USEF Upholds Horse Welfare and Fair Play with Stiff Penalties for Doping

[Madison]

[QUOTE=trubandloki;9007087]
Am I reading that article correctly? The lawyer is saying that someone from USEF should have told them?

Is USEF supposed to remember who is the lawyer for who and are they really allowed to spew allegations to a lawyer they are standing in the hall with?[/QUOTE]

What I find interesting about it is that the lawyer is basically confirming how frequently she deals with USEF on behalf of these clients. In the legal profession, if you are regularly dealing with a particular lawyer, on behalf of a particular client, it would not be uncommon (and in fact could be considered professional courtesy) to ask if you will be seeing that lawyer at the other hearing this week, or even to inquire if they planned on submitting evidence or a response if they hadn’t done so but usually do on their other matters. So, from the lawyer’s perspective I can see being annoyed if you had regular dealings and the other side let the whole process play out without ever saying a word to you. That said, it is hard for me to believe no one received notice at any point in the process, so it will be interesting to see what USEF’s response to that claim is.

[wronglead]

Honestly, I would still be happy with this punishment even if they really did not (which I really doubt) have any notice about the violations/hearing/suspensions. [Trump voice] You know, I know it, everybody knows it- this horse among many others in the hands of winning professionals are under the influence of some sort of cocktail.

With prior infractions against them, I do not think they should even get a chance to “prove” themselves or their “innocence”. There will never be a time or place when putting a horse’s health on the line for a prize is okay. The bottom line is that the horse tested POSITIVE for GABA- there is no excuse of evidence that could or should redeem them. Unless I am unaware of GABA plants growing wild in horse pastures or a GABA fairy that comes into the barns at night and sprinkles fairy dust in pony’s food. “Innocent until proven guilty” has no place here when one is risking the life of a helpless animal that tries so hard to please and packs our human asses around a course of jumps.

At this point it is just embarrassing that they are trying to defend themselves, especially with the ridiculous excuse they released. Prior to their statement I had more respect for them for thinking that they had just quietly accepted their punishment, knowing that they did wrong.

[dia916]

ugh! maybe the micro chip rule would prevent that!

[busylady]

Terrible Argument

The statement issued by Glefke/Farmer is pretty unconvincing. They aren’t saying USEF didn’t provide proper notice to the charged parties, they only say the attorney that has represented Glefke in the past (and on other pending matters) didn’t receive notice. Well, due process does not require notice to an attorney. In fact, unless USEF had notice that the attorney was authorized to accept service on behalf of Glefke/Farmer for the matter, USEF would have violated due process had they sent notice to an attorney rather than the charged parties.

Additionally, the statement that “Lawyers know full well when they do not receive contact from a charged party and that party has legal representation, to contact that lawyer and advise them of the charges.” is complete B.S. Each charge is treated separately and USEF had no obligation to notify Navin until she appeared on Glefke’s behalf on the current charge. It doesn’t matter that Navin represented them on a different charge, USEF does not have to assume that Glefke would hire Navin for the GABA charge. To the contrary, it is arguable that it would have been unethical for the USEF lawyers to discuss the GABA charge with Navin unless and until she appeared on Glefke’s behalf.

[dia916]

They didn’t know? OMG, hilarious. What was the “other matter” I wonder, LOL

[adlgel]

Actually at least Kelly is saying she didn’t receive proper notice:

USEF claims in its final order that secretary Emily Pratt called Farmer about the charges, a matter vehemently denied by Ms. Farmer.

“If anyone had contacted me about any charge, no matter how small or large, I would have contacted our counsel immediately to secure our due process rights and rights under the drugs and medication rules, such as having a B sample tested,” says Farmer.

[busylady]

She is only alleging they didn’t call her, which is different from saying they didn’t provide proper notice (notice should be mailed).

[dia916]

How can a person not follow up when their horse has a blood test? This is incomprehensible to me. I am married to a lawyer. When I shared the news with her about the rent USEF suspension and fines she said a very interesting thing: “Remember the time YOU got picked for a blood test with our horse?” The one and only time I have ever been picked for a blood test was about 8 years ago. And my wife, a lawyer, still recalls the event. She was keenly concerned at the time that our horse tested clean (he did) and remembers the event as being seminal. How can a professional who makes zillions of dollars in this sport not follow up on a blood test? Maybe they are on GABA too.

[busylady]

Subchapter 6-B PRE-HEARING PROCEDURES
GR606 Notice

1. Any person, group of persons or competition against whom a protest or charge is filed are entitled to a hearing.
   Such hearing shall be after at least twenty (20) days’ written notice to the accused except that a Show Committee
   may hold a hearing during or within 48 hours of a competition after 24 hours’ written notice to the accused unless
   this notice requirement is waived in writing by the accused. Notice of hearing must contain a brief statement of the
   facts constituting the alleged violation, the Federation rules allegedly violated and must specify the time and place
   at which the hearing is to be held.
2. Initial written notice of a protest or charge must be sent to the accused within sixty (60) days from the date the protest
   or charge is received in the Federation office or from the date a charge is issued by the CEO, his designee or
   National Officer of the Federation. This initial notice may either specify a time and place at which the hearing is to
   be held or state that the hearing will be held at a date to be determined. If the initial notice does not specify a date
   and place, a subsequent notice of hearing specifying the date and place of the hearing will be sent at least twenty
   (20) days prior to the hearing date.
3. Any notice sent to the last known address on file with the Federation shall be deemed sufficient notice.

[Groom_amp_Taxi]

Hope those ducks aren’t having a rave

So USEF secretary Pratt tried to call Farmer? Like a high profile horse trainer is going to answer or listen to a voice mail from an unknown number? Or maybe Farmer has USEF on her caller id…

I hope the USEF has their ducks in very neat rows on this matter and can prove beyond shadow of a doubt that correct process was followed with regards to the notifications.

[poltroon]

That statement from the attorney (not actually Farmer or Glefke) is… ahem… a piece of work.

Name dropping is not a legal defense. “The good-old-boys network failed me” is maybe not a great public relations argument.

[Xctrygirl]

I said on page one that they would ‘lawyer up’ and try to appeal.

Hopefully USEF DID follow the procedural process and maybe we can actually shut these folks down for a bit.

Only time will tell.

Emily

[Darkwave]

Granted, it’s several decades ago, but when I was showing regularly, my horses were tested multiple times (urine, not blood).

I never heard anything further after I was tested, and I assumed that that was because there was nothing found (because there was nothing to find). It never occurred to me to follow up.

Have things changed? Do you now hear from USEF regardless of whether the test was positive or negative?

Separately, I am sympathetic to the point that the hearing was never mentioned to Ms. Navin - I agree with her expectation that, as their counsel of record, it would have been appropriate to raise the non-response issue to her.

I’m also hoping (and would expect) that the USEF was very careful to dot their Is and cross their Ts before handing down this ruling. So I imagine that there’s more to the story on how they tried to contact Glefke and Farmer.

Related to this - does USEF have a litigation/defense fund for itself? I’ve suddenly got a credit card burning a hole in my pocket…

[eclipse]

Just once I wish one of those caught would actually man up and admit “yeah we cheated…and got caught” then damn well say why! Stop trying to save face and act all shocked when you get caught, it just makes you look even worse! Seriously, how stupid do they really think we all are???

Signed, an amateur hunter rider that wants this sport cleaned up!!!

[wishfulthinking711]

Darkwave, I assume you only get notified if there is a positive result. I have never been notified after any of my drug tests.

[Single_Oxer]

[QUOTE=dia916;9007212]
How can a person not follow up when their horse has a blood test? This is incomprehensible to me. I am married to a lawyer. When I shared the news with her about the rent USEF suspension and fines she said a very interesting thing: “Remember the time YOU got picked for a blood test with our horse?” The one and only time I have ever been picked for a blood test was about 8 years ago. And my wife, a lawyer, still recalls the event. She was keenly concerned at the time that our horse tested clean (he did) and remembers the event as being seminal. How can a professional who makes zillions of dollars in this sport not follow up on a blood test? Maybe they are on GABA too.[/QUOTE]

Just because you have blood pulled does not mean that it will be tested.

[scrbear11]

Well we know where the proceeds of this $25 “fan” membership will be going…

The Farmer/Glefke attorney team will fight this to the bitter end. Their pockets are certain to be far deeper than the USEF.

[eclipse]

And Darkwave, My horse was tested at shows last year and previous years, and I’ve never been contacted. I assume they only contact if something is positive:) and, even as an amateur I check each and every show season what can and cannot be fed or rubbed on legs etc… my horse MY decisions MY responsibility if I screw anything up! Makes me so mad when these BNRs start saying “oh we had no idea”

[adlgel]

[QUOTE=busylady;9007209]
She is only alleging they didn’t call her, which is different from saying they didn’t provide proper notice (notice should be mailed).[/QUOTE]

Perhaps - I read her statement about “if anyone had tried to contact me” as implying contact of any form - mail, phone call, etc.

[MHM]

I believe that when we had a few horses drug tested in the last year or two, the vet gave me a slip with the drug sample number on it, and said I could check on the website listed on the slip if I wanted to see the results. I never bothered to check, since I knew the horses were clean. But that is an option, unless something has changed recently.