If they really are going to ramp up punishments in accordance to priors, I’m interested to see what the do to Scott when he inevitably fails another test.
The article is on the News section of the USEF Network site. Link is here: http://www.usefnetwork.com/news/14475/2017/1/11/usef_upholds_horse_welfare_and_fair.aspx
Whether you think the penalty is actually punitive to the involved parties… it’s substantially more than the USED typically imposed in the past and I see it as a positive development.
1 Like
How could they lawyer up with their track record and the addition of filing false medication reports, nice touch. Groom do it? Was it taped on the wrong bucket?
Guess no rules were broken and no action taken but remember the trainer and owner involved in the Amber Eyes debacle.
1 Like
[QUOTE=vxf111;9005523]
Whether you think the penalty is actually punitive to the involved parties… it’s substantially more than the USED typically imposed in the past and I see it as a positive development.[/QUOTE]
My whole point is typically it’s big name trainers/riders/owners who get caught. That type of money is pocket change. And their set down period won’t affect them much. They show a lot yes, but they mainly buy/sell a lot. They have Vanessa who can show the horses and go. They can stay home down the road from KY and WEF and ride and school all the horses at home. Business as usual will continue. Just like Archie - he wasn’t at the shows but his customers were with other people and with instructions. They can still do business at home.
It seems to be all over social media this morning–email from USEF, posts on their Facebook, etc. I wonder if they’re hoping that even more than the financial hit and timeout, that in this day and age the public backlash might actually serve as more of a deterrent than anything the USEF can throw at them.
I don’t ever remember seeing this kind of publicity for a suspension before, but I think it’s a positive development, and there should be more openness about it.
It’s a step in the right direction… add this to when I showed under 3 different big hunter judges from the USA last summer at Thunderbird and saw first hand they were willing to pin more forward rides , this is good!
A year is a very long time for a rider, and two years is a long time for anyone.
I’m a little gobsmacked that they didn’t go or least send an attorney to the hearing. It’s terrible strategy to be tried in absentia.
I’m sad that this pair was still using GABA but very glad to see these stiff penalties coming forward. It’s important for our sport that a performance not come out of a needle.
That fine may be pocket change for those big names, but also remember the other aspects of the action by the USEF… 24 month suspension for Glefke. That means no horses owned by Kensel LLC (someone correct me there) or him personally can be shown. And a 12 month suspension for Farmer. July to July RUINS a show season. Even for a big name who is consistently at the top. Not to mention the potential damage to their reputation and loss of clients.
One downside of delaying the imposition of the suspension is that affected parties have tons of time to set up alternative arrangements and minimize impact. Their ducks are all in a row by July 1, I’m sure.
Do you think there will ever come a time when repeat offenders will ever be set down for an indeterminate time, i.e lifetime suspensions?
Why does the USEF have the rule that the suspension doesn’t start until the same date of the infraction? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the suspension to start as soon as the hearing is over? Because I agree this 6 month leeway gives them tons of time to line up ducks…
I’m a little gobsmacked that they didn’t go or least send an attorney to the hearing. It’s terrible strategy to be tried in absentia.
This isn’t surprising at all. This is a USEF proceeding – not a court of law. With the way the rules and proceedings are set up, there is NOTHING – no testimony, no evidence, no expert opinion – that the accused can offer to overcome the results of a positive drug test. People have tried without success. Some folks have suggested that mounting a defense (even when useless) results in more onerous penalties.
Devin Ryan?
What ever happened to him? Was he punished?
Kensel, LLC is not Larry I believe. If you go look up farms on the USEF it says the Garbers are the LLC. So those horses are safe. It would just be horses he co-owns and Kelley owns.
Like I said (no pun intended ha), they have Vanessa Brown to show the horses. She already has been. It’s business as usual. They will still sell horses to the same
people who always buy horses from them, and develop them from home. Any time is a long time in this business.
If I remember Noelle Floyd interviewed her recently for new year resolutions (her and others) and she said she was focusing on developing and bringing along young horses. So there you go - life goes on.
This stuff doesn’t scare people like them, just people like us. Obviously the whole situation with Brigid and all of them wasn’t enough to scare people.
Of course this is going to hurt them financially. They make hundreds of thousands of dollars annually competing in Hunter Derbies
Suspension hurt Paul Valliere’s business so much <rolls eyes>
1 Like
I continue to believe the only way for the rules to have teeth are to suspend the horses. It will impact the owners directly and the owners are the one’s funding the vast majority of the sport.
I would hope many owners would think twice purchasing a horse from Kelly… it may be young and sparkly with a great show record, but this suspension puts that record into doubt. If I had to risk my newly purchased horse being set down, I would probably avoid them as sellers. And selling is a big part of their business. Way more impactful to their livelihood than prize money or even clients. And that would hopefully scare other trainers into behaving.
None of these owners wants to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars only to be in a COTH article or FB post with everyone just thrilled their horse is being set down. I really believe it could encourage many owners (not all, some want to win at any cost, I get that) to pick up and move to cleaner pastures.
I would also hope that having the owners impacted through horse suspensions could eventually lead to more honest discussions between owners and trainers around prep and drugs. But I know we are a long way from that.
Even if you have a lot of money, loyal clients, and a backup trainer-- being prevented from showing for a year (or more) DOES hurt your business. There’s no minimizing that. This is a FAR more substantial penalty even if not enough to shut down someone’s business entirely.
Why does the USEF have the rule that the suspension doesn’t start until the same date of the infraction? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the suspension to start as soon as the hearing is over? Because I agree this 6 month leeway gives them tons of time to line up ducks…
The idea is to block out the same period in the show season where the advantage was achieved.
For example, giving a one month penalty for a summer infraction starting in December would not be terribly inconvenient.
If the infraction was during WEF, then they can’t do WEF the following year.
There are legit reasons people need to make arrangements too. Remember these policies cover everyone.
1 Like
