The best answer to the question of what more USEF can/should do in a situation like this is to write a Rule Change Proposal.
The FEI has one in place regarding the death of a competition horse on the grounds of a FEI sanctioned event. This might be one FEI rule worth cloning.
Another victory for drugging in Hunterland.
If anyone had any fairy tale notions of the USEF wanting to clean up this mess, this should pretty well convince them otherwise.
For God’s sake, what is it going to take, an entire string of horses dropping dead at once? Apparently one isn’t enough. Where is my throw up icon?
[QUOTE=Ruby G. Weber;6660456]
The best answer to the question of what more USEF can/should do in a situation like this is to write a Rule Change Proposal.
The FEI has one in place regarding the death of a competition horse on the grounds of a FEI sanctioned event. This might be one FEI rule worth cloning.[/QUOTE]
The USEF did what anyone would expect: It found a way to not have to have an opinion. That allows two things to stand:
Not Mandarino’s status. I don’t think the Powers That Be-- the BNTs who make their living from ueber-quiet hunters care whether or not this one pony trainer gets to stay at the party. But they do need to know that no one will be coming from them next, should they need to use their quieting drugs. It’s a “keeping up with the Joneses” thing in the arms race to get horses that are consistently so quiet. No one can afford to say no.
The USEF gets to keep its hard-to-enforce D&M laws to stand. Why do that? Because it’s much cheaper to have the use of performance enhancing drugs be illegal on paper than to test and enforce that. Do you think membership will want to pay the costs of fencing in barns as happens at FEI shows? Paying DVMs to administer each and every injection given on the show grounds? Test, say, the top 3 horses in a class and random competitors?
I do think the USEF could solve their problem with some hard-a$$ penalties for being caught. And the additional rule that a horse who dies on show grounds is automatically subjected to a necropsy which the USEF controls and the person who signs as “trainer” pays for, if found guilty.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;6660294]
Did the USEF actually comment on either the identity of injection being given or the “lung disease” as a probable cause of death?
Because from what’s cited above, it sounds as though that “information” came from Mad-dog-rino.[/QUOTE]
The USEF’s post on usef.org does not include any information re: the identify of the injection or “lung disease” as the probable cause. That information came from Elizabeth Mandarino’s press release. This is what the USEF posted:
“The USEF Hearing Committee heard recently a Protest filed against Elizabeth Mandarino by another USEF member. The Protest alleged that certain USEF rules were violated at the 2012 Devon Horse Show when Mandarino administered an injection to her pony, Humble, and thereby caused his death. The USEF Hearing Committee ruled that the Protest must be dismissed for lack of substantiation. The Hearing Committee noted in its Findings " . . . that the proof available at [the hearing] was not sufficient to answer the complex medical/toxicological questions that underlie the central allegation in the Protest.” "
I think the problem is, much like MLB, the USEF is really only concerned with the APPEARANCE of looking anti-doping and not so much whether the appearance matches reality.
[QUOTE=adlgel;6660695]
The USEF’s post on usef.org does not include any information re: the identify of the injection or “lung disease” as the probable cause. That information came from Elizabeth Mandarino’s press release. This is what the USEF posted:
“The USEF Hearing Committee heard recently a Protest filed against Elizabeth Mandarino by another USEF member. The Protest alleged that certain USEF rules were violated at the 2012 Devon Horse Show when Mandarino administered an injection to her pony, Humble, and thereby caused his death. The USEF Hearing Committee ruled that the Protest must be dismissed for lack of substantiation. The Hearing Committee noted in its Findings " . . . that the proof available at [the hearing] was not sufficient to answer the complex medical/toxicological questions that underlie the central allegation in the Protest.” "[/QUOTE]
So basically what would be needed is:
A video of her loading the drug in the syringe (with the drug name clearly visible), and injecting the drug while clearly identifying herself, the drug, and a statement that the drug was NOT being administered for any veterinary prescribed condition, rather for performance altering effect, and that this drug and/or other drugs administered for similar purposes may well kill said pony.
Would this be enough? I am simply amazed.
[QUOTE=Misanthrope;6660935]
So basically what would be needed is:
A video of her loading the drug in the syringe (with the drug name clearly visible), and injecting the drug while clearly identifying herself, the drug, and a statement that the drug was NOT being administered for any veterinary prescribed condition, rather for performance altering effect, and that this drug and/or other drugs administered for similar purposes may well kill said pony.
Would this be enough? I am simply amazed.[/QUOTE]
The way things look, this probably would not be enough either. Sad.
“The USEF Hearing Committee heard recently a Protest filed against Elizabeth Mandarino by another USEF member. The Protest alleged that certain USEF rules were violated at the 2012 Devon Horse Show when Mandarino administered an injection to her pony, Humble, and thereby caused his death. The USEF Hearing Committee ruled that the Protest must be dismissed for lack of substantiation. The Hearing Committee noted in its Findings " . . . that the proof available at [the hearing] was not sufficient to answer the complex medical/toxicological questions that underlie the central allegation in the Protest.” "
What proof was not available ? That Mandarino injected the pony, or that the pony droped dead immediately following the injection? Or was it that there were not enough LIVE witnesses to said event? can one of the rule experts please tell what drugs are legal to administer via IV, 2 hours prior to competeing?
If a person kills another person using a gun , it’s not really the person that killed, it’s the gun , and it wasn’t really the gun , it was actually the bullet, so I guess prosecuting the murderer is a moot point.
I would think Legend or Map 5 would be legal to give on a competition day and are given IV.
Bull Shitake. Shameful
[QUOTE=CHT;6661047]
I would think Legend or Map 5 would be legal to give on a competition day and are given IV.[/QUOTE]
Yes, Legend is often given on competition days and takes effect within 2-3 hours.
[QUOTE=tricolor;6661108]
Yes, Legend…takes effect within 2-3 hours.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like folklore to me.
Got any pharmacologic documentation for that one?
[QUOTE=tricolor;6661108]
Yes, Legend is often given on competition days and takes effect within 2-3 hours.[/QUOTE]
Really? My vets have always asserted that 2-3 days prior to competition is optimum.
[QUOTE=tricolor;6661108]
Yes, Legend is often given on competition days and takes effect within 2-3 hours.[/QUOTE]
Whether this is a good idea or effective, I can attest that people do sometimes give it while at shows.
[QUOTE=2bayboys;6661384]
Really? My vets have always asserted that 2-3 days prior to competition is optimum.[/QUOTE]
And many of us ship in on Tues//Wed, to compete Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun.
I think the distrust/anger towards this one person is based on their history, but the USEF can’t take that into consideration and must look at the facts as they are presented.
I think this is one of those cases where it is “be careful what you wish for”…how invasive do you want USEF to be? How politically driven? Based on the information given it doesn’t seem that the USEF had the power within its mandate to have done more than it has done.
[QUOTE=mercedespony;6661479]
And many of us ship in on Tues//Wed, to compete Thurs, Fri, Sat, Sun.[/QUOTE]
Of course. I never said that it shouldn’t be administered at the show, just that the morning before competing is questionable in its effectiveness.
The release from EM stated there was no evidence of an incorrectly administered injection. If the Legend was not given improperly, then how/why did it supposedly kill the pony? Since Legend is so common, wouldn’t you want to know if there was a risk of it killing your horse? The excuses given so far in this matter have been utter BS.
[QUOTE=CHT;6661498]
I think the distrust/anger towards this one person is based on their history, but the USEF can’t take that into consideration and must look at the facts as they are presented.
I think this is one of those cases where it is “be careful what you wish for”…how invasive do you want USEF to be? How politically driven? Based on the information given it doesn’t seem that the USEF had the power within its mandate to have done more than it has done.[/QUOTE]
I would like USEF to be “invasive” enough to prevent ponies from dropping dead at the end of a needle. If any animal requires an IV injection on the show grounds perhaps it isn’t fit to compete.
It seems that you are correct. The USEF’s hands are tied under their own mandate, which rather shows that their policies are ineffective when it comes to protecting the animals shown under their rules. The horses lose, big time.
It’s really too bad that this sort of thing could be allowed to continue because of the “be careful what you wish for” attitude.
Is it really so difficult for people to imagine showing their horses without injecting them on the show grounds?
Really? :no:
This is kind of complicated because…
USEF is not a law enforcement agency and has very limited power to act as such. It’s a hobby club. Alot of people seem to think they should do something they just cannot do or use tools they just don’t have.
State and local jursidictions vary but most treat livestock as personal property. It was her Pony.
That local trainer question posed way back is meaningless because USEF only regulates USEF rated shows and USEF members-that local trainer can do whatever they want.
I know, it sucks. But it has to be proven and would not have gone anywhere in the civilian judicial system either. IIRC local officials declined to be involved.
There is such a thing as karma, however, administered by the higher powers that be and unrestricted.
I can’t say what was or wasn’t injected into that pony, but I don’t think that anyone would refer to an issue related to an injection of a common drug (such as IV Legend) as a “complex medical/toxicological question.”
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
