Ding, ding, ding! We have a winner! This is exactly what’s happening.
11 Likes
When someone writes the updated version of “Show Gypsies,” it would be hilarious if the hair test comes back as human hair, much as the pee tests for 1990s show jumpers would occasionally be Bertie’s instead of Apricot’s.
(Allegedly).
That being said, the official CoTH copy of “The Show Gypsies” by Leigh Brown is still sitting on my counter waiting to be shipped free of charge to the next person who wants to read it. It is a rollicking blast from the past with a hint of an R rating and lots of smoking. PM me if you’d like it, on the condition that you pass it on.
6 Likes
Hate to sound like a broken record, but, when the owners are suspended as well as the trainer, things might change. 1) Yes, the owners don’t always know what the trainer is up to, but maybe they will demand a drug free horse to avoid missing time in the ring. 2) The trainers who get caught should lose lots of customers. The owners don’t want to be suspended and miss anything important like finals or indoors. They will avoid those trainers. 3) The owners need to be more involved and demand ethical treatment of their horses.
28 Likes
It would certainly be an interesting experiment.
I’d love to see it.
10 Likes
That is the BEST book, I have not read it in decades.
1 Like
The very least they could do is put owners on notice that if their horse pulls a positive with a trainer, then any future positives within x number of years with any of their horses (under that trainer) means they too get included in the suspension and it’s going to be a suspension that reflects a second offense.
I doubt it would have much of an impact on the number of suspension, BUT I bet the real world impact of making owners be less casual about managing their horses under a trainer would be significant.
12 Likes
I am not showing so this question is truly just me being curious.
If I have my horse tranquilized for routine vet care (dental for example), how will those drugs be separated from anything else with this hair testing?
2 Likes
My experience is not this. But maybe my horse vet is unique.
All vaccines given by the actual vet. All blood draws done by the actual vet too.
Small animal vet is like you describe.
3 Likes
Other have said it takes 5-7 days for substances to show up in hair. Presumably for something like a dental, you’re getting dorm (that’s what mine got for her dental on Friday) which per the the D&M guidelines, remains detectable for 48 hours. Presumably these are blood guidelines, but it lists 7 days for other things like ace or xylaine. So my guess would be that your standard vet-administered tranq for a procedure would already be doing zero for the horse before its detectable in the hair sample. Plus you’d have a vet statement with the date and dosage.
But it also sounds like they’re not really looking for something that got basic sedation anyway, they’re looking for much nastier things that shouldn’t be in the horse at all, not a little too much dorm last week.
3 Likes
That’s what I’m trying to figure out.
It might be interesting to see that the horse was at some point given something completely prohibited and with no current therapeutic indication (pentobarb), or that the horse was sedated with some insane frequency, but I can’t see how they could devise a rigorous timeframe, since hairgrowth is dependent upon a myriad of factors.
7 Likes
I work along side the vets at FEI eventing competitions and pretty much every competitor at the top levels has their own vet on site with their team. Many teams won’t even let the FEI vets take a TPR anymore, let alone draw blood. Their private vet is the only one who touches the horses unless the FEI team calls for a formal inspection of the horse.
I imagine the H/J world has adopted similar practices. Some of the vets I work with also do FEI jumper circuits, so I assume there are a lot of similarities.
Yes, it’s rich. It’s standard practice for techs in clinical settings to do the blood draws. But it’s the world we live in these days.
1 Like
It’s also important to remember that those clearance times are just guidelines, not guarantees.
A friend of mine had a horse a few years back that had an undiagnosed health issue that caused him to break down something more slowly.
So the sedative he got for some very run of the mill procedure, whether it was dental work or a body clip or whatever, ended up getting my friend a fine and a suspension, even though the horse had gotten the sedative within the standard guidelines.
4 Likes
I saw a very interesting horse obituary online recently, so I looked up the horse’s show record. At the last show on record with USEF, it only showed in 2 classes, and one class said DNP and one class said “HF”. I assume that means horse fell, as opposed to rider fell, using the steeplechase delineations. It did make me wonder.
2 Likes
In defense of our young[er] riders and up-and-coming professionals, it’s my opinion the overall quality of riders (horsewomen/men) is actually better: they’re attentive, considerate, and largely want to do best by the horse versus the “Git-Er-Done/Ride-Em-Thru-It” grittiness trainers at turn of the century possessed. The problem is there isn’t really an “in” for many of these younger riders without significant backing, and the more you listen to what the horse is actually saying to you, the more likely you are to be side-tracked by addressing or chasing the subtle physical complaints a horse has. Money will always be the biggest gate-keeper, but also clients go towards who is winning. Those that are more conscientious are disadvantaged because they’re not giving their horses the Pink Stuff and lunging them to death to win.
Eventing gets a lot of the brilliant riders that couldn’t cut it in Hunterdom for whatever reason. And we’re happy to take them. 
17 Likes
In one of the press releases/articles USEF said the intent is only to look for substance that have no business being in a horse. So unless there’s a therapeutic use for pentobarbital, my guess is it’s presence doesn’t bode well for that trainer. It will be interesting to see if they can expand it to drugs that might have viable but very rare applications (formaldehyde, oxytocin in geldings or even possibly adenosine?) and you can’t back out up with documentation from a treating vet.
6 Likes
USEF statement on hair testing said the following “Hair [testing] would be reserved for substances that should never be in a horse” USEF Chief Veterinary Officer Stephen Schumacher said. “They would never be in a horse due to contamination or inadvertent exposure. These are things that had to be intentionally administered and are absolutely inappropriate.” So I don’t think they are trying to pick up sedatives. Is it possible that if trainers are suspended on a positive finding of one of these substances that should never be in a horse at all, regardless of ability to establish a timeline, then people will start doing their own hair testing as part of pre purchase exams? This would prevent trainers from getting suspended for substances utilized by a prior owner/trainer, and might also make horses subjected to these regimes unmarketable.
9 Likes
That’s a good question. Possibly the law or how the rule was written.
I kinda get that, but don’t quite understand how enforceable it would be.
2 Likes
What would be difficult about enforcement? Horse tests positive, trainer (and maybe owner) get suspended. Can you help me understand? There is no legal right to show horses. USEF despite all their mealy mouthed explanations of why it takes them a year to ban someone who has been convicted in court is basically a private club. They can suspend whomever they wish for violating any rules they make up pretty much. Unless there is a law prohibiting their actions like anti discrimination laws. But if I am missing something please let me know.
6 Likes
So the horse shows evidence of having, at some time in the past, we’re not sure when precisely, been given a substance that the USEF feels is not permissible for reasons.
.
Not necessarily on the showgrounds, not even necessarily in a time frame where it would have any impact on the animal’s performance at a show.
Not necessarily by the current owner or trainer.
.
It sounds almost like an attempt to ensure full employment for the legal profession.
.
If I were to indulge my paranoia at all, it sounds like something that could be done with malicious intent by an enemy of either trainer or owner. How can you possibly watch a horse 24/7/365 to make sure nobody’s slipping him a cookie with some phenobarb in it? Not enough to hurt him, just enough to turn up later in the hair.
.
I’m adamantly opposed to using pharmacology in place of training or suitability, but I just can’t figure out how this can be practically instituted.
11 Likes
