Trainers are not employees of the owners of the horses in most cases.
3 Likes
You can call them employees, you can call them vendors, which is probably more accurate. But owners pay the bills and the trainers provide the service. And money is the only thing that talks. Frankly, if you’re in the horses and spending money and you can’t be bothered to look at a trainer’s record or do some research to see if the person you’re hiring to train your live animal and/or yourself and/or your child, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for you. It’s got to hurt the business if it’s going to have an impact. Whoever is calling the shots, be it the owners paying the bills or the trainers paying the staff, the only way is to make it hurt.
8 Likes
Sometimes learning is hard - that’s not an argument for remaining ignorant.
7 Likes
My horse was tested at a show back in June. I am the owner and rider, trainer is listed as trainer. They only asked for my trainer’s contact information to notify with results. I asked if they could also take mine and contact me with the results as well, and they said only the trainer is notified. To me, that was frustrating.
Owners absolutely need to demand better, but also sometimes when we do the system isn’t set up for it.
21 Likes
That’s interesting in a bad way.
So someone might only find out about their horse’s positive drug test if they read about it in the penalty section of the USEF magazine.
10 Likes
Totally agree, and that’s where the system needs to change.
3 Likes
Exactly. My trainer was also surprised and thought it was ridiculous I couldn’t be notified as the owner.
2 Likes
Especially since if the drug test happened when the owner was not present, the owner might not even know that the horse was tested.
4 Likes
I don’t remember who they said would be contacted the last time my horse was tested but I was given a slip of paper with a reference number that I could use to look up the results eventually. The trainer didn’t even know the horse had bern tested until I told them bc I was doing my own grooming.
I’ve had that happen as well, although I think the last time was a couple of years ago by now.
But that still would not necessarily help the owner if the owner did not happen to be present when the horse was drug tested.
1 Like
I specifically asked how we could find out the results, and the tester said we would be contacted via email at the provided email address (which was my trainer’s, they would not take mine).
But now that you say that, I do remember when I handled horses for testing as a working student 10+ years ago, getting handed a slip of paper with a reference number.
1 Like
It’s important to remember that, under USEF rules, the person who signs the entry form as trainer for a given horse is supposed to be the person who has care/custody/control of the horse and is therefore responsible for whatever it ingests (or is administered) during the show. My horses live at home, so I always sign as trainer at shows, whether I’m showing with a trainer at that event or not.
I agree that owners are ultimately responsible for their animals and should make a point to keep themselves informed about their horses’ care. And that they should be both notified and penalized for rule violations. Just clarifying the reasoning that I’m guessing is behind the answer you were given.
1 Like
I totally understand this reasoning. It just seems like also notifying the owner would be a step towards greater accountability and transparency. I get not notifying the rider, but if a horse tests positive it seems odd not to notify the owner.
10 Likes
This made me think of someone at Devon whose horse was LAME and got WAIVED in a class. Trainer took horse to barn, magically came back sound for another class. Everyone- W the actual F? Is it witchcraft? 
Didn’t get tested. people still send horses to this person, though they kind of dropped out and their SM presence is non existent because EVERYONE was commenting on it . Eh- there are things you can do to help a horse but LAME then suddenly NOT LAME was suspicious, at best. But this person’s owners adore the and look the other way.
2 Likes
Well, there is always the list of shame in the back of the magazine and washrack gossip.
Had this happen at a show I was stewarding. Judge said horse is lame don’t want to see it again. Took the vet and talked to trainer. Vet advised withdrawing horse. Came back half an hour later - horse is sound now can we show?
1 Like
I have relayed this story before, but I groomed a lovely Jr Hunter who was bounced from the first jog and accepted at the second (back-to-back, literally out of the in-gate, turnaround, jog placings for the second class). This horse was in no way drugged or unsound.
Maybe he had a bobble step or trip in the first jog for some reason? Maybe it was the whispered bad feelings between my BNT and the BNT that was judging? 
All I can say for sure is that he was perfectly sound and not medicated. And that he was not champion in the division, but a horse fairly recently sold by the judge was.
1 Like
I saw a horse at Harrisburg one year who was visibly lame jogging into the ring after a class. When they jogged the same class a second time, the horse looked fine, and he got the ribbon. I think he might have even won the class.
But a horse can certainly step on a rock or whatever at an inopportune moment, and take a few lame steps, and then be fine a minute or two later.
1 Like
Is it because whoever signs the entry form is considered the “person responsible” and therefore will be the recipient of any penalties?
I assume so! And I completely agree whoever signs as trainer should be notified - I just think the owner (if not signing as trainer) should also be notified. Especially when they ask lol.
4 Likes
