The overview of the proposal mentions being USEF members, so it appears that is the intent.
I would think if there’s an outbreak of some kind, the vets are going to know about it and don’t need to read emails from USEF.
9 Likes
I am not a member as I don’t currently show, but I hope those who do would recommend against the rule for vets to be members. Maybe when they can’t get vets to cover shows the USEF will get the point this is a bad idea.
5 Likes
The vets and farriers I have met at the shows are often the ones closest to the show grounds willing to to respond to a call or hang at the show. There is NO reason I can see to have them be responsible for anything like being a member and filling out paperwork for the USEF. As the horses owner/rider/trainer it’s my responsibility to follow the rules. I can keep a copy of the bill if needed but why drag vets and farriers into this BS?
6 Likes
Frequently I will object to these proposed rules on the basis of the way the rule is written. For example, I don’t have a problem with the proposed safety stirrup rule, but one version is written so poorly it sounds like they are saying stirrups with entirely closed branches would be illegal. Another of the rules in this set is so vague as to be IMO unenforceable (or worse, capable of being enforced unfairly against some and not others).
6 Likes
And I’m sure that “excellent written communications skills” are a requirement for employment. The illiterate leading the illiterate.
3 Likes
In MA we have to take a test to get our instructors Lic. When I took the test 25 years ago it WAS poorly written and let me tell you, this does make a difference if you want rules to be followed. I had to write paragraphs with my answer to explain why I chose the one I did. So I got a call from the person in the MA state Gov who oversees this program and his response was “the questions were written by instructors/trainers/horse people” and I said, well that does not mean they know how to write a question!
So in the coming years they cleaned the test up and most likely had someone who knew how to write a question properly manage that piece of it.
Surely they can even ask for a volunteer who is adept at such things to help them out with the wording.
6 Likes
The target of this rule change is not the official horse show vet, although they would be affected. The target is the vets brought in by private owners that may give horses treatments not within USEF guidelines.
1 Like
Seriously? I have never seen this at a show in my area and again if the owner/trainer/rider sign off that they will follow guidelines it’s their responsibility and they are the ones who will be sanctioned if anything illegal is injected etc.
2 Likes
It is the responsibility of the owner and/or trainer to be responsible for the drugs and medications administered to a horse at a competition…NOT the vet. Even though a drug may be medically advised, it may be illegal for a competition horse. The vet is responsible for the patient. The competitor is responsible for following the rules.
This is an example of a solution in search of problem. If some disciplines are having flagrant drugs/medications violations let the competitors be sanctioned…it is NOT the vets’ problem.
Disclaimer…I am not a vet.
19 Likes
The link does not work for people who are not members…
1 Like
And I’m not saying I agree with the proposed rule change! But somewhat like the race track, USEF is looking to have some way to sanction anyone on grounds. If you ‘misbehave’ and are a member you can be ruled off.
Edited to add: This is more about things like shockwave and compounds that don’t test as illegal. Illegal medications caught in a drug test are obviously on the trainer/rider.
The actions that took place in the race track were egregious, clearly medically unethical and at times illegal. I know a vet who was criminally indicted for what he was doing to race horses. That vet was sanctioned by the medical licensing board and the criminal courts.
So if vets at dressage competitions are doing illegal actions, then there are systems in place, with proper “due process” to place a complaint, either to the criminal justice system, or to the medical licensing board.
I think what the USEF/DF are doing with this proposed rule is over-reach. We have a shortage of large animal vets and these actions may make it more difficult to get vets to take on competition horses as patients.
As far as “shockwave” or other procedures, ethical vets (most of them) only do procedures that are medically necessary. The vet is responsible for the patient. The competitor is responsible to follow the rules. I don’t see what is the “problem” that this proposed rule is intended to address…and it is likely to create unforeseen problems as per the “rule of unintended consequences.”
9 Likes
I’ve actually done this. My trainer at the time was married to a vet and you bet if I needed anything that’s who I worked with.
So her husband would travel to the show grounds to treat your horse…but it is YOU who should have sole responsibility for what is administered. I actually never list my trainer at her request incase I make the mistake of giving my horse something illegal for showing so again, I am going to make sure I follow the rules!
5 Likes
Ditto…I consider myself “the trainer” and list myself as rider/owner/trainer as my horse is totally under my control and I take full responsibility for whatever happens to the beast.
9 Likes
The designation of “trainer” on the entry forms has always been problematic. It is meant to describe someone who is responsible for the horse while on the show grounds, partially for the reason that you describe here - if a drug test comes back positive, they will look to the trainer and possibly the owner.
In the dressage world, our trainers are most often “coach”, not “trainer”. The entry forms are likely a carryover from the H/J world where trainers take many, many horses to shows where the owners are never present.
I spent many years as a show secretary and sorting out the signed entry forms in the days of paper entry forms was always a headache. I would not release bridle numbers without fully executed signature pages, and so many of the riders would say “oh, I need my trainer to come sign!” to which I would ask “who takes care of your horse on the grounds? Who feeds your horse while you are here? If that is you, you are actually the trainer, and your ‘trainer’ is actually your coach for purposes of the entry signatures and forms”.
I do occasionally see people who are local use their own vets at shows.
11 Likes
When I competed, I attended shows by myself. The horse was fully under my control. I mucked, fed, competed, hand-walked, etc. My “coach” was a Frenchman who was 3800 miles away across the Atlantic. It seems that USEF/DF cannot conceptualize a rider who works by themself.
3 Likes
Absolutely agree.
Also, I too list myself as “trainer” on show entries because I am the one responsible, however my trainer/coach is listed as coach as required by the rules.
2 Likes
Sure - for that horse. But right now, that vet could continue giving illegal treatment to horses of other owners/trainers unless/until they get caught, then the vet continues giving illegal treatment. This rule change would allow USEF to sanction or ban that vet, preventing that vet from impacting other horses.
But why is it needed? Just because FEI/USDF have banned it for competition doesn’t mean it is not a vaid treatment for some horses. They have licensing boards for that.
1 Like
