USEF Drug Testing

[QUOTE=eclipse;7718530]
Doesn’t bother me…although in Canada I don’t believe they can or do pull blood, strictly urine collection and they only wait for a certain amount of time. Generally they just follow you back to your stall and wait for about an hour and if your horse decides to cooperate they’ll collect. I’m not sure why they don’t have someone certified to pull blood, wouldn’t bother me in the slightest, I’ve got nothing to hide! Seems though, that’s it the same people with nothing to hide, that get “stalked” each and every show :lol: Not sure why they just don’t go back to the automatic testing of 1st place or champion of each division?[/QUOTE]

I can answer that last question easily. You wanna drug or over medicate? You roll the dice you won’t be named Champion or Reserve. Keep track of your standing towards Champion and scratch a class or the hack if you are close. Still get and keep all the individual class placings and points with the druggie or the lame one full of stacked NSAIDS over allowable limits because you are secure only Champ and Reserve will get tested.

Random is still not perfect, for OP, how many horses at the show developed mild colic, abscesses or mystery lameness brought on by the appearance of the testers and, sadly, were forced to scratch their classes?

Yes, they can check any horse anywhere technically but there’s no way they can really know which horse is which unless its wearing a number showing in a class.

ETA, yes there is a new rule that horses who “crash” must be evaluated by a vet which I assume means a blood pull and tix screen. But crash means collapses suddenly, not missing the back rails on an oxer and somebody would need to see it and/or report it. But haven’t heard of any collapses in the warm up rings this year, there were some every year before widely reported. Perhaps because if this rule, perhaps just coincidence.

I know this sounds like an administrative nightmare, but if every entry pays for testing, why not test every entry?

Just test them all and be done.

[QUOTE=MyGiantPony;7720252]
I know this sounds like an administrative nightmare, but if every entry pays for testing, why not test every entry?

Just test them all and be done.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think that could be done for $7 (or whatever the fee is per horse per show).

Pretty impractical and much more expensive to run, say, 800 tests in 5 days at PF or 2500 tests a week at a really big circuit with a different named show every week for weeks or months like WEF would be a nightmare. But testing labs would be a good investment opportunity:lol:

[QUOTE=MyGiantPony;7720252]
I know this sounds like an administrative nightmare, but if every entry pays for testing, why not test every entry?

Just test them all and be done.[/QUOTE]
That’s not how the math works.

The drug fee for each horse is not enough to cover the cost of testing that horse. I don’t recall the exact figure, but I believe it costs hundreds of dollars to collect and run each sample.

The drug fees from all entries are pooled together to support the whole program.

Ah, but the resulting fines could be ear marked to pay for the lab fees.

Or random shows could be selected instead of random horses.

Yeah, that 300 fine will pay for a whole 2 tests…maybe.

Doing every horse would require…how many techs to do the paperwork, collect and get the signatures? Could you even collect 800 samples in 5 days at something like PF with Ponies departing when they are done, not at the end of 5 days? Or a regular show with 2k horses coming and going throughout the week? Some stabled off the show grounds, even hacking in to show at WEF?

Just kicking around an idea. Like I said, it’s an administrative nightmare, but the current structure isn’t working. There must be a better mouse trap.

Who has ideas?

You also need to consider that techs only collect urine. Vets collect blood.

In addition, it’s not as if collecting from a horse is a 5 minute deal. It would just be impossible to test every single horse every single time.

[QUOTE=MyGiantPony;7720415]
Just kicking around an idea. Like I said, it’s an administrative nightmare, but the current structure isn’t working. There must be a better mouse trap.

Who has ideas?[/QUOTE]

In part, I don’t agree that it is necessarily the process of identifying a horse and collecting as much as it is people staying one step ahead of tests that will identify banned substances. I think that is a bigger issue to tackle.

Does anyone know the % of tests done to the % that test positive for a banned substance?

Comingback makes a good point. Cheaters gonna cheat.

[QUOTE=MyGiantPony;7720432]
Does anyone know the % of tests done to the % that test positive for a banned substance?

Comingback makes a good point. Cheaters gonna cheat.[/QUOTE]

The vast majority are negative for the substances tested for or under the allowable thresholds.

I think they should test the ones that always decide to scratch when the testers show up for a variety of claimed reasons. But without positive ID, one bay WB with a star is pretty much like any other hanging around in the stall assigned to the selected horse. That is something I think microchipping could help with down the road, don’t have to time the techs to catch it coming out of a ring with a number.

But that’s down the road a few years and does not deal with the drug du jour that won’t test. Yet.

Actual cost per sample must be several hundred dollars or more considering the amount of labor the collection process involves + lab costs + program administration. I got paid somewhere around $20/hour + $35/day per diem as a technician (pee catcher) about 8 or 9 years ago and $300 or so was a normal daily paycheck working a semi-local show and more when we travelled several hours each way. We were paid from the moment began travel to a show and until the minute we out of the car at home. There were usually 3 techs + 1 vet. I don’t know how much the vet was paid but I’m sure it was very generous since, by design, the USEF contracts third party private veterinarians and techs to carry out the testing at shows and must make it lucrative enough for them to want these gigs and take it seriously/pay attention to detail, which they do so that the USEF will continue to use them in the future. Trust me, you WANT these guys to paid absurdly well so their loyalty is to USEF and not tempted by payoffs from dishonest trainers/owners.

Anyway, I’d do maybe 5 or 6 horses a day. So 15-20 total per day using the standard 3 tech + vet. This sounds pathetic until you consider the time warp that is urine sample collection. Once selected, the horse must be constantly be visually observed, so accommodation of each competitor’s show schedule means I follow it around until it is done with its classes or has a long enough break to go back to the stall for long enough to reasonably do the test. Then the horse gets cooled out, bathed, whatever is necessary and normal, then into a stall where at some point blood is collected by the vet and it might or might not urinate, but anyway, we were instructed to wait a long time on each horse before giving up, usually at least an hour or two. The USEF really wanted urine samples, not just blood, even if it meant sinking a huge amount of time e into a single horse. You can imagine how hardworking horses in the heat do not urinate too much, so those shows were a bit of a challenge. Thee USEF even commented unfavorably once on our low numbers, to which the vet reminded them that he was sent to a horse trial in August in the South, temperature and relative humidity were both in the upper 90’s, and that he did not pee very much at all that day, either.

Being selected for drug testing is unavoidably a bit of a hassle, but is just a normal part of the horse show experience. I encountered a some folks who were ugly or unpleasant about the whole thing, but the VAST majority of competitors were happy to see the USEF show up at their show as evidence of their fees being put to use to enforce the rules. If selected for testing, it will mean accommodating the testing process, but don’t get weirded out by it or let it shake your focus on showing. Deliberate stalling the testing process is not allowed, but don’t put yourself in a bad position between classes to go back the stall to test, either. As a tech, I always explained the process so they would know what to expect and reminded them that showing their horse was first priority for both of us. Do make an effort to facilitate testing when you have a decent break between classes and take your horse back to the barn. There’s nothing to be gained by prolonging the test unnecessarily and most people want to do what they can to expedite things and move on with their lives. Even if you know your horse is difficult for blood draws or isn’t likely to pee/allow the catch, please know that the they have to try and go through the motions anyway. It’s not that they don’t believe you or are trying to prove you wrong, only that they cannot set the precedent of letting horses go untested by such warnings. Otherwise, everyone who didn’t want their animal tested would use it, and trust me, it was a common thing. I can only remember the vet being unsuccessful in one instance and while it was common enough not to get urine, I was successful at least half the time on getting urine even when I was told upfront that there was no chance.

Just throwing my experience out there in case it helps anyone understand a little more what is going on from the other side of things.

Freshman, that was an interesting perspective from the other side of the vial. :slight_smile:

Just out of curiosity, how did you select the horses to test? That’s a question that has come up here in the past.

[QUOTE=MyGiantPony;7720355]
Ah, but the resulting fines could be ear marked to pay for the lab fees.

Or random shows could be selected instead of random horses.[/QUOTE]

I get what you are saying, but the vast majority of samples come back negative. You could try to fine each positive sample something like 10K or some absurd amount, but they’d never be able to collect on that sort level. Most people just don’t have it and would just drop out of showing, get around their banned status by registering their animals under other people’s names, which would not fund the program. Otherwise, expect people dispute every positive sample to the bitter end the USEF’s process of appeals and hearing and also sue them, so this isn’t a viable model, either. And so many positives are from one-time offenders from the very population that equine sports count on as core participants and key to their future viability, usually kids or ammies that didn’t understand the rules or other one-offs like a medication mix-ups that can happen to even the best people, so would you really want to drive them out of the sport with this sort of fine?

FWIW, some shows are targeted, but otherwise shows ARE randomly selected for testing by the USEF.

freshman, thank you SO much for the education. I really appreciate hearing about this from your end of the umm… pee collection thingy. What IS that thing called?

As a drug testing technician myself, reading these comments makes me very happy. I am glad to see so many appreciate our presence as MANY do not, especially the polo players. I ride and show myself so I try to be understanding and considerate of ones show schedule but as many don’t know and question, all my selections are strictly random and when one screams in my face and refuses it makes more problems for everyone! I know the other technician I work with… A polo player refused and ran off on her and they were fined and suspended. Had to go to court and everything!

Wow…that never even crossed my mind! Sigh…what a sad thought but, I guess inevitable that cheaters always find ways around things…

There are riders in my area who when they see the testers get out of the car-- scratch and leave. I’M NOT KIDDING. The one time they left sharps on the ground near their trailer. The parking area was, when shows weren’t on, a PASTURE for the host barn. Some people really piss me off!

my horse was picked out to be tested at his first rated show - he was less than cooperative initially so the tech and I got to chat a lot. And she brought up some pretty interesting tidbits that I really never thought about but did after that - like how something innocent like letting Pumpkin have a drink of your soda or share some kinds of snack foods like Doritos (which mine seems to enjoy Cool Ranch or Chex Mix in particular) could end up w/ a positive test result.

Gottagrey, I had that same conversation when our pony was tested. My Catholic guilt had me convinced he’d be positive - for what I don’t know since we didn’t use anything on him - and the tester said the same thing about cringing when she saw the pony kids feeding Pookie soda and candy.