Tried to edit auto correct for the word “there” but will not respond.
I have been following this for some time know. I recall hearing of the positive test involving these 2 several months ago? Just now have they received their penalties. With that, I find it extremely hard to believe that neither of them knew about this, knew about what was coming down the line.
What I am even more appalled by is the fact that both of them relied on their “counsel”, Bonnie Navin, to make a statement in which neither one of them denied any of the findings.
Ms Navin isn’t the paying customer within the organization of USEF, Glefke is, and therefore it’s not USEF’s responsibility to contact his “counsel” with matters relating to his accounts with the USEF. It is USEF responsibility to reach out to their paying customer with matters such as this and if those attempts went un answered by Glefke then that is not USEF’s problem.
Ms Navin needs to understand that while contacting the lawyer in regards to their clients legal matters is standard practice; USEF is not a united states governing or policing body. They are a private organization in which customers pay to be members of and abide by their rules. Therefore it is USEF’s responsibility to deal directly with their customers in regards to rules and violations of their organization, not to contact their customer’s lawyer; USEF is not the police station.
Ms Navin must also be confused by the situation in which she was involved with USEF lawyers regarding other matters; because I know I am flabbergasted. So was it USEF’s lawyers’ responsibility on that day to discuss the matters of Glefke’s impending drugging issues when the events of that day had nothing to do with Glefke or Farmer? Why would they just come out and start bringing up such a topic to Ms Navin when it is clearly not their responsibility to do so; again Ms Navin isn’t USEF’s paying customer; Glefke is. In my eyes; Ms. Navin should only be getting involved when Glefke decides he doesn’t want to deal with it and passes the issue off to Ms Navin to deal with.
AND why would the hearing councel in September bring up the Glefke/Farmer fiasco case completely unrelated to the one Ms Navin was attending on that day? Why is it USEF’s responsibility to alert Ms Navin that her clients are not responding to their request for response on the drug charges.
I am not well-involved in the show world anymore; partly because of situations like this, but isn’t the 2 parties involved very well known outside the governing body to be using such practices? I mean, a simple google search can turn up a lot of dirt. Neither are newbies when it comes to this stuff and I won’t even open an article recapping any of their winnings if I see it because we can all pretty much count on the horses being “prepped”.
As far as I’m concerned; a repeat offender needs to be taken down with a swift swing of the gavel. I don’t care if the first offense was 12 years ago. A repeat offender is a repeat offender and it needs to be dealt with accordingly.
I applaud USEF for finally taking a stand and making it a point. Now if only we could get these repeat offenders even stiffer sanctions; will change be made.
There was talk on another forum of C Keenum also having 2 horses tested positive for GABA. 2 different horses at 2 different shows. He only got 6 months
That statement by their counsel sounds awful. You do not make your clients look better by saying that you are dealing with the hearing committee so often they know you and your clients personally.
That was my thought as well. Their lawyer seems to do a lot of work on their behalf with USEF. Not a good look.
Even if I had the money to play at that level, not sure I’d want to. I’ll just stay at the local A/AA shows.
I do not know if any of the positive horses won any prize money at the show that had the positive test, but if so, that money should be given to the horses that placed below them. Like racing, you have a positive, purses are redistributed. Is there any mention of this sanction?
NMK, I believe all prizes/prize money are forfeited but don’t quote me on that 
OT, but the FEI and the IOC both have gone back to retest drug samples many years after the competition is over. IIRC, they always sample their top finishers and store the samples.
I do realize that US Equestrian (coincidence that Canada has changed its name too this year?) may not be in the same position that the FEI and IOC are in, but why don’t they test and store the tests for the top finishers in all classes that are either championships or have prize money in excess of (say) $75k? Blood sampling is a lot quicker and easier than urine sampling if a vet does it, and any vet could do it.
I too believe that prizes are forfeited after a horse is set down for anything.
“why don’t they test and store the tests for the top finishers in all classes that are either championships or have prize money in excess of (say) $75k?”
I imagine that long term storage of blood samples in a secure and stable location ain’t cheap. Sure, there’s vendors that will do that for a price. But…you have to pay for it, and also justify this practice to members that are very reluctant to see any increase in membership fees.
Can insurance companies add a clause that they won’t pay a mortality claim if the horse has tested positive for a banned substance, say in the past 3 years?
"Can insurance companies add a clause that they won’t pay a mortality claim if the horse has tested positive for a banned substance, say in the past 3 years? "
ohhh now that is something I haven’t heard yet. Very clever for some of the horses, not owned by the trainers (who often do not buy insurance for their sales horses). You would have to have the trainer you bought the horse from certify it’s cleanliness and if not, you had grounds to sue.
I like as well that this ties horse health outcomes to drugging, bc I sure as hell feel my horse is impaired if we give him a tiny bit of ace after 2 straight weeks in his stall as a result of the rains. I cannot fathom jumping a course week in week out with meds.
Again, anything that connects the owner is absolutely mandatory in my book. They are the lifeblood of the sport. There will always be shady owners who will look the other way, but I’m guessing the vast majority is not comfortable being in the headlines with everyone cheering their horse’s suspension.
There was talk on another forum of C Keenum also having 2 horses tested positive for GABA. 2 different horses at 2 different shows. He only got 6 months
Also starting early Feb. It’s on the USEF’s site, which makes the suspension list slightly more searchable now. Were these his first offenses, though, compared to the Glefke/Farmer circus that everyone’s known has been going on for years?
[QUOTE=Skip’s Rider;9008685]
Can insurance companies add a clause that they won’t pay a mortality claim if the horse has tested positive for a banned substance, say in the past 3 years?[/QUOTE]
Of course they can add clauses like that, but why would they want to get in the middle of such a situation, when it has nothing to do with them?? And why should an owner not recover on a policy if for example the horse’s death had absolutely nothing to do with the banned substance?? That seems unnecessarily punitive to owners. Also, it just seems to invite unnecessary litigation over the test results and the insurance claim.
“NMK, I believe all prizes/prize money are forfeited but don’t quote me on that ;)”
Yes, the prizes are forfeited and the results are tabulated again. I knew somebody long ago who ended up champion at Madison Square Garden a year or two after the fact. The horse that was champion to begin with had a positive drug test, and when the division points were corrected to reflect it, the new results looked very different.
Barn burning was Dick McDevitt. Referenced here: http://www.alumninet.yale.edu/classes/yc1952/Ned_Bonnie.pdf
Larry Glefke was in California??? Do we get them all?
Of course they can add clauses like that, but why would they want to get in the middle of such a situation, when it has nothing to do with them?? And why should an owner not recover on a policy if for example the horse’s death had absolutely nothing to do with the banned substance?? That seems unnecessarily punitive to owners. Also, it just seems to invite unnecessary litigation over the test results and the insurance claim.
I’m sure insurance companies would be delighted to have a reason not to be on the hook for a six figure payout.
Worth reading in light of the discussion topic of this thread-- the culture and hieearchy of the elite hunter/jumper show world. Where winning is so deeply embedded in the status culture of showing-- it will be hard to eradicate the cheating that goes on to achieve the win. Apparently a win achieved by cheating is not devalued in this status culture-- at least not very much-- there might be a superficial muttering about it but nothing other than that seems to happen. Only if and when cheating is not accepted as a way to a win-- deep within the budgets and banks who play at this level-- will the real change occur that is needed to stop it. But as I have said, I do not think that is going to happen any time soon. Or at all.
Sunflower, that link doesn’t work.
I’m pretty sure if my horse was tested I would be checking the results. False positives do happen, and I’d want to make sure I wasn’t one of those.
On LG turning up out in Cali…
Ironically, after thinking he was gone for good and forgetting him for years, next heard of him right here on COTH. Some poor poster asked if she should put a horse in training with him mentioning nobody in her area knew anything about him and he was just starting a training business …and Cali did send him back east so that’s a positive for them.
No idea if it was as a result of the Devon surprise test in the 90s mentioned upthread or another, later scenario but I do recall it was early 2000s. Knew somebody who actually sent L a sales horse, ended really badly. But L dropped out of sight at the suggestion of the Fed or whatever they were calling themselves at that time. 2003ish, maybe. That other trainer that got a multiyear at the same time was for R and repeat priors and knew that was early 2000s. That guy quit the business.
If ever there was a good example of why we need a way to check major, repeat disciplinary actions over an appropriately long enough period of time to show a pattern? This would be it.
Talking major, repeat actions, for blatant use of forbidden substances and various forms of fraud, not slightly over permitted and declared substances once 5 years ago.
