MHM- they liked the post where people were extolling his virtues, not just a page or his personal account. Just for clarification. Which I found pretty ick considering what was just announced about him and his clients start coming out of the woodwork posting his awesomeness.
I bought a horse recently from Chad and had a good experience. There are people who have bought a horse from me and had a good experience. There are also people who did not. I don’t drug my horses but I still have had people buy from me and it not go well.
Its the nature of this business.
I think that one way to try to reduce drugging is to make it more difficult to get your hands on them. I can go to the vet and order up just about anything. So maybe the availability of drugs should reconsidered.
I bought a horse recently from Chad and had a good experience. There are people who have bought a horse from me and had a good experience. There are also people who did not. I don’t drug my horses but I still have had people buy from me and it not go well.
Its the nature of this business.
I think that one way to try to reduce drugging is to make it more difficult to get your hands on them. I can go to the vet and order up just about anything. So maybe the availability of drugs should reconsidered.
“I think that one way to try to reduce drugging is to make it more difficult to get your hands on them. I can go to the vet and order up just about anything. So maybe the availability of drugs should reconsidered”
That’s not something it’s really within USEquestrian’s ability to control, though.
[QUOTE=Summit Springs Farm;9016739]
I think that one way to try to reduce drugging is to make it more difficult to get your hands on them. I can go to the vet and order up just about anything. So maybe the availability of drugs should reconsidered.[/QUOTE]
And yet, it seems every time the conversation comes around to “what drugs do you have in your trunk” and I, or any other DVM here expresses dismay at the array of sedatives, tranquilizers, and other regulated injectables that might result in a positive test which folks regard as SOP, we are roundly criticized by hordes of indignant posters claiming they “need” to have them available, and they know very well how to use them.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;9017065]
And yet, it seems every time the conversation comes around to “what drugs do you have in your trunk” and I, or any other DVM here expresses dismay at the array of sedatives, tranquilizers, and other regulated injectables that might result in a positive test which folks regard as SOP, we are roundly criticized by hordes of indignant posters claiming they “need” to have them available, and they know very well how to use them.[/QUOTE]
Sorry to hear that.my vets trust that what’s I my trunk is used as prescribed, but then again I am an owner who manages her horses and includes their medications.
“I bought a horse recently from Chad and had a good experience”
My point, twofold, was 1. People are still vehemently defending him or at minimum extolling the awesomeness. Of a winner. Who was caught drugging. Who probably could have done very well without doping the horse, but we won’t know.
2. Having a good experience doesn’t make it OK. He is drugging horses and getting caught- but we had a good experience so it is AOK.
[QUOTE=Pennywell Bay;9017077]
“I bought a horse recently from Chad and had a good experience”
My point, twofold, was 1. People are still vehemently defending him or at minimum extolling the awesomeness. Of a winner. Who was caught drugging. Who probably could have done very well without doping the horse, but we won’t know.
2. Having a good experience doesn’t make it OK. He is drugging horses and getting caught- but we had a good experience so it is AOK.[/QUOTE]
What I was referring to is that showing and selling are not the same thing. Just because I don’t drug my horses at horse shows doesn’t mean u are going to be happy with a sale from me. And visa versa.
Lane Change just posted their WEF2 results on their facebook page and here is how I know nothing will ever change in the hunter industry:
David Gochman has a pony with Kelley and Larry. The Gochman’s are probably some of the biggest donors to the USEF and they also support good old Scottie too Hottie Stewart, with his numerous infractions. Additionally, I have always had a healthy respect for Jane Gaston but she sticks around with them week after week and I can’t help but think that all of her success has been partially accomplished through chemistry. I can only view these people through a tainted lens and it continually discourages me from thinking this industry is going to become anything more than it is.
1 Like
[QUOTE=lockedoutalter;9019957]
Lane Change just posted their WEF2 results on their facebook page and here is how I know nothing will ever change in the hunter industry:
David Gochman has a pony with Kelley and Larry. The Gochman’s are probably some of the biggest donors to the USEF and they also support good old Scottie too Hottie Stewart, with his numerous infractions. Additionally, I have always had a healthy respect for Jane Gaston but she sticks around with them week after week and I can’t help but think that all of her success has been partially accomplished through chemistry. I can only view these people through a tainted lens and it continually discourages me from thinking this industry is going to become anything more than it is.[/QUOTE]
Not sure where your “healthy respect” comes from (and no snark intended in that, truly) … what these people all have in common is that they want to win at any cost. JG in particular. And if she doesn’t? You better watch out. Especially if you are anywhere near her in the schooling area.
I am surprised there is no discussion over the USEF granting a new hearing to Farmer and Glefke. Looks like even though they are getting a new hearing, they are unhappy that they cannot argue the science and testing methodology around GABA is flawed. :rolleyes:
1 Like
And I’m sure they got those notices. Just like I know that the student who put his foot over the cheat sheet when he saw me knew it was there.
2 Likes
I sincerely hope a) the decision is upheld and b) the fine is increased to include the second hearing costs.
6 Likes
Even allowing for a rehearing looks bad but if they reverse any decision then the USEF might as well cancel all drug policies because no one is going to take them seriously.
1 Like
I totally agree.
I don’t think allowing a second hearing looks bad. It makes the ultimate decision bulletproof. Given that the underlying science of the GABA test can’t be challenged, LG et al have limited arguments to make. I am racking my brain to think of what they can possibly prove that will absolve them from liability under what is essentially a strict liability scheme where you can’t challenge the science of the test. I’m actually glad the rehearing is being allowed, lest they sue and get the decision overturned from some deficiency in the notice.
7 Likes
Maybe the Chronicle and other sources should stop printing stories about the winnings of people that are getting sent down for drugs that would help! In a way it’s saying it’s OK .
3 Likes
I think USEF is just humoring them with a rehearing to avoid a expensive lawsuit about not getting a proper notice of the hearing. Which is probably a BS claim anyway. I doubt this will be overturned.
Maybe the Chronicle and other sources should stop printing stories about the winnings of people that are getting sent down for drugs that would help! In a way it’s saying it’s OK .
I agree that industry publications are part of the problem. It is possible to report results without including a puff piece, and to keep certain folks off of the covers. I would love to see a publication willing to use unnamed sources and write some unpopular, tough articles. But I don’t expect that will ever happen.
1 Like
If you read Armand Leone’s piece in COTH from last week, it seems like the main path will be more like the FEI process, an opportunity to explain how GABA might be in the horse due to someone else’s error or action.
I think it’s decent for USEF to give them another opportunity to appear given that this is the first imposition of one of these larger penalties. I doubt it will change the outcome.
1 Like
