Cough cough Mr. Leon
7 Likes
Eric Lamaze was just hired to coach at a bigger show jumping/breeding farm in Belgium. Andy still has a sale program and auction. Paul Valliere had a business long after he was suspended. George Morris still has his rabid fan base and provides lessons/feedback.
If that is what happened to people who were suspended/banned for perjury, animal abuse, and sexual abuse - what do you think is REALLY going to happen to someone who is falsely accused of a positive drug test?
7 Likes
Larry Glefke
1 Like
An active usef member told me they took a lesson from PV last summer. Allegedly.
1 Like
I was replying to ReL6’s post where these people were mentioned. However, you are so right and I should have caught that. Thank you for posting. Do you think killing a horse for insurance money is comparable to a class IV drug infraction, given the drug that is being used?
1 Like
Well, one is intentionally killing the horse. The other is potentially killing the horse and/or rider.
The first is worse, but the second is not out of the realm.
2 Likes
- Fine and suspend the owners. So obvious, anyone complaining that they can’t effectively manage their own horse’s care (by themselves or by entrusting them to a reputable program) probably shouldn’t own a horse.
- Attach all violations to a trainer’s searchable USEF record, and the horse’s as well. To help owners make good decisions (see above) they should be able to easily find out who has past violations and who is squeaky clean. Potential buyers should also be able to know if a horse has been caught being drugged, and when it happened. Also important for parents to be able to easily find this info when they are choosing a program for minors.
It blows my mind that there are such detailed searchable records for results, but they keep violations in the dark. There is zero excuse not to make violations public for posterity.
14 Likes
Right. That’s every bit as bad an example as the rest of your list. Business as usual did not stop for even a day. Not. One. Day.
4 Likes
I respectfully disagree. I know who supported PV until his wife’s farm in Ma got sold. I know who is currently supporting GM. EL will not be able to coach in Belgium as per FEI rules. AK has support and is sure missing the Eye Candy income. They are still involved in the industry but the quality of their previous lifestyles certainly changed.
1 Like
I don’t disagree with your point, but I thought the town hall was addressing the drug use in horses, not horse killers, sex offenders and their ilk. Has anyone suspended, punished for drugging suffered financial hardship? I’m just curious.
4 Likes
I agree with fining and suspending the owners of horses—not because I think they shouldn’t own horses, but because it’s an effective way to address the problem
. It’s not my personal style, but not everyone can be at the barn every day, all day, and many owners have to rely on the business ethics of their trainers.
Someone isn’t automatically a bad owner just because they don’t know every detail of their horse’s daily care. My GP mare was in Florida with the trainer. They told me what supplements she got, we worked with the vets etc- but if they decided to double the NSAIDS or give something not in the permissible timeline and she got caught, it doesn’t mean I shouldn’t own her.
For me, the point is to cut off the money flow and remove the incentive for Trainer A to quietly work with Trainer B and still share in the profits if they get caught drugging.
10 Likes
That’s why # 2 is so important. Owners need the data to make good decisions about what programs to trust.
And what I meant by owners that should probably not own horses was referring to the argument that some were making that it’s not the owners responsibility to closely manage their horse’s care. Even if you send a horse to a trainer far from home, it’s still your responsibility to make the best informed choices you can possibly make. If you knowingly send a horse to a trainer that has a reputation for adventures in chemistry then you as an owner should be punished for the consequences of that decision.
Owners who want to throw up their hands and pin it all on the trainer without even attempting to do right by their horses should not be owners.
4 Likes
How does one know that a specific trainer (other than the few mentioned on various COTH threads) has a reputation for adventures in chemistry? I am not against the owners being held responsible, my point is more that there will truly be some owners that have no idea because… how does one know? There is no sign that says “I use illegal drugs on your horse at shows”.
According to some of the posters here, every single person ever does this.
7 Likes
Way back in the day, I know trainers who were caught using Reserpine lost a lot of clients. I was actively showing then and my pony friends’ parents were actively looking for blood.
1 Like
This is why violations should be attached to a trainer’s record. To @Pennywell_Bay’s point, it’s not reasonable to say any owner who doesn’t personally feed or observe every aspect of their horse’s care shouldn’t own a horse, but it is reasonable to make them accountable for doing their research, communicating with their trainer and demanding ethical and legal care and preparation of their horse. Cutting off the ability to carry on and move horse along to assistant or friend-of-trainer by holding the owners accountable would go a long way. Owners need to demand better and trainers need to be in a position to listen to those demands vs. the current attitude a lot of BNTs have of “pay the bill and don’t ask too many questions”
16 Likes
100000000%
3 Likes
Again, I do not disagree with this.
I think there does need to be a findable record on what people were sat down for, etc.
But, again, lots of parents/owners do not know what they don’t know.
3 Likes
You are talking about the finding of Class IV drugs in the horse. This isn’t a situation of the horse not cleaning up his Robaxin in the appropriate administration window or an error using a compounded powder of a permitted drug that settled and was inadvertently overdosed. Or even giving a therapeutic substance without the proper paperwork or timing. If breaking a rule that has a bigger welfare and safety implication doesn’t potentially threaten the trainer’s business or the horse’s or owner’s ability to keep playing in the sandbox, then nothing will change. Although as others have pointed out, there are a lot of cases of legitimate, long term suspensions that haven’t caused the financial ruin of the professionals.
3 Likes
A large percentage of “owners” are the parents of juniors who are riding out 4-5 years of big bills with the expectation their kid will go to college and they will never pay a horse related bill or even see a horse again.
And?
That means they are not responsible for the staff (trainers) they hire?
If I hire a new staff member, I am responsible for actions (and omissions) of that staff.
Let’s pretend we are hiring a courier driver. As an employer, I need to make sure they are trained, they have a licence and are provided with proper equipment. If they crash while on the job, the employer is responsible for that crash (vicarious liability).
Why? To hold employers responsible, so they make better decisions to manage and supervise their employees and prevent future harm. Because it raises the bar, and encourages higher standards and better behaviour than ‘oh gee I didn’t know we shouldn’t do that!’
8 Likes
