not that trial happens, I can picture the NYT or similar writing about it.

[ynl063w]

[QUOTE=mvp;8353351]
With all due respect, you are still missing bornfreenowexpensive’s point, for the same reason you did last time and that she explained then: The whole premise of the thought experiment we are discussing is that the whole thing becomes a jury trial. So at least 12 members of the public needs to scrutinize our dirty laundry. And whether or not that trial happens, I can picture the NYT or similar writing about it.[/QUOTE]

Didn’t the NYT write about the Humble incident? If there was a public (and by public, I mean the general public not involved in the horse world) outcry about that to the point that there were 12 of them who cared enough to want to insert themselves into the hunter/jumper world so that they could help stop the madness, I missed it. Please provide a link, if one exists, and in turn, I will happily provide a mea culpa.

[Horseperson112]

[QUOTE=jhg140;8353019]
The LLC existed 6 mos+ prior to the positive drug test[/QUOTE]

It was formed before the hearing and public notice of positive drug test, yes, but after TC leaving SS and derby finals where the drug test actually occurred. I don’t have any inside knowledge about the naming (which maybe you do?), but find it interesting timing (as do I find the fact the first drug positive occurred first show post-SS.)

[lauriep]

Have you forgotten, or didn’t know, that Scott took his own forced vacation a few summers ago? For the same reason.

[Flash44]

Don’t most entry forms contain a hold harmless or release of liability? Even online?

WRT the USEF, if it’s designated the governing body and it makes a rule, it needs to be able to enforce the rule.

[BeeHoney]

@bornfreenowexpensive;8353165

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.

Weirdly, I am not aware of any lawsuits over things like this. The pony that dropped dead at Devon was not the first horse to collapse or die at the end of a needle or due to a medication, it was a standout case because it was witnessed by witnesses who were willing to share what they saw. I think that most (all?) of the time when something goes wrong the owners will never know what happened because they weren’t there and anyone who witnessed the event works for the trainer/show barn involved and isn’t going to risk their job to speak up and probably don’t even know the owner anyway. It would be easy for a trainer to say something like, “Dobbin hurt himself getting cast in his stall last night.”

Horses also trip/fall or “collapse” in warmup or in the show ring periodically and I’m sure that at least some of these instances are related to chemical prep. However, because most of the substances being given are either “legal” or untestable or could be explained as being an “amino acid” or “electrolyte” supplement, I don’t think that there would be any way for an owner or parent who thinks that their horse or their child’s horse fell because of “drugs” to prove that unless the trainer was foolhardy enough to use something testable AND the horse were to be tested in a timely fashion to have proof of what happened.

Sometimes I think that the parents or owners actually buy into what is happening. They want to win too, and they either don’t want to publicize their own role in the situation or don’t want any scandal attached to their reputation. Lastly, I think there is very little understanding by non-horse people about the H/J or horse world in general, and I think that is another barrier to seeking justice through the legal system.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=ynl063w;8353353]
Didn’t the NYT write about the Humble incident? If there was a public (and by public, I mean the general public not involved in the horse world) outcry about that to the point that there were 12 of them who cared enough to want to insert themselves into the hunter/jumper world so that they could help stop the madness, I missed it. Please provide a link, if one exists, and in turn, I will happily provide a mea culpa.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think public reaction would (necessarily) be nicely summed up and documented in one page on the web. If that’s your standard for thinking that the public is watching, or would be horrified if they knew more, I can’t meet it.

But I do remember some reaction (maybe just here on COTH) to an L A Times article about the massive amount of pharmaceutical This n That that is given to races horses before they run.

And I’ll be willing to gently take those newspapers’ editors word for what they think their readership will care about.

And part of this, too, comes from the “snowball effect” of history surrounding modern cheating, that’s getting more aggressive, for less and less, and-- thanks to the revealing transcripts in the Colvin suit-- tippy top insiders who have little reason to need chemical help for their horses-- being quite cavalier about how they manage their cheating, and which part of that is actually a problem in their eyes.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=IPEsq;8353303]
That USEF’s penalties and volume of testing have been isufficient to create a culture of clean sport is so far removed. Causation is probably going to be the “but for” standard here. So, kid wouldn’t have gotten hurt but for USEF’s action. No…too tenuous. The actors are the vets and the ones with the needle in hand. Sure, someone could try to sue USEF, but I think there is a good probability that it would get dismissed.[/QUOTE]

I think that is basically right: In all of the multiple causes that contribute to some injured rider on a drugged horse, the USEF’s straw-man of an effort to actually produce the clean sport it says it will is a small, and rather far-removed one in the chain.

I think public opinion would be different. It could have a lower standard than that “but for” one you mention. But I don’t know, as I’m not an attorney. I do get that the law is always involved in parsing out a complicated world that has multiple contributing causes into that magic one that “but for (its occurrance),” things would have gone entirely differently.

[Soaponarope]

[QUOTE=BeeHoney;8353501]
Weirdly, I am not aware of any lawsuits over things like this. The pony that dropped dead at Devon was not the first horse to collapse or die at the end of a needle or due to a medication, it was a standout case because it was witnessed by witnesses who were willing to share what they saw. I think that most (all?) of the time when something goes wrong the owners will never know what happened because they weren’t there and anyone who witnessed the event works for the trainer/show barn involved and isn’t going to risk their job to speak up and probably don’t even know the owner anyway. It would be easy for a trainer to say something like, “Dobbin hurt himself getting cast in his stall last night.”

Horses also trip/fall or “collapse” in warmup or in the show ring periodically and I’m sure that at least some of these instances are related to chemical prep. However, because most of the substances being given are either “legal” or untestable or could be explained as being an “amino acid” or “electrolyte” supplement, I don’t think that there would be any way for an owner or parent who thinks that their horse or their child’s horse fell because of “drugs” to prove that unless the trainer was foolhardy enough to use something testable AND the horse were to be tested in a timely fashion to have proof of what happened.

Sometimes I think that the parents or owners actually buy into what is happening. They want to win too, and they either don’t want to publicize their own role in the situation or don’t want any scandal attached to their reputation. Lastly, I think there is very little understanding by non-horse people about the H/J or horse world in general, and I think that is another barrier to seeking justice through the legal system.[/QUOTE]

I believe the hypothetical situation being discussed here is if a child was killed or injured in a fall and the horse tested positive.

[Foxtrot_s]

Tori who?

Oh, heck, it’s a whole 'nuther world out there that I know nothing about.

[mvp]

[QUOTE=Soaponarope;8353835]
I believe the hypothetical situation being discussed here is if a child was killed or injured in a fall and the horse tested positive.[/QUOTE]

Yeah. To reiterate: The rotational fall with the pony and the kid in pigtails doesn’t have to the event. Hurt bad/dead doesn’t have to be the level of damage done. And a drugged horse was an appreciable cause in the mix.

The idea merely was that someone with the will and the money finally made a court thing out of some negative outcome that occurred (and currently already occurs from time-to-time) because everyone involved up to the USEF has been too lax about enforcing its own anti-drugging rules.

That the bad event hasn’t happened yet, or that it has yet to be duked out in court isn’t the point. Rather, that’s a premise you accept if you want to participate in the thought experiment.

My other point, however, is that while I can’t predict what will cause someone to litigate or when, I do think that it will happen, sooner or later if things continue as they are. And even more important: There is some pay-off for the USEF to “get out in front” of this possibility by doing what it can to make cheating harder and less attractive.

[omare]

I am all for suspending these hypothetical parents as owners, spectators, or as the horse show form signer for minor, if they allow their hypothetical kids to be put on hypothetical “drugged” ponies.

[pepper1986]

I noticed the name of the horse the other day and wondered if that was a dig at the whole controversy.

[QUOTE=two sticks;8352250]
As an aside, watched the live stream tonight and found it ironic that Tori was riding a horse owned by “Take the High Road, LLC.”[/QUOTE]