If a Note was put in the judges file, it means it will be reviewed (along with any other notes/evaluations in the file) when the judge’s license is up for renewal (every 3 years IIRC).
A single “Note” in the file my not have much effect. But if multiple notes identify a trend, it may be taken seriously.
Very sad. I do hope it is looked into and maybe just run it by a lawyer with the evidence you have. The judge put you in danger, the horse in danger and your USEF membership in jeopardy.
Yeah, this is an unusually DEVIANT way to behave. I would at least consider pursing some legal remedy if for no other reason than to have public documents out there detailing what the judge did. If what you’ve reported here is true, and it was intentional by the judge, it was abhorrent and dishonest. People should know.
[QUOTE=vxf111;8713973]
If would at least consider pursing some legal remedy if for no other reason than to have public documents out there detailing what the judge did. [/QUOTE]
She would be looking at spending a minimum $15,000 for that to happen. For 99% of the population out there, it is not a realistic possibility. 
[QUOTE=Daventry;8713991]
She would be looking at spending a minimum $15,000 for that to happen. For 99% of the population out there, it is not a realistic possibility. ;)[/QUOTE]
Where are you getting that $15,000 number from!?! Do you know a lot more details than the rest of us? Including her lawyer’s hourly rate?! When I was in private practice, I handled plenty of small commercial disputes to resolution for some zeros off that estimate
Small claims court may be an option, depending on the lease fee.
Plus she doesn’t necessarily have to litigate all the way to trial to create a public record. It does not cost $15,000 to file a simple complaint in most jurisdictions.
I think that the Code of Ethics should apply to a USEF official in this situation.
The relevant language is:
My personal behavior will reflect my integrity, character and respect for the sport and the United States Equestrian Federation, including my use of Social Media.
As an attorney, my ethics rules apply to much of my life outside of my professional activities. The same is true for other professions. There may be a limit to how far outside of professional activities the ethics rules can stretch. They go pretty far for lawyers and fiduciaries, because being a crook in your personal life reflects badly on your ability not to be a crook in your professional life. It also applies to unrelated businesses you may be engaged in, whether on the side or as your primary job. What some non-lawyers could get away with in other businesses would be perhaps cause for sanctions of a lawyer holding the same job and acting in a similar fashion.
In this case, it is not much of a stretch to hold a licensed judge to abide by a certain ethical standard when engaged in her personal horse business. Particularly where the non-disclosure of medications is involved. This bears particular relevance to the USEF rules. Under the new standards of drug sanctions, couldn’t the judge, as owner/lessor of the horse be potentially found to be a responsible party for a drug violation? Why would dishonesty that would carry a risk of such drug violation not be a breach of ethics? What if the “supplement” wasn’t an NSAID but would cause a GABA positive? Would that change people’s minds? It’s the same basic dishonest act.
I am amazed that USEF cares nothing about something like this, but made such a big deal over poor Jimmy Torano’s rather innocuous facebook comment.
In that case, another judge, Don Stewart, after he was done judging, made a few criticisms of the format, etc. Whether that is the right place or not is up for debate, but he clearly felt his (legitimate, in my view) concerns were not being heard. JT “liked” the post and in response to the other judge asking him to say more, stated “you said it all.” For “liking” the FB post, pretty much. (Don Stewart was fined and censured too but he fought it legally. I don’t know what happened to his case.)
That’s it.
JT gets fined and censured and someone who does something like this, risking a member’s getting set down for a drug infraction, gets nothing?
I find that hard to understand.
Here is a COTH article about the other incident: http://chronofhorse.com/article/usef-censures-fines-torano-facebook-post
[QUOTE=MtnDrmz;8712842]
Have you even contacted the Owner/Judge to ask about the bute? I get the frustration that they didn’t disclose as thoughoughly as they could, but I wouldn’t say the are “tricking you” until I had spoken with them. I would have gone there first to give them a chance to explain or provide feedback before notifying the USEF. A lot of serviceably sound horses go on one bute a day. Is it ideal? maybe not, but it depends on the horse. Remeber, one/day is an allowable level and depending on the horse’s records, age, and wear and tear, that is not a super alarming dose. Hopefully you aren’t doing major things with it, but if you are just doing lower level shows, smaller fences, and not a ton of rated shows every week, I wouldn’t be as worried. I also can’t imagine one bute a day would cover up a significant lamness, so I feel like there is more going on here?
You said the lease was month to month, so I totally get if you don’t want to continue with the horse, but I would definitely try to hear someone out first in this situation.[/QUOTE]
Except that the horse is also on Previcox, another NSAID. You normally shouldn’t stack other NSAIDs with Previcox.
If OP didn’t realize that the horse is also on bute they may have made the decision to give him a gram of bute if he is a little ouchy one day only to have that 1 gram that would be allowable push her into testable range since he is really now getting 2 grams.
The person leasing/riding the horse and the trainer signing as trainer should know exactly what the horse is getting as they are the ones that will get dinged should the horse test positive.
[QUOTE=SonnysMom;8714342]
Except that the horse is also on Previcox, another NSAID. You normally shouldn’t stack other NSAIDs with Previcox.
If OP didn’t realize that the horse is also on bute they may have made the decision to give him a gram of bute if he is a little ouchy one day only to have that 1 gram that would be allowable push her into testable range since he is really now getting 2 grams.
The person leasing/riding the horse and the trainer signing as trainer should know exactly what the horse is getting as they are the ones that will get dinged should the horse test positive.[/QUOTE]
EXACTLY. There could have been serious horse harm here…
First off, I question whether it is good long term for this poor animal to be on bute AND previcox daily. Maybe that suggests it needs a step down in workload? If the OP is right, that’s what the trainer had it on. Long term. And yet leased it as a show horse to the OP. A horse on a little previcox, a lot of us would say that’s serviceably sound. A horse that NEEDS a gram of bute a day, long term, and previcox-- many of us would say that horse is too lame to be ridden/jumped/shown. Needings, every day, that much NSAID is a real issue. It really begs the question of whether this horse should be ridden/jumped/shown. But OP couldn’t make an educated decision about that. Because she thought the horse was on previcox and an oral joint supplement. Not bute.
Because the judge/owner didn’t share this with the OP. Which is key.
And the horse was lame without the bute. So… the horse was lame. 
Apparently the judge didn’t care.
Maybe the horse dinged himself on a jump pole in a lesson or had an extra hard couple of days of work. OP may have thought “aw, poor guy” and given him a gram or two of bute for a day or so-- not knowing that he already was on bute. She may have inadvertently given this poor horse BLEEDING ULCER levels of bute on the assumption that he wasn’t already getting it.
Not to mention working the horse on the assumption that what she was seeing was him NOT on stacked NSAIDs. Had she known, she might have done less. She may have been working a lame horse, not realizing he was lame, because the lameness was being masked by stacked NSAIDs she didn’t realize she was giving.
Not to mention what might have happened if she went to a show and got drug tested.
Not to mention, now she has to wonder what else she was lied to about.
Meanwhile, this horse that apparently needs two stacked NSAIDs long-term to do the job is being leased for money by the judge who apparently must know this ISN’T RIGHT because she’s bothering to lie about it. Consequences for the horse and other parties be damned.
It’s upsetting. It’s a really upsetting situation. It’s a level of dishonesty that’s above-and-beyond, IMHO.
[QUOTE=Halfhalting;8712954]
daily big scoop of “joint supplement” was actually bute[/QUOTE]
Of course I don’t know for sure and I am making an assumption here (and it depends on the concentration) but I’ve bought powdered bute from a LOT of different compounders/sources. A 1 gram scoop is not what I would call a “big scoop.” When I think of a “big scoop” associated with joint supplements, that’s a scoop that I would guestimate holds 2-3 grams or MORE of powder (Ex: Cosequin is a 3 gram sized scoop). That’s a significant amount of bute, if I am right. An “almost sure to test” amount as well as a “can mask lameness” and “cruel to work a horse who needs this much NSAID amount.” I am making an assumption here about the scoop size/concentration but I am picturing more than a gram of bute being given daily disguised as a joint supplement.
[QUOTE=SonnysMom;8714342]
Except that the horse is also on Previcox, another NSAID. You normally shouldn’t stack other NSAIDs with Previcox.
If OP didn’t realize that the horse is also on bute they may have made the decision to give him a gram of bute if he is a little ouchy one day only to have that 1 gram that would be allowable push her into testable range since he is really now getting 2 grams.
The person leasing/riding the horse and the trainer signing as trainer should know exactly what the horse is getting as they are the ones that will get dinged should the horse test positive.[/QUOTE]
Totally agree! I am actually not familar with previcox, so I didn’t even realize that was also an NSAID! I also didn’t get that the OP had already addressed this with the judge from her original post, which changes things. I am just as shocked and appauled as everyone else now :yes:
The joint supplement was supposedly a full container of Cosequin. But we realized one day it didn’t look like other cosequin in the barn. Comparing it to other medications and supplements, it was obvious that it was powdered bute. It was retained for testing as needed.
MVP is correct.
Previcox is, at a certain dose, time range, legal.
Bute within a certain dose, time range is legal.
“Stacking” them is unacceptable.
No judge should be that ignorant of the drug rules, but whether it falls within the province of the USEF to discipline them is unlikely, as they are not acting in an official capacity.
On a lighter note
Slam Dunk
Advanced
Join Date
Feb. 28, 2007
Location
Vancouver BC
Posts
1,622
Default
Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
‘‘Holy crap, that astounds me and I am pretty jaundiced, I think.’’
‘‘I don’t know anything about the code of ethics but that sounds like fraud/misrepresentation to me if the horse was represented pre-lease as SOUND and you relied upon that representation in leasing the horse.
Hopefully you are jaded, and not jaundiced’’
Slam Dunk, you are assuming that vxf111is green not merely yellow. 
Would callous be a better word?
[QUOTE=merrygoround;8714623]
Slam Dunk
Advanced
Join Date
Feb. 28, 2007
Location
Vancouver BC
Posts
1,622
Default
Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
‘‘Holy crap, that astounds me and I am pretty jaundiced, I think.’’
‘‘I don’t know anything about the code of ethics but that sounds like fraud/misrepresentation to me if the horse was represented pre-lease as SOUND and you relied upon that representation in leasing the horse.
Hopefully you are jaded, and not jaundiced’’
Slam Dunk, you are assuming that vxf111is green not merely yellow.
Would callous be a better word? ;)[/QUOTE]
I started off yellow but now that I think we’re talking megadoses of bute-- I am more seeing RED
[QUOTE=Halfhalting;8712804]
After some time we discovered that the Judge/Owner’s joint supplement was actually bute (not joint supplement!) that she was tricking us in to giving the horse daily (along with provided and labeled Previcox). [/QUOTE]
FWIW - my vet is adamant that bute and previcox/equioxx, are not to be given together.
If the supplement hasn’t been tested, I can’t imagine the USEF putting a note in the judge’s file. In fact, I can’t imagine reporting someone for doing it without a test.
[QUOTE=Halfhalting;8714502]
The joint supplement was supposedly a full container of Cosequin. But we realized one day it didn’t look like other cosequin in the barn. Comparing it to other medications and supplements, it was obvious that it was powdered bute. It was retained for testing as needed.[/QUOTE]
It sounds as though you are expecting the USEF to do something based on your opinion that visually, the powder looks like bute. I would be upset with the USEF if they DID do what you want them to do at this point
That is astounding on a myriad of levels, not the least of which that bute is a substance which humans should be quite careful around. A lot of people are unaware that it can cause anemia and other blood disorders in people who have regular contact. I always hold my breath and look away when pestle crushing a pill and same when scooping it out in powder form.
I would NOT be happy if I took a whiff of some apple flavored bute to see how the new joint supplement smelled!
USEF was provided multiple documentation that confirms this event, including FB posts (where the Judge/Owner lamented about horse’s ongoing/existing lameness, how the owner was out of money to treat the horse and was tired of trying to lease the horse- actually posted while the horse was still in my care after the bute discovery!). We also have text messages which provide clear support and picture of the situation. Once caught, the Judge/Owner did not deny it was bute, so there is no question on that. Hence I am sure USEF was confident in these details also. Although the bute is retained if they request testing. These are just a few of the items provided to USEF. The total picture is really quite clear and unsettling.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
