Can’t edit but don’t see the “glass houses” post any longer. Must have been taken down or the settings changed.
A simple search on CK will turn up all the information everyone ever needs to know. The practices within the barn are well known and obviously not hidden (as stated earlier in this thread).
Unfortunately no one in these inner circles of winning on drugged horses are ever going to admit to drugging their horses or admitting its a bad thing: brigid, tori, Betsy parker, CK, Kelley, LG, Archie, the list goes on and on. they will continue to import, buy, and show the fanciest of fancy and give them drugs (whether legal, large doses of perfect prep, or illegal: GABA) in order to make the perfect robotic trip around the course to win.
And USEF wonders why membership is declining and the pool of competition is declining. Because no one can compete with the money bags who have all the money in the world to import the fanciest animals and then drug them to win every, single, weekend.
It WILL NEVER end until USEF starts giving stricter suspensions and bans to repeat offenders. Unfortunately these people know how to play the game and will just “sell” the horse to one of their friend’s barn to compete until they are reinstated. They know how to play their cards
I am not as up-to-date on USEF rules, but they may not have been able to “ban” someone at the time of the infraction. An indefinite suspension may have been the only option at that time, which would have led to rule changes to allow for them to issue a ban.
We had this issue with the association I worked for.
It’s a member supported hobby club, not law enforcement, and has no jurisdiction outside of their member shows. They can’t legally do much of what should be done.
“I am not as up-to-date on USEF rules, but they may not have been able to “ban” someone at the time of the infraction. An indefinite suspension may have been the only option at that time, which would have led to rule changes to allow for them to issue a ban.”
I believe that’s correct. I don’t think there was a rule on the books at that time for a lifetime ban, although that has been rectified by now.
[QUOTE=Limerick;9006418]
I know Scott Stewart has had several fines. This was his last one…$1500. So that doesn’t explain the huge fine for repeated offenses that Larry and Kelley received.
For this violation it was determined that SCOTT STEWARTbe censured pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1a and fined $1,500 (enhanced due to prior violations) pursuant toChapter 7, GR703.1j. It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, all trophies, prizes, ribbons, andmonies, if any, won by TRUST at said competition must be redistributed pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1g.[/QUOTE]
SCOTT STEWART IS A LIAR. HE GETS AWAY WITH MURDER!! ANYONE ELSE 3 STRIKES YOU ARE OUT!!! WTF. FORGIVE ME, BUT THIS IS JUST GROSS… USEF NEED TO LOOK AND THINK AT HOW BAD THIS LOOKS… LETS NOT SET DOWN THE NUMBER ONE CHEATER… LETS SET DOWN EVERYONE ELSE!!!
From the official email:
"The United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) Hearing Committee has issued its first decision imposing penalties pursuant to the Equine Drugs & Medications Penalty Guidelines that went into effect January 1, 2016. The Penalty Guidelines recommend ranges of penalties for violations of the Drugs & Medications rules with regard to particular categories of forbidden substances. Substances in Category IV, which include GABA, contain the most serious penalties. The Penalty Guidelines also take into account whether it is the respondent’s first, second, or third offense. "
That’s why the penalties are so much higher than others received previously.
All this drugging of horses… to these trainers… horses are money and fame, nothing else. I’d bet good money that these same trainers that would drug their horses would never give a drug to their dog. Their dogs are their loved animals, the horses are a piece of sporting equipment that brings money & fame.
Go after the money - fine and suspend the trainer, the rider AND the owner (unless any one of those is a minor in which cause fine/ban their responsible guardian (whoever signs the entries for them/pays the bills). Owners are not innocent victims even if they are not at the show in question.
They have the final responsibility for what happens to the horse and likely the deepest pockets. The suspension should include all horses under their ownership (or under the care of the trainer involved) including anything leased out to someone else for the duration of the suspension period.
If you routinely fine/suspend not only the trainer but the rider and the owner then people will be more careful who they choose to train with.
[QUOTE=paw;9011126]
While I agree with you, LockeMeadows, that the horse doesn’t care if it’s showing or not (though, in fact, I have one that gets unhappy if he stays home too long), I think the problem with setting the horse down as you describe is that the owner (especially if they were complicit in the drugging) may not be as willing to support the horse while it’s on its break, or at least not in an appropriate manner. Not all horses are ok if you just throw them out in the back 40 for a year, and precious few owners have that back 40…
Just saying. Setting a horse down for a significant amount of time may well, in fact, negatively affect its future.[/QUOTE]
Again, I think that is BS. Right now, we are looking at a major revamping of the Walking Horse Industry. After next month, chains will become illegal. After Jan 2018, so will pads (with very few medical exceptions). Do you know what those trashy owners are threatening to do it this transpires - pull the pads and send the horses directly to slaughter, without giving anyone the opportunity to save them. Basically a big FU for these regulations being placed. Something happened in the last few days that I didn’t see coming. When these breeders/trainers/owners said “we are going to kill these horses to punish those that created these laws” the rescues stepped up and said “those horses will give their lives for the greater good”. I have not seen one comment from any rescue group amounting to “OMG, we must SAVE these horses”. No. No one is playing into these terrorist tactics. They will be letting those horses go and not feeding into the hysteria surrounding the threats. This actually seems odd to me, as there are usually at least a few bleeding hearts that can’t see the entire picture. So far, at least the many rescues I follow, have all agreed not to play into the games.
I didn’t mean to derail this topic, but I see similarities. Some horses may suffer if the horses are set down as well. Please look at the entire picture though. This would completely revamp the entire industry within a very short amount of time. Personally, I believe very few horses would actually be set down. If a trainer/owner/rider thought they would basically loose everything, then drugging a horse doesn’t quite seem worth it as much. After seeing some others experience these harsh penalties, I think we would see a very quick reduction in the amount of meds used.
No one is playing into these terrorist tactics. They will be letting those horses go and not feeding into the hysteria surrounding the threats. This actually seems odd to me, as there are usually at least a few bleeding hearts that can’t see the entire picture.
It could be that these are seen as empty threats. That the rescues have this experience on both a micro and macro level, and are calling the bluff.
But the fact that these threats are being made, seriously or not, tells everything about the people making them. They should not own horses or be anywhere near horses. Could be the rescues are not willing to distract from that public realization with a big ‘rescue the horses’ campaign, especially if the rescues think that it may not be needed. Perhaps?
So, suspend the trainer, or who is involved in a drug violation. But let the horse continue to show ( only if it’s sold or leased)… however, make it so the horse cannot get points or prize money. All prize money should be sent to USef drug fund.
The horse could still get a show record, but no points or money till after the suspension is lifted.
So, suspend the trainer, or who is involved in a drug violation. But let the horse continue to show ( only if it’s sold or leased)… however, make it so the horse cannot get points or prize money. All prize money should be sent to USef drug fund.
The horse could still get a show record, but no points or money till after the suspension is lifted.
That makes no sense. No one is going to campaign a horse that can’t garner points.
That makes no sense. No one is going to campaign a horse that can’t garner points.
LOL. That’s how the vast majority of us show horses, because we can’t get to enough shows for the points we garner to matter. 
IIRC it was when the horse killers were sanctioned that it became clear a lifetime ban was necessary. Prior to that, it wasn’t an option. Which is why they were given indefinite date suspensions instead.
That makes no sense. No one is going to campaign a horse that can’t garner points.
True enough (in that campaign = show for points), but as poltroon said, plenty of people show with no intent to campaign.
However allowing the horse to be shown without accruing points mean that horse is still worth something. No points/$$ and he wins a big pre-green division at WEF and plenty of people will line up to put money in Larry (or some other suspended trainer’s pockets).
I think if you honestly want to start changing behavior (or at least make illegal behavior vastly less profitable), you need to suspend the horse for a corresponding amount of time (to coincide with the introduction of microchipping*)
If you do that, that is additional income to that suspended trainer down the drain, or eliminates the benefits of any short term fake sale/transfers for the term of the suspension.
If you do that people who might otherwise buy a horse from a known bad actor will either shy away or they will put a legally binding clause in the purchase agreement that the horse has not been tested in the past X months or is guaranteed to pass any tests that may come back to bite them post purchase.
If you do that all those owners/ammys/parents of minors who could not help but know there is a problem (exceptions made for people who live under a rock) will have considerably more impetus to not let themselves believe “it isn’t MY trainer or it doesn’t happen to MY horse” and actually do their due diligence, ask/hold trainer’s feet to the fire and so on.
But right now as well meaning as these more severe penalties are (and I am very grateful they are considerably more severe than the past), they allow the people (aka “customers”) most likely to lead the change, to remain relatively unaffected. Change that dynamic, maybe you start to get at the root cause of the problem.
With the owners/clients/paying customers (choose your term), I could see giving one strike before being hit as hard as the trainer in terms of penalties - giving the benefit of the doubt that it’s possible he or she didn’t know. But once a horse in their ownership comes up positive, they better start asking more questions when trainer shopping.
The USEF has to accept that drugging horses in a certain segment is done on a daily basis regardless if a horse is at a show, simply for rider convenience. It is so pervasive, it has turned into a culture. Do something every day for long enough, and somehow it doesn’t seem wrong anymore. I would surmise these folks are mostly the bigger players in the sport, as drugging your horse this much does cost some coin. Changing a culture is extremely difficult, but it can be done.
The USEF has had the opportunity to prove that it does put the welfare of the horse first, but has up until now completely failed to do so. I hope they can change and actually provide proof to the membership via regulation improvement and enforcement.
With the owners/clients/paying customers (choose your term), I could see giving one strike before being hit as hard as the trainer in terms of penalties - giving the benefit of the doubt that it’s possible he or she didn’t know. But once a horse in their ownership comes up positive, they better start asking more questions when trainer shopping.
As I understand it, the new rule gives the Hearing Committee quite a bit more latitude in deciding who they hold responsible - so while before it was always the person signing as Trainer, no more and no less, now it can be anyone the evidence leads them to, including the rider or owner, even if they are juniors. But it doesn’t obligate them to do so.
