PDA

View Full Version : The "Duct Tape" over bad deeds: How long will it stick.



mvp
Mar. 4, 2012, 08:28 PM
I'm a big fan of this rugged stuff.

But the application of Duct Tape to cover the farm names on the drapes for the farm of a banned trainer is the point at which we need to stop.

This comes from a couple of posts in the "Banned Trainer" thread. Apparently, this is a solution for a BNT and one exploited by (King) George H. Morris himself. The horses, decorations and staff (all but the named banned individual) can be at the USEF show. Duct tape over the farm's name meets the obligation to "not show for the benefit" of the banned.

I'll rant on later in the thread.

But I ask because of H/J's own recent threads about drugging.... about pony trainers cheating (at the only show where people sign sportsmanship pledges)... and in Off Course, a thread about some Big Lick TWH trainer finally, finally nailed by the USDA and others outside the horse world for their long ignored abuses. The duct tape there may have taking half a century to fall off, but it has.

My point, H/J people, is that if we don't clean this up, someone else will notice the stink and do it for us.

Your thoughts?

SkipChange
Mar. 4, 2012, 08:34 PM
Not to ignite your fire, but if head trainer and another client get caught drugging one horse...but little ammy me has nothing to do with it and my horse is clean...why should me and my horse be shut out from showing too? How does that help the situation?

chunky munky
Mar. 4, 2012, 09:18 PM
Agree w/ Skip. Why punish any other client of said trainer? Are they supposed to go out and order new tack drapes for 30 days? Sounds like you just want trainer beheaded and never to work again.

PinkBoots
Mar. 4, 2012, 09:27 PM
If my trainer was ever banned, I couldn't see myself continuing to train with them. Ever.

chunky munky
Mar. 4, 2012, 09:39 PM
PB, what do you mean banned. Do you mean for life? That has only happened to a handfull of people in the history of the sport.

mvp
Mar. 4, 2012, 09:45 PM
Not to ignite your fire, but if head trainer and another client get caught drugging one horse...but little ammy me has nothing to do with it and my horse is clean...why should me and my horse be shut out from showing too? How does that help the situation?


Agree w/ Skip. Why punish any other client of said trainer? Are they supposed to go out and order new tack drapes for 30 days? Sounds like you just want trainer beheaded and never to work again.

I'm not on fiyah yet. But to answer your questions.

No, I don't want the sumbich beheaded. I do want the punishment to fit the crime. Or I'd settle for the USEF taking a stronger stand.... before someone else does.

Yes, I think you clients who are paying these guys are enabling them. You can only plead "But I didn't know" so many times. If it's not your horse, I suppose you have a point. You might be the one "straight edge" (and PITA) client in the barn. But if it's your horse caught with the wrong results on the piss test? Someone, somewhere should be watching you hard. (IMO, better you than an outside authority).

Here's my point about the Duct Tape. How do I explain this to my non-horsey friends I take to a very pretty horse show? "Oh, see, those guys with the fancy set-up and all the blues have their head guy banned this week. The duct tape is satisfying USEF rules."

That's a problem. It's also a problem that you need to do some really, really bad stuff to earned the "Duct Tape" punishment. You *know* my non-horsey friends will ask next, "Well, what did he do?"

I really, really don't want to have to explain that no one is required to put up duct tape until a horse dies.

chunky munky
Mar. 4, 2012, 09:53 PM
Well, actually some people get set down just for having the assistant trainer give the wrong med to the wrong horse, or forgetting to file a drug report, or contamination from a coffee grinder used to grind up pills and not cleaned out well enough. You know most of these folks are not mother rapers and baby stabbers. Some times it can happen from a clerical error. And sometimes it can happen when I clients horse ships in for a show and mommy gave it ace 3 days before to clip its ears, and guess who signed the entry? I am not making this stuff up. These have all happened.

supershorty628
Mar. 4, 2012, 09:58 PM
Not that it'll matter much in this discussion but...not all BNTs are the villians that they're made out to be sometimes on this forum.

I ride with a BNT and have had multiple horses tested over the years, as have others in the barn, and none of ours have come back with anything positive. Just saying.

mvp
Mar. 4, 2012, 10:03 PM
Not that it'll matter much in this discussion but...not all BNTs are the villians that they're made out to be sometimes on this forum.

I ride with a BNT and have had multiple horses tested over the years, as have others in the barn, and none of ours have come back with anything positive. Just saying.

So what's yer point? The second part of your post does nothing to support the first part.

Those who are caught with drugged horses are guilty of that--- no more, no less.

Rel6
Mar. 4, 2012, 10:13 PM
So what's yer point? The second part of your post does nothing to support the first part.

Those who are caught with drugged horses are guilty of that--- no more, no less.

I think what Supershorty is trying to say is that there is a huge amount of generalization on COTH as far as BNTs go. When a few get caught, threads start to pop up that generalize and make it sound like all BNTs do the same. I think Supershorty's point was that a few bad apples shouldn't corrupt the rest of the bunch...(and yes, I'm well aware that at this point it seems like there are more than just a few.)

allicolls Aefvue Farms Deep South
Mar. 4, 2012, 11:15 PM
Maybe the trainers who are in the habit of doing something bad enough to get banned should just invest in a different set of curtains without the farm name to use when they're banned.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 4, 2012, 11:23 PM
Here's my point about the Duct Tape. How do I explain this to my non-horsey friends I take to a very pretty horse show? "Oh, see, those guys with the fancy set-up and all the blues have their head guy banned this week. The duct tape is satisfying USEF rules."

That's a problem. It's also a problem that you need to do some really, really bad stuff to earned the "Duct Tape" punishment. You *know* my non-horsey friends will ask next, "Well, what did he do?"

I really, really don't want to have to explain that no one is required to put up duct tape until a horse dies.

You can get your non-horsey friends to come to shows? :lol:

Seriously though, you don't have to "kill horses" to be suspended. A groom can give a medication at a wrong time or a horse can eat from a bucket tainted with residue from another horse's Banamine or whatever. Obviously that innocent scenario doesn't explain all cases, but it does some.

What if suspended trainers just couldn't put drapes up? Would that satisfy you? :rolleyes: This thread just seems like a petty way to try and make a point.

mvp
Mar. 5, 2012, 02:34 PM
Maybe the trainers who are in the habit of doing something bad enough to get banned should just invest in a different set of curtains without the farm name to use when they're banned.

Why not make your dead gramma the nominal head trainer and then let her get banned from time to time?


You can get your non-horsey friends to come to shows? :lol:

Seriously though, you don't have to "kill horses" to be suspended. A groom can give a medication at a wrong time or a horse can eat from a bucket tainted with residue from another horse's Banamine or whatever. Obviously that innocent scenario doesn't explain all cases, but it does some.

What if suspended trainers just couldn't put drapes up? Would that satisfy you? :rolleyes: This thread just seems like a petty way to try and make a point.

Now I am on fiyah.

Putting duct tape over a farm's name as a way to get around the purpose of the banning is also Making A Point. It is a big silver finger to those who do not cheat. And the USEF let's 'em do it.

I think banned should mean not being there, not competing, not making that period's worth of money at a horse show. Asking that the USEF to close up this loophole isn't asking for much, right? It's asking their punishment to have some teeth that they intended.

Truly, this thread is inspired in part by the "Ruh roh" going on the the Big Lick world right now. It's a PSA: IF we don't police ourselves. If flouting out governing organization's rules becomes SOP here, then someone else is going to come in and stop that shiza for us.

tidy rabbit
Mar. 5, 2012, 02:55 PM
Maybe the trainers who are in the habit of doing something bad enough to get banned should just invest in a different set of curtains without the farm name to use when they're banned.

*SNORT*

grandprixjump
Mar. 5, 2012, 05:46 PM
It's the barns and trainers that OhShi, happens over and over again, that needs better suspensions. Like a point system according to what happened. points stay on system for 2 years and the more points the longer the suspension.

For example a drug mistake = 2 points and a month suspension, but the second time 2 more points, so now they have 4 points and gets minimum 6 weeks or 2 months. When each points infractions are 2 years old the points from that infraction drops off and doesn't count anymore.
If someone gets 12 points within the 2 years or whatever is deemed crazy, the ban becomes perminent...

stolen virtue
Mar. 5, 2012, 05:56 PM
Not to ignite your fire, but if head trainer and another client get caught drugging one horse...but little ammy me has nothing to do with it and my horse is clean...why should me and my horse be shut out from showing too? How does that help the situation?

Because it is a business. You have to go after one's ability to make a profit in order to have effective regulations. The risk of loss of clients based on being banned must be held as the punitive consequences for illegal behavior and/or attempting to "game" horse showing. It must be a level playing field for all.

In my own area trainers have had reprimands but "banning" requires a consistent level of disregard for the rules. One or two issues might get you a warning, but to be banned is another issue. Two different behaviors.

SkipChange
Mar. 5, 2012, 06:19 PM
I'm not on fiyah yet. But to answer your questions.

No, I don't want the sumbich beheaded. I do want the punishment to fit the crime. Or I'd settle for the USEF taking a stronger stand.... before someone else does.

Yes, I think you clients who are paying these guys are enabling them. You can only plead "But I didn't know" so many times. If it's not your horse, I suppose you have a point. You might be the one "straight edge" (and PITA) client in the barn. But if it's your horse caught with the wrong results on the piss test? Someone, somewhere should be watching you hard. (IMO, better you than an outside authority).

If my trainers were engaging in illicit activities (which they aren't) I doubt they would broadcast it to all the clients. "Oh hey, we used illegal drugs on so-and-so's horse just so you know!" So yeah, I'd firmly stick to "I knew nothing about it."

Want them to watch hard? Ok maybe make it mandatory that one of their horses be randomly selected to be drug tested at the next show they attend after their suspension is up. I would increase their fine to make them pay for a a drug test for every horse in their barn at every show they attend for the next 12 months before I banned every horse in the entire barn from competing.


Here's my point about the Duct Tape. How do I explain this to my non-horsey friends I take to a very pretty horse show? "Oh, see, those guys with the fancy set-up and all the blues have their head guy banned this week. The duct tape is satisfying USEF rules."

That's a problem. It's also a problem that you need to do some really, really bad stuff to earned the "Duct Tape" punishment. You *know* my non-horsey friends will ask next, "Well, what did he do?"

I really, really don't want to have to explain that no one is required to put up duct tape until a horse dies.

Are you trying to change these rules to better the sport or to appease your non-horsey friends?

Janeway
Mar. 5, 2012, 06:50 PM
So how many of the very BNT's have actually been banned or had a long-term suspension?

I haven't seen that many really big names on the list at all in recent years. For instance I've never seen Beacon Hill, North Run or Heritage Farm trainers on the list and they are certianly big players! Does that mean they are pretty clean, or very careful?

Scott Stewart was the last name I really recognized on the list and he got 1 month for stackin NSAIDS. I'm just curious because I agree that the BNT's get a bad rep when all these topics come up, yet I can't pinpoint an actual episode to back it up. Mind you, all my inside info comes from here anyways :winkgrin:

Parrotnutz
Mar. 5, 2012, 07:12 PM
So how many of the very BNT's have actually been banned or had a long-term suspension?

I haven't seen that many really big names on the list at all in recent years. For instance I've never seen Beacon Hill, North Run or Heritage Farm trainers on the list and they are certianly big players! Does that mean they are pretty clean, or very careful?

Scott Stewart was the last name I really recognized on the list and he got 1 month for stackin NSAIDS. I'm just curious because I agree that the BNT's get a bad rep when all these topics come up, yet I can't pinpoint an actual episode to back it up. Mind you, all my inside info comes from here anyways :winkgrin:

Backing it up is difficult with stuff like Carolina Gold and Mag around....since they don't test at present. There are many things that don't test it seems.
I am so glad my surgery is over and I can get back to the barn Wed. cause these drugging threads are depressing me :no:

stolen virtue
Mar. 5, 2012, 07:30 PM
First: Atleast in Calif we all pay a drug fee, no one has to pay for their horse to be drug tested-we all pay for that if we show.

Second: Even in our little area we know who the trainers are that like to try and use components other than training, skill, and luck at horse shows because they use those same things at home. These trainers typically controll all feed for their horses in training as well. I'm pretty sure it works the same for BNTs.

FrenchFrytheEqHorse
Mar. 5, 2012, 08:48 PM
Interesting discussion. I think people are really kidding themselves when they can't imagine how one horse in a barn of 50 at the horse show gets the wrong bucket, or the wrong scoop gets used, or gets fed with the early group instead of the late group, etc. Most of these larger barns have staffs of dozens of people, and mistakes do happen.

Am I skeptical when a trainer gets set down for something like reserpine? Yes. That's not a bucket mix-up. Stacking NSAIDs? That could very, very well be a feeding mix-up, or a simple timing error.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 5, 2012, 08:51 PM
Interesting discussion. I think people are really kidding themselves when they can't imagine how one horse in a barn of 50 at the horse show gets the wrong bucket, or the wrong scoop gets used, or gets fed with the early group instead of the late group, etc. Most of these larger barns have staffs of dozens of people, and mistakes do happen.

Am I skeptical when a trainer gets set down for something like reserpine? Yes. That's not a bucket mix-up. Stacking NSAIDs? That could very, very well be a feeding mix-up, or a simple timing error.

Exactly.

mvp
Mar. 5, 2012, 09:14 PM
It's the barns and trainers that OhShi, happens over and over again, that needs better suspensions. Like a point system according to what happened. points stay on system for 2 years and the more points the longer the suspension.

For example a drug mistake = 2 points and a month suspension, but the second time 2 more points, so now they have 4 points and gets minimum 6 weeks or 2 months. When each points infractions are 2 years old the points from that infraction drops off and doesn't count anymore.
If someone gets 12 points within the 2 years or whatever is deemed crazy, the ban becomes perminent...

Like.

Something like this would work for the mixed up feed buckets.... the cocaine found in the hunter's system because, you know, all currency has traces of coke on it and grooms handle money....

mvp
Mar. 5, 2012, 09:21 PM
If my trainers were engaging in illicit activities (which they aren't) I doubt they would broadcast it to all the clients. "Oh hey, we used illegal drugs on so-and-so's horse just so you know!" So yeah, I'd firmly stick to "I knew nothing about it."

Want them to watch hard? Ok maybe make it mandatory that one of their horses be randomly selected to be drug tested at the next show they attend after their suspension is up. I would increase their fine to make them pay for a a drug test for every horse in their barn at every show they attend for the next 12 months before I banned every horse in the entire barn from competing.



Are you trying to change these rules to better the sport or to appease your non-horsey friends?

1. I do believe that the first time this happens, clients don't know. The second time? Well, I'd hope that the client started to think about having a "what's this all about... can we get on the same page" meeting with their trainer.

What hobbyist who tries hard and is there to have fun wants to learn that either she rides badly enough that her horse needs to be drugged, or that the whole game she's paying to play is rigged?

I also come down on the clients because they are the money. Get that to stop co-signing the BS and I think it will be quickest, most effective, least ugly way to change things.

2. Yup. Make it really, really expensive to have a barn that's under suspicion.

3. Getting my non-horsey friends to respect the sport and keeping the sport clean are one and the same.

Look, our "dirty little secret" about drugging horses is now discussed here on the interwebz for all to see. How long do you think this-- and the defenses of it (or perceived defenses)-- is going to go on as merely an interesting topic before the outside world says, "Hey, do you know what's going on behind the scenes at those fancy horse shows?" IMO, this isn't a PR problem we can afford.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 5, 2012, 09:26 PM
Look, our "dirty little secret" about drugging horses is now discussed here on the interwebz for all to see. How long do you think this-- and the defenses of it (or perceived defenses)-- is going to go on as merely an interesting topic before the outside world says, "Hey, do you know what's going on behind the scenes at those fancy horse shows?" IMO, this isn't a PR problem we can afford.

You really think this a dirty little secret that has been hidden forever? Non-horse people know that we drug horses, or at least my friends do. Guess what? THEY DON'T CURR. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I don't think most non-horsey people—who have to worry about paying bills, going to work, getting their kids to school, going to grocery store, etc.—care about the horse getting loaded up with Carolina Gold last weekend at WEF.

I'm not saying that it's a problem that should be ignored, but trying to crusade under the image of protecting the public reputation of the sport, when it doesn't have that great of an image to begin with, is laughable.

tidy rabbit
Mar. 5, 2012, 09:32 PM
.....but trying to crusade under the image of protecting the public reputation of the sport, when it doesn't have that great of an image to begin with, is laughable.


WHAT??? No!
<insert sarcasm where appropriate>

spaceagejuliet
Mar. 6, 2012, 12:50 AM
I'm imagining eventually the drapes of multiple offenders get thick patches of layered duct tape residue...?

skydy
Mar. 6, 2012, 01:56 AM
Perhaps masking tape could prevent the build up...but oh, yes, it doesn't have the superior adhesive qualities of the duct tape, and could come loose, resulting in a violation of the RULES. ;)

EqTrainer
Mar. 6, 2012, 08:33 AM
If they would use the Hello Kitty duct tape it would be so much better. Just sayin'.

SillyHorse
Mar. 6, 2012, 08:59 AM
Putting duct tape over a farm's name as a way to get around the purpose of the banning is also Making A Point. It is a big silver finger to those who do not cheat. And the USEF let's 'em do it.
I understand and agree with the point. It's laughing in everyone else's faces. "Haha I got banned. So what? It's business as usual, and I want to be sure everyone knows."

eclipse
Mar. 6, 2012, 09:48 AM
If they would use the Hello Kitty duct tape it would be so much better. Just sayin'.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

ponies123
Mar. 6, 2012, 10:20 AM
You really think this a dirty little secret that has been hidden forever? Non-horse people know that we drug horses, or at least my friends do. Guess what? THEY DON'T CURR. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I don't think most non-horsey people—who have to worry about paying bills, going to work, getting their kids to school, going to grocery store, etc.—care about the horse getting loaded up with Carolina Gold last weekend at WEF.

I'm not saying that it's a problem that should be ignored, but trying to crusade under the image of protecting the public reputation of the sport, when it doesn't have that great of an image to begin with, is laughable.

:lol: MTE. I don't know what kind of non horsey people some of you know, but the ones I know are non horsey for a reason: they don't give a damn about this silly horse world. It's not like baseball or football where the public world gets up in arms about steroids or other drug offenses from the players. For the most part the horse world has no spectators other than fellow competitors. The average working American doesn't tune in to watch the grand prix on Saturday nights. The average working American does not care about what goes on behind the scenes at horse shows.

RockinHorse
Mar. 6, 2012, 10:43 AM
I'm thinking a generic stall drape rental business might a viable venture ;)

oliverreed
Mar. 6, 2012, 11:07 AM
If my trainer was ever banned, I couldn't see myself continuing to train with them. Ever.

Hey y'all, I'm not in the H/J world, I ride a Paso. But I've gotta say I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with this.

ponies123
Mar. 6, 2012, 11:11 AM
Hey y'all, I'm not in the H/J world, I ride a Paso. But I've gotta say I'm not sure how anyone could disagree with this.

Because of the many true mistakes and accidents that can happen, that several people on this thread have already given examples of. You can't make a blanket generalization like that. Now if my trainer was banned for killing a horse for insurance money then yes I would take my money elsewhere - obviously. But the duct tape over the logo example that the OP used to start this thread was a result of a suspension, which is obviously very different than a ban. To say that you would never ride with someone who has been banned, ever, is pretty silly.

stolen virtue
Mar. 6, 2012, 11:22 AM
As long as clients can accept "mistakes" and "accidents" as the reasons for unethical behavior from trainers, then this issue will continue. I find it interesting that so many people here think a suspension and being banned comes from 1 or 2 "mistakes" and "accidents".

fivesocks
Mar. 6, 2012, 11:55 AM
As long as clients can accept "mistakes" and "accidents" as the reasons for unethical behavior from trainers, then this issue will continue.

I agree. Bucket mix ups and such sound like excellent excuses. Wouldn't people handling meds and feeding and everything be EXTRA careful - knowing that if things got mixed up, there could be trouble?

Sail Away
Mar. 6, 2012, 12:16 PM
:lol: MTE. I don't know what kind of non horsey people some of you know, but the ones I know are non horsey for a reason: they don't give a damn about this silly horse world. It's not like baseball or football where the public world gets up in arms about steroids or other drug offenses from the players. For the most part the horse world has no spectators other than fellow competitors. The average working American doesn't tune in to watch the grand prix on Saturday nights. The average working American does not care about what goes on behind the scenes at horse shows.


You are kidding yourself if you don't think the non-horse owning public will not have an opinion on this - just look at the threads about the NYC carriage horses. The general population doesn't need to tune in to GP jumping or go to horse shows. All that is needed is to have PETA and HSUS send out mailings and put commercials on the tv to their target audience - the non-horse crowd (the majority of the population) to get them to sign a petition or send in money so they can eradicate the nasty show world. They will appeal to the majority of people who do NOT own them but love animals. There are more of them than there are of the horse owning set. If you think PETA doesn't have their eyes on the horse show crowd you are not paying attention. Then we'll see how many :lol: emoticons will be in these posts.

Picture this, a commercial showing a horse show with fancy horses at a very nice facility and the camera panning to the stalls with spent needles on the ground or in the trash can and a good sound bite. The general population might not care because it is a horse - but with the right sound bite, it wouldn't matter. It is an animal being drugged to suit the human and the sport.

RAyers
Mar. 6, 2012, 12:31 PM
...
Am I skeptical when a trainer gets set down for something like reserpine? Yes. That's not a bucket mix-up. Stacking NSAIDs? That could very, very well be a feeding mix-up, or a simple timing error.


Staking NSAIDs is an obvious method of cheating. There is no condition or therapy in which a sound, active horse would need stacked NSAIDs. Accepted medical conditions requiring multiple NSAIDs generally mean the horse is in the clinic or unable to function. So, the example given is bad.

vxf111
Mar. 6, 2012, 12:46 PM
Staking NSAIDs is an obvious method of cheating. There is no condition or therapy in which a sound, active horse would need stacked NSAIDs. Accepted medical conditions requiring multiple NSAIDs generally mean the horse is in the clinic or unable to function. So, the example given is bad.

Stacked NSAIDs could be a bucket mix-up/timing the doses wrong issue. No horse at a show ought to be getting Reserpine. That's the difference.

VCT
Mar. 6, 2012, 12:59 PM
There must be some really incompetent grooms and staff out there with all these bucket mix ups and contaminated tools (grinders, etc) being used between horses EVEN THOUGH THEY KNOW THE POSSIBLE REPERCUSSIONS.

I'm amazed (and disgusted) at the permissiveness evident in many of the posts on this thread.

It's cheating and breaking the rules. Intentionally or not. If the team (trainer, barn staff, client, groom) are intelligent enough to train a horse to get to a show they should be smart enough to follow the rules.

Who cares if the reputation is already bad? It shouldn't be. That is the point. Why don't you care that it is bad? Why don't you want to improve the reputation for the sake of the sport... or just for the sake of the damn horses?

It should not be a necessary embarrassment to explain to people the outright cheating and drugging of horses that goes on in the show world.

axl
Mar. 6, 2012, 01:09 PM
No horse I ever took care of failed a test. However, did I ever mix up a bucket at 4:30 AM when I could barely keep my eyes open? Or fail to notice a few grains of bute that weren't eaten the night before? Possibly. And I certainly believe I was in at least the top ten percentile of grooms.

Plenty of crap goes on in those tents, but I wouldn't condemn a trainer who ONE TIME gets caught for stacked NSAIDs. Multiple suspensions are a completely different story.

**ETA-our horses weren't anything illegal, and to my knowledge my boss has never had a positive test, but my point remains, accidents can happen.

vxf111
Mar. 6, 2012, 01:21 PM
I am sure I've given the wrong meal to a horse a time or two, by accident. Not at a show, thankfully, and not with medicine in it. But have I switched a bucket when I was tired/not paying attention? I am sure I have.

mvp
Mar. 6, 2012, 01:31 PM
You really think this a dirty little secret that has been hidden forever? Non-horse people know that we drug horses, or at least my friends do. Guess what? THEY DON'T CURR. :rolleyes: Sorry, but I don't think most non-horsey people—who have to worry about paying bills, going to work, getting their kids to school, going to grocery store, etc.—care about the horse getting loaded up with Carolina Gold last weekend at WEF.

I'm not saying that it's a problem that should be ignored, but trying to crusade under the image of protecting the public reputation of the sport, when it doesn't have that great of an image to begin with, is laughable.

I'm not sure what you meant by "laughable."

I don't think protecting the reputation of a sport with an already elitist reputation is silly.

I really don't think it's silly in the post-2008 moment. IMO, people are getting generally tired of instances where different rules apply for the elite and the average.

No, drugged show horses aren't at the top of their "offensive cheaters" list. But PETA is around, and should it swing its eye in our direction, I think we'll have a hard time. How can you defend an industry and governing organization that polices itself so loosely? Didn't we just have this problem with the bankers?

VCT
Mar. 6, 2012, 01:54 PM
I am sure I've given the wrong meal to a horse a time or two, by accident. Not at a show, thankfully, and not with medicine in it. But have I switched a bucket when I was tired/not paying attention? I am sure I have.

Yes I'm sure that is feasible, but if you WERE at a show and you know Dobbin's grain has such and such in it... I dunno... that would just stick out to me to be extra careful in that situation. If there is a possibility of a horse testing from a few grains of bute leftover in the bucket... uhm, wash the bucket. Make sure you are in compliance.

I dunno... it just doesn't seem that difficult to me. I'm not saying off-with-their-heads to someone with one NSAID infraction... but to repeat offenders of illegal substances... why the leniency?

mrsbradbury
Mar. 6, 2012, 02:18 PM
Just wanted to mention:

The residue from a coffee grinder or feed scoop should not change the blood levels enough in a horse to cause a "false" positive.

The argument here, is not about a trace amount of bute or banamine (which I am pretty positive isn't available as a powder anyway).
What, did ya trip and accidently inject the wrong horse with reserpine?

The argument is about the bigger evils that goes on. There are therapuetic amounts of certain drugs allowed anyway. Stacking NSAIDS is bigger than just cheating; it's dangerous for the health of the animal.

vxf111
Mar. 6, 2012, 02:26 PM
Yes I'm sure that is feasible, but if you WERE at a show and you know Dobbin's grain has such and such in it... I dunno... that would just stick out to me to be extra careful in that situation. If there is a possibility of a horse testing from a few grains of bute leftover in the bucket... uhm, wash the bucket. Make sure you are in compliance.

I dunno... it just doesn't seem that difficult to me. I'm not saying off-with-their-heads to someone with one NSAID infraction... but to repeat offenders of illegal substances... why the leniency?

I do try to be extra careful, but I think mistakes still can/do happen. The groom may not be aware that one horse is getting bute, it might be a last-minute decision and already mixed into the grain. All it takes is an accidental bucket switch and you can have a horse with too high levels of NSAIDs.

I'm not excusing it. But it can be a product of carelessness as opposed to intentional.

If it's happening over and over again, it's a problem. If horses are testing for things that have no place at a show, that's a problem. But a one time accident with buckets? I can't see crucifying someone for that. Serve the penalty and go on with life.

I'm not justifying it as an excuse in the case of repeated offenses-- just clarifying that TO ME a bad-dose of NSAIDS seems like something I truly can see happening by accident but a horse that tests for a substance with no theraputic use at a horse show in any concentration (i.e. reserpine) is an entirely different ball of wax.

mvp
Mar. 6, 2012, 02:26 PM
I do see how stacked NSAIDS happens by mistake:

One person mixed meds and grain for horses. IME, the pro does this herself. She wants no fubars because it will be her name at the back of a magazine.

But then a tired, underpaid groom hands out the buckets to a row of horses banging their silverware on the table.

Stacked NSAIDS happens when NicePeaceOfA gets banamine and BodaceousTaTas, just two stalls down but with the same color bucket gets bute. Then empty buckets are gathered up, the masking tape with the Peace and Bodi names comes off at the wash rack while they are being rinsed out and the rest is history.... which does not appear in the USEF magazine.

salymandar
Mar. 6, 2012, 02:33 PM
Call me naive because I fortunately have not ever had a reason to worry about this even while working for an A show barn quite a few years ago, but I honestly never knew the tolerances for drug tests were so high that a bute residue on the bottom of a feed bucket being licked clean by a horse that received banamine the day before for slight colicky symptoms would be considered a stacking offense. If that is the case, then I can see quite a few instances where some of the so called excuses might be legitimate. Learn something new everyday.

Again, I apologize for my lack of knowlege in this matter, but it does appear that there are different levels of rule breaking. Are the tests sensitive enough, for instance, to determine that the banamine was within the legal limits and the bute a fraction of a gram (an amount that would have been considered residue at the bottom of a feed bucket or powder blown by a gust of wind)? Are they sensitive enough to determine that the ace given 6 days ago to clip ears was indeed given 6 days ago and not the day the horse showed?

Someone earlier mentioned a point system for infractions, which I think is a very interesting concept. It could be a pretty fair and transparent way of addressing this issue. If someone is found to have what I would consider somewhat small infractions that could be explained as "accidents", they would be issued a point or half point if they were found in violation.

A stacking violation, whether accidentially feeding the wrong grain or intentional, could be assigned a point or 2. Use of banned substances could be five points.

The points are part of all of the responsible parties' (trainer, rider, owner) permanent record, publically available. For every five points, or so, accrued the responsible party would be assessed an increasingly more steep punishment. If someone goes five, or so, years without an infraction, x number of points could be deducted from their permanent record.

I think that knowing that trainer X accrued 25 points on five separate counts of using banned substances over the past three years and trainer Y accrued 1.5 points for three minor stacking cases over a period of 10 years would be helpful. If a trainer is continually caught mixing up feed buckets or with grooms making mistakes, it will add up and maybe the trainer will start thinking about running a tighter ship during feeding time.

As I think about it ... it would be interesting for the USEF/ USHJA who is interested in promoting a trainer certification program to also look into creating a searchable database for its membership, listing show records, violations, involvement in the organization, etc. One of the big problems I see in this industry is that information is very hard to verify. Did trainer X really win at Penn National? Or did they win the 4-H walk trot pleasure class at the Farm Show Arena? Either way, they can say they won at Harrisburg and I don't know that there is an easy way to verify it if it happened in 1969.

tidy rabbit
Mar. 6, 2012, 02:46 PM
As I think about it ... it would be interesting for the USEF/ USHJA who is interested in promoting a trainer certification program to also look into creating a searchable database for its membership, listing show records, violations, involvement in the organization, etc. One of the big problems I see in this industry is that information is very hard to verify. Did trainer X really win at Penn National? Or did they win the 4-H walk trot pleasure class at the Farm Show Arena? Either way, they can say they won at Harrisburg and I don't know that there is an easy way to verify it if it happened in 1969.

Ahhh yes, I've been trying to verify the show history of a trainer recently, and absolutely none of what was professed for accomplishments adds up (names of shows, clients, level of competition, dates vs the very new USEF membership number) none of it is verifiable and no one I've asked in this trainers own zone has ever heard of this trainer. It sure would be nice to be able to verify what someone claims is their record.

chunky munky
Mar. 6, 2012, 02:56 PM
Just wanted to mention:

The residue from a coffee grinder or feed scoop should not change the blood levels enough in a horse to cause a "false" positive.

CM: Not true. First hand experience. There is a long list of meds that you have to do things like file a drug report about that are not theoretically "illegal". If you ground up one of those in the coffee grinder and then ground up some bute tabs for another in same then when tested the bute horse can show the other drug which is not illegal, but a drug report was not filed on that horse. Can be big fine, etc.

The argument here, is not about a trace amount of bute or banamine (which I am pretty positive isn't available as a powder anyway).

CM:Banamine does come in powder. And reserpine comes in pill form. Resepine does have use other than drugging a show horse.

The argument is about the bigger evils that goes on. There are therapuetic amounts of certain drugs allowed anyway. Stacking NSAIDS is bigger than just cheating; it's dangerous for the health of the animal.

CM: I don't think when you have 2 or 3 nsaids that it matters what the level of any are, just that multiples are present.

Ravencrest_Camp
Mar. 6, 2012, 03:53 PM
Stacked NSAIDs could be a bucket mix-up/timing the doses wrong issue. No horse at a show ought to be getting Reserpine. That's the difference.

Stacked NSAIDs may be a mix up, but since it is against the rules it is up to the head trainer to have a system in place to prevent it from happening.

gubbyz
Mar. 6, 2012, 04:06 PM
I find the duct tape quite amusing. I would make the most of it and put out a couple pink flamingos and some reclining lawn chairs. Oh and don't forget the portable radio with the hanger as an antenna! :D

chunky munky
Mar. 6, 2012, 04:30 PM
Stacked NSAIDs may be a mix up, but since it is against the rules it is up to the head trainer to have a system in place to prevent it from happening.

Agreed by all I believe. But the posters that think that anyone who has been fined or gotten time off for an infraction is a horse abuser, drug abusing criminal and should not be patronized and would never ride w/ anyone that has had an infraction should take a look at all the variables that can occur. They may still come to the conclusion that they wish not to patronize the trainer, but that hardly makes them a horse abusing criminal.

And remember a thing like a coffe grinder isn't purchased for one show then thrown out. It is often used at the barn ( where horses on lay up may reside getting all kinds of things) and transported to shows, etc. Buckets can get mixed up. Horse can be fed in a stall at show, not eat all the grain with medication. Client throws their horse in that stall for a few minutes and guess what?
I am not defending abusers, just know that some very honest well intentioned horsemen have gotten fined and more due to accidents.

AliCat
Mar. 6, 2012, 04:31 PM
You are kidding yourself if you don't think the non-horse owning public will not have an opinion on this - just look at the threads about the NYC carriage horses. The general population doesn't need to tune in to GP jumping or go to horse shows. All that is needed is to have PETA and HSUS send out mailings and put commercials on the tv to their target audience - the non-horse crowd (the majority of the population) to get them to sign a petition or send in money so they can eradicate the nasty show world. They will appeal to the majority of people who do NOT own them but love animals. There are more of them than there are of the horse owning set. If you think PETA doesn't have their eyes on the horse show crowd you are not paying attention. Then we'll see how many :lol: emoticons will be in these posts.

Picture this, a commercial showing a horse show with fancy horses at a very nice facility and the camera panning to the stalls with spent needles on the ground or in the trash can and a good sound bite. The general population might not care because it is a horse - but with the right sound bite, it wouldn't matter. It is an animal being drugged to suit the human and the sport.
I agree, and would like to point out that with all the talk about PED's in professional and college sports, it isn't that crazy to think some of the extreme animal rights people would target equine athletes being drugged by handlers. Especially with the Olympics around the corner, and things like the unfortunate demise of Hickstead in the ring and now all over the net for all to see.

Just because we think nobody cares and its our dirty little secret doesn't mean that is actually the case. The internet makes the world MUCH smaller.

vxf111
Mar. 6, 2012, 04:57 PM
I wish y'all would read my posts fully ;). Absolutely they should be a system in place to prevent bucket mix-ups. Absolutely a punishment should be metered out even for accidental mix ups.

ALL I AM DOING IS DISTINGUISHING ONE TYPE OF DRUGGING THAT COULD BE INADVERTENT WITH ONE THAT COULDN'T BE INADVERTENT.

S A McKee
Mar. 6, 2012, 05:28 PM
Well, actually some people get set down just for having the assistant trainer give the wrong med to the wrong horse, or forgetting to file a drug report, or contamination from a coffee grinder used to grind up pills and not cleaned out well enough. You know most of these folks are not mother rapers and baby stabbers. Some times it can happen from a clerical error. And sometimes it can happen when I clients horse ships in for a show and mommy gave it ace 3 days before to clip its ears, and guess who signed the entry? I am not making this stuff up. These have all happened.

Are you sure these things happened?
Or were they just the excuse 'du jour'.
I'm sure you aren't making this up and in your mind you really believe these excuses.
But really, why do we keep accepting the blame game?

And in your example, if the trainer does not have 'care custody and control' of the horse there is no reason for them to sign as trainer on the entry blank. The owner or the person who does have control should sign. There is no rule that your trainer has to sign.
Of course there are reasons why a trainer would want to sign. He can't rip you off for tack stalls, paddocks, feed for somebody else's horses, bizarre 'splits' etc etc unless he is listed as the trainer. Sorry, that's a different thread but it does go to trainer ethics or lack thereof.

S A McKee
Mar. 6, 2012, 05:41 PM
Stacked NSAIDs could be a bucket mix-up/timing the doses wrong issue. No horse at a show ought to be getting Reserpine. That's the difference.

Getting the dose wrong for a stacked NSAID?
Kinda hard to do because you can't legally stack them anymore. So not a dosage issue.
You can no longer file a NSAID or a drug and medication form to get around the rule.
Unless the trainer or his/her help are so incompetent that they are clueless which horse is getting what drugs?
Is that your defense? Incompetent trainer or help?

mvp
Mar. 6, 2012, 05:49 PM
I wish y'all would read my posts fully ;). Absolutely they should be a system in place to prevent bucket mix-ups. Absolutely a punishment should be metered out even for accidental mix ups.

ALL I AM DOING IS DISTINGUISHING ONE TYPE OF DRUGGING THAT COULD BE INADVERTENT WITH ONE THAT COULDN'T BE INADVERTENT.

I get your point. And many, many others here have made the same distinction between intentional cheating and accidental cheating. Then they (and trainers caught this way) blame "the help."

Look, if you are the head trainer with the skill, experience and competence to do this horse showing thing with all that it entails, then manage your staff well. As it stands now, however, there's not a whole lot of incentive for these pros to do better.

mvp
Mar. 6, 2012, 05:52 PM
PS--

The "Can't stack NSAIDS" rule is relatively new. December 2011 or was it 2010?

I'd expect a little bit of a jump in those kinds of infractions for a while. That would not indicate intentional cheating. That would indicate different horses getting different single drugs in legal amounts and people screwing up with buckets and such.

But as the rule became known, I'd expect trainers to get more careful about those pesky mixed up buckets if their horses were being nailed for these accidents.

S A McKee
Mar. 6, 2012, 06:31 PM
PS--

The "Can't stack NSAIDS" rule is relatively new. December 2011 or was it 2010?

I'd expect a little bit of a jump in those kinds of infractions for a while. That would not indicate intentional cheating. That would indicate different horses getting different single drugs in legal amounts and people screwing up with buckets and such.

But as the rule became known, I'd expect trainers to get more careful about those pesky mixed up buckets if their horses were being nailed for these accidents.

Rule became effective in Dec 2011 but the prior year USEF tested for infractions. while they did not apply penalties for stacking ( but did apply sanctions for over the limit levels)
anyone who 'stacked' and was caught was notified.
According to the USEF published penalties over the limit dosage is still happening.
USEF and USHJA have published info about this rule change for the last several YEARS.
No reason not to know about the rule.
Trainers are required to know the rules.
Just more excuses...

I just love the bucket excuse.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 6, 2012, 06:54 PM
No, drugged show horses aren't at the top of their "offensive cheaters" list. But PETA is around, and should it swing its eye in our direction, I think we'll have a hard time. How can you defend an industry and governing organization that polices itself so loosely? Didn't we just have this problem with the bankers?

If PETA decides to start paying attention to horse shows, the drugs will be the least of our problems.

mvp
Mar. 6, 2012, 07:09 PM
If PETA decides to start paying attention to horse shows, the drugs will be the least of our problems.

I know!

So the PSA stands:

Friends! Countrymen! Clean up your act before you attract attention.

Oh, and I don't want to have to explain a sport that smells like AQHA Western Pleasure. We have seen some videos of some very nice, winning horses who apparently lope "that way" without cruel methods. Not a fan of the preferred lope in WP. But our own COTH reaction to that was to ASSume that something bad had been done to the horse to produce that picture.

We aren't the least informed of the public. But look at the stinky reputation of WP that caused so many of us to wonder. To the extent that some good eggs and finally the AQHA has tried to repair the reputation of that division, it has been a long and expensive uphill climb.

No need to repeat a similar bit of history in the USEF hunter ring, right?

2bayboys
Mar. 6, 2012, 07:30 PM
When police stop a car and find drugs in it, the number one "explanation" offered by the driver is "That's not mine! My friend/cousin/random stranger I gave a ride must have left that in the car!"

It is simply freaking amazing how many people have friends and random strangers who leave dope behind. Freaking amazing.

Not that it's a good comparison here.

Promise No More
Mar. 6, 2012, 07:48 PM
Someone asked about banamine powder - it is available but I believe you usually have to get it compounded. We don't carry it in the veterinary pharmacy I work in. But I found it online quite easily: http://www.thrivingpets.com/index.php/flunixin-banamine-compound-powder-500mg-teaspoon-15g-jar.html

In terms of telling what dose was given on what day - you have to either know the day the drug was given on, or the original dose that was given to calculate the other info using the average half-life of the drug. If you don't have one of those pieces of information, a blood level of 0.02mg/ml could have been from a REALLY BIG DOSE a long time ago, a medium dose a medium time ago, or a very small dose last night. So unless the substance is 100% banned, it can be very hard to tell how much was given and when.

OverandOnward
Mar. 6, 2012, 08:01 PM
Just fwiw ... in past decades, of the industries measured for quality performance, one that came in near the bottom in terms of inaccuracies and mistakes was the dispensation of medication in hospitals (people hospitals.) For many of the same reasons as the grooms that mix up buckets - staff fatigued and/or undertrained - also, poor labeling, containers that looked alike, confusing instructions & so forth. For some patients, being in a hospital at all turned out to be as dangerous (or more so) than the condition that brought them there.

Hospitals have made major strides in medication safety, including some basic common sense organization to help make sure mistakes don't happen. They made the big effort BECAUSE: the cost of not doing so was skyrocketing. Before the monetary cost became so high, well, people weren't trying as hard.

If that's the case for human life, then I'd assume it will be just as true for horse shows. As is being pointed out. When it hurts enough, then someone will start figuring out how to prevent horsey medication mistakes that lead to punitive action.

Many preventative steps are not difficult. The missing ingredient is someone who cares enough to make sure it doesn't happen. And I'm sure the barns that stay clean do have someone who cares enough.

Jus sayin'. :)

ALLIGORY
Mar. 6, 2012, 08:38 PM
Ahhh yes, I've been trying to verify the show history of a trainer recently, and absolutely none of what was professed for accomplishments adds up (names of shows, clients, level of competition, dates vs the very new USEF membership number) none of it is verifiable and no one I've asked in this trainers own zone has ever heard of this trainer. It sure would be nice to be able to verify what someone claims is their record.
FWIW Tidy- I sent in my resume for the TCP and it got kicked back from the committee as incomplete since I did not specify dates, rider and horse/pony names and exact competitions. It wasn't a big deal to send back all the necessary information but it made me chuckle to see those they gave a green light to : some really inexperienced trainers with little or no history of producing champions. I think we are a long way from depending on the USEF/USHJA as a dependable source of information. ;)

HGem
Mar. 6, 2012, 09:14 PM
I have read through a few of these threads, and the first few pages of this one.....so this is my opinion. Chunky Munky explains thsi very well:


Well, actually some people get set down just for having the assistant trainer give the wrong med to the wrong horse, or forgetting to file a drug report, or contamination from a coffee grinder used to grind up pills and not cleaned out well enough. You know most of these folks are not mother rapers and baby stabbers. Some times it can happen from a clerical error. And sometimes it can happen when I clients horse ships in for a show and mommy gave it ace 3 days before to clip its ears, and guess who signed the entry? I am not making this stuff up. These have all happened.

Mistakes happen. Should people be more careful? Yes. So should doctors, nurses, etc, etc. Mistakes happen. How would you like your entire career to be over because your assistant trainer heard you wrong and gave Ted ace instead of Fred? Are there people out there who abuse the sports rules? Of course. Is it unethical? Yes. But you HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND SOMEWHERE. Would you like it to be extremly strict and end your career after one mistake? Should it be stricter? That's your opinion. Want to make a change? Get off your computer and start petitioning or whatever it is you have to do to change USEF rules. It's that simple.

spacytracy
Mar. 6, 2012, 09:34 PM
Doctors and nurses lose their licenses all the time for mistakes. Its part of the risk you take.

vxf111
Mar. 6, 2012, 10:33 PM
Getting the dose wrong for a stacked NSAID?
Kinda hard to do because you can't legally stack them anymore. So not a dosage issue.

Yes, switching buckets could mean Dobbin gets his dose of bute and Silver's dose. Switching buckets means Dobbin who got his own banamine today also got Silver's bute by accident.

MHM
Mar. 6, 2012, 11:44 PM
Yes, switching buckets could mean Dobbin gets his dose of bute and Silver's dose. Switching buckets means Dobbin who got his own banamine today also got Silver's bute by accident.

It's very, very hard to completely avoid human error. As others have said, it happens to plenty of people in hospitals with highly trained medical professionals, never mind with barn help.

It's not a ridiculous explanation for a rare mistake with legal medications. That's entirely different from regular offenders with forbidden substances.

mvp
Mar. 7, 2012, 02:36 PM
Mistakes happen. Should people be more careful? Yes. So should doctors, nurses, etc, etc. Mistakes happen. How would you like your entire career to be over because your assistant trainer heard you wrong and gave Ted ace instead of Fred? Are there people out there who abuse the sports rules? Of course. Is it unethical? Yes. But you HAVE TO DRAW THE LINE IN THE SAND SOMEWHERE. Would you like it to be extremly strict and end your career after one mistake? Should it be stricter? That's your opinion. Want to make a change? Get off your computer and start petitioning or whatever it is you have to do to change USEF rules. It's that simple.

IMO, you are wrong about the bolded part.

It's not "simple." You know that, too, because you can't name an action that Joe Q. USEF-member could take in order to launch a campaign for a rule changes. To wit: You suggest "start petitioning or whatever..."

Second, Joe Q.'s direct attempts to influence the USEF usually fail. You can find any number of threads substantiating this point.

So it's not effective to go to the USEF, even if it were simple.

Last, it is simple to write about this crap on the internet. It may prove to be more effective in the end.

S A McKee
Mar. 7, 2012, 03:17 PM
Yes, switching buckets could mean Dobbin gets his dose of bute and Silver's dose. Switching buckets means Dobbin who got his own banamine today also got Silver's bute by accident.

In your 'example' Dobbin got fed twice. Hardly switching buckets.
In that case the trainer or the help are incompetent.

This is not a rare claim. It's used all the time by those who caught as their excuse.

MHM
Mar. 7, 2012, 03:27 PM
In your 'example' Dobbin got fed twice. Hardly switching buckets.

I could be wrong, but I'm guessing in this scenario, Dobbin got his own medication one day, and his friend's medication the previous day when the buckets were switched. Not fed twice at the same meal. But still enough to show up as "stacked meds" in a drug test.

Again, when you have humans involved, you will have human error, at least once in a while.

goodlife
Mar. 7, 2012, 03:29 PM
Rule became effective in Dec 2011 but the prior year USEF tested for infractions. while they did not apply penalties for stacking ( but did apply sanctions for over the limit levels)
anyone who 'stacked' and was caught was notified.


Forgive me if I'm wrong or just misinterpreting - wasn't Scott Steward caught in June/July-ish of 2011? Why is he being penalized and forced to sit out for a month if the above is true? I have no dog in this fight...just curious on the rule clarification!

magnolia73
Mar. 7, 2012, 03:53 PM
You know, I think people who have been at it a while know what trainer got in trouble for a feed bucket mishap, and which ones do a great job and finding the latest "does not test" drug to make a $15,000 hunter a $150,000. It's the people just starting out that get screwed and to the extent that you keep attracting new blood to keep the shows running determines how long the sport can tolerate the real cheaters.

I don't have this problem, but if I ever had money, I probably would not bother with owning show hunters, saddlebreds or quarterhorses. Probably in the last 4-5 years, I have become less impressed with the hunters.... is it real or stuck with something comes to mind. It's getting closer to the QH weirdness of style vs. useful.

So, how long do the people who know what goes on want to cheat or be beaten by cheaters? And how many newbies keep coming and sticking with a sport where so many coaches are frauds, selling them horses worth about 1/4 of what they paid?

I just wonder more and more about this sport, the economics of it, and the lack of horsemanship and wonder. I know there are still awesome barns and trainers out there, but wow.... in a lot of these cases, PT Barnum would be so impressed.

vxf111
Mar. 7, 2012, 05:32 PM
In your 'example' Dobbin got fed twice. Hardly switching buckets.
In that case the trainer or the help are incompetent.

This is not a rare claim. It's used all the time by those who caught as their excuse.

Not if Dobbins gets his bute in a tube because he won't eat it in grain and Silver gets his mixed in grain. Or MSM's interpretation. Dobbins got his own meal with bute in the PM and the next AM got Silver's feed with bute instead of his own bute-free meal.

It shouldn't, but sh*t happens. I'd say the barn where I board is a pretty attention to details kind of place. But over the 4 years I've been there, I've seen a handful of times where buckets got switched, a horse got fed twice, a horse got the wrong supplements/medicine. It happens. It shouldn't, but it does.

If someone is using this excuse periodically, then I'd be really suspicious that it was more than an accident. But accidents DO happen.

Add on to that horses that live at home and meet the trainer at shows and there's a real chance for error and/or positive results that are not the result of nefarious doings but error and lack of attention to detail. Should the sanctions be imposed nonetheless, absolutely. But should we decry someone who has a spotless history and once gets caight stackins NSAIDs because the grooms were rushed/not paying attention. I don't think so.

I've made mistakes myself. You don't want to, but sometimes you do.

Dare1
Mar. 7, 2012, 06:45 PM
You know, I think people who have been at it a while know what trainer got in trouble for a feed bucket mishap, and which ones do a great job and finding the latest "does not test" drug to make a $15,000 hunter a $150,000. It's the people just starting out that get screwed and to the extent that you keep attracting new blood to keep the shows running determines how long the sport can tolerate the real cheaters.

I don't have this problem, but if I ever had money, I probably would not bother with owning show hunters, saddlebreds or quarterhorses. Probably in the last 4-5 years, I have become less impressed with the hunters.... is it real or stuck with something comes to mind. It's getting closer to the QH weirdness of style vs. useful.

So, how long do the people who know what goes on want to cheat or be beaten by cheaters? And how many newbies keep coming and sticking with a sport where so many coaches are frauds, selling them horses worth about 1/4 of what they paid?

I just wonder more and more about this sport, the economics of it, and the lack of horsemanship and wonder. I know there are still awesome barns and trainers out there, but wow.... in a lot of these cases, PT Barnum would be so impressed.

This is why DD doesn't compete in hunters anymore. It is so nuch like other judged sports. All politics and corruption. What does that teach our kids? That in order to win you must cheat. No thanks.

grandprixjump
Mar. 7, 2012, 08:08 PM
This thread isn't about the one time mix up of feed buckets everyone keeps bringing up. It's about the over and over again mixup..

I think there is 3 possibilities to mixups too often..

1. Horses on the circuit getting so much medication that it
can be mixed up needs a break and R&R. (or replaced)

2. Very incompetent trainer or employees..

or last but not least....

3. Their Cheating and trying to get away with it...

skydy
Mar. 7, 2012, 08:11 PM
I am surprised that the USEF and USHJA don't differentiate beetween "controlled medications" and "prohibited substances" as does the FEI. One can be considered a mistake (or not), while the other is considered "doping". The "doping" penalty is now a 2 year suspension unless you are really good at wriggling out of it.

Seems the UAE endurance folks have had some doping problems..

mvp
Mar. 7, 2012, 08:15 PM
You know, I think people who have been at it a while know what trainer got in trouble for a feed bucket mishap, and which ones do a great job and finding the latest "does not test" drug to make a $15,000 hunter a $150,000. It's the people just starting out that get screwed and to the extent that you keep attracting new blood to keep the shows running determines how long the sport can tolerate the real cheaters.

I don't have this problem, but if I ever had money, I probably would not bother with owning show hunters, saddlebreds or quarterhorses. Probably in the last 4-5 years, I have become less impressed with the hunters.... is it real or stuck with something comes to mind. It's getting closer to the QH weirdness of style vs. useful.

So, how long do the people who know what goes on want to cheat or be beaten by cheaters? And how many newbies keep coming and sticking with a sport where so many coaches are frauds, selling them horses worth about 1/4 of what they paid?

I just wonder more and more about this sport, the economics of it, and the lack of horsemanship and wonder. I know there are still awesome barns and trainers out there, but wow.... in a lot of these cases, PT Barnum would be so impressed.

You said a mouthful.

IMO, some of this has to do with the fact that the newb trainers aren't the folks on the USEF committees. By and large, the people really, really involved in governance aren't getting written up.

Is that because of incredible politics? Or incredible integrity on their part? It could be either one, given the evidence.

But you have point: People who can get the clients who can afford these top horses (and many of the trainers who also judge) aren't under the same pressure as the average trainer.

Sadly, I do think it makes the whole PT Barnam show work if we pay lip-service to "no cheating," make it very, very tempting for people to cheat and then nail the little guys who do. After all, who cares if LNT gets a reputation as a cheater? Who cares if a "cheap" hunter can't cut the quiet mustard? No one has to change the Hunter Ideal just because many trainers and horses fail at it.

chunky munky
Mar. 7, 2012, 08:21 PM
This is why DD doesn't compete in hunters anymore. It is so nuch like other judged sports. All politics and corruption. What does that teach our kids? That in order to win you must cheat. No thanks.

My dear, the nondetectable drugs have mostly come from the jumper world, mostly from Europe. Glad that your daughter doesn't partake, but please don't think that the hunter and jumper world in regard to nondetectable substances starts with the hunters.

Alter-ramma
Mar. 7, 2012, 08:52 PM
It seems to me, that since drug testing at shows is random...that the chances would be much slimmer for a horse to test positive for drug stacking.

Meaning- the "one time" Dobbins bucket got "accidentally" switched.

Would have to fall on the same day, at the same show....

That Dobbin gets chosen as that random horse for a drug test......

That would be a major coincidence....or Murphy's Law.

vxf111
Mar. 7, 2012, 09:17 PM
It seems to me, that since drug testing at shows is random...that the chances would be much slimmer for a horse to test positive for drug stacking.

Meaning- the "one time" Dobbins bucket got "accidentally" switched.

Would have to fall on the same day, at the same show....

That Dobbin gets chosen as that random horse for a drug test......

That would be a major coincidence....or Murphy's Law.

I have seen drug testing that was not at all random. I think it depends.

skydy
Mar. 7, 2012, 10:01 PM
Wouldn't testing winners and reserves be the most effective solution? No one could complain of being singled out because they were small barns, or of very successful barns not being tested.

Of course, if the penalty for doping was more than a one month suspension and a relatively small fine...

I think the FEI's 2yr suspension policy will make some people think twice before they break the rules. As I mentioned in my previous post the FEI differentiates between "prohibited substances" and "medication violations". The USEF and USHJA could follow suit IF they are serious about stopping the problem.

CBoylen
Mar. 7, 2012, 10:03 PM
It seems to me, that since drug testing at shows is random...that the chances would be much slimmer for a horse to test positive for drug stacking.
Meaning- the "one time" Dobbins bucket got "accidentally" switched.
Would have to fall on the same day, at the same show....
That Dobbin gets chosen as that random horse for a drug test......
That would be a major coincidence....or Murphy's Law.
As you write this, hundreds of barn managers at winter venues are just going to bed after doing night check. Hopefully. Possibly, they stopped at the bar on the way home. At four am tomorrow morning, they'll pick up a stack of 15 or so buckets and go feed. Or they'll be late because they were out at the bar all night, and one of the grooms will feed for them. Now repeat this scenario for 5 show days a week, 12 weeks in a row. Add in a few brand new horses, and factor in the stall shifting that occurs as horses move weekly from off to on grounds, the help that quit mid-circuit and the new girl learning on the fly, and every other imaginable factor that could cause human error under stressful, sleep deprived conditions. You end up with many potentially mis-medicated Dobbins at the same show, and one unlucky one that gets randomly chosen.
It's easy to do something right. It's much harder to do something right all.the.time. And frankly, some people aren't all that concerned about it. You can try not to hire them, but you also may not notice until it's too late.

chunky munky
Mar. 7, 2012, 10:07 PM
What CB said.

skydy
Mar. 7, 2012, 10:29 PM
As you write this, hundreds of barn managers at winter venues are just going to bed after doing night check. Hopefully. Possibly, they stopped at the bar on the way home. At four am tomorrow morning, they'll pick up a stack of 15 or so buckets and go feed. Or they'll be late because they were out at the bar all night, and one of the grooms will feed for them. Now repeat this scenario for 5 show days a week, 12 weeks in a row. Add in a few brand new horses, and factor in the stall shifting that occurs as horses move weekly from off to on grounds, the help that quit mid-circuit and the new girl learning on the fly, and every other imaginable factor that could cause human error under stressful, sleep deprived conditions. You end up with many potentially mis-medicated Dobbins at the same show, and one unlucky one that gets randomly chosen.
It's easy to do something right. It's much harder to do something right all.the.time. And frankly, some people aren't all that concerned about it. You can try not to hire them, but you also may not notice until it's too late.

True. However, the situations you describe can be avoided with proper management. Of course there can be a mistake but any professional person, in any successful business, can see where they went wrong and FIX the flaw in their management that allowed that mistake to happen. Employee training, lack of sleep, whatever the reason, it can and should be dealt with.

If you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen. No one is perfect and I wouldn't think that anyone wants a first time medication violation to end someones career, however a banned substance found in a horse should be dealt with severely. If people realize that the penalties are severe don't you think there will be fewer "mistakes"?

MHM
Mar. 7, 2012, 10:31 PM
What CB said.

Ditto.



It's easy to do something right. It's much harder to do something right all.the.time.

Especially this!!!

chunky munky
Mar. 7, 2012, 10:56 PM
it is hard to take advice from back yard show folks that have never taken an AA horse to the ring, and especially those that have never made it that far in any discipline. Sorry.

skydy
Mar. 7, 2012, 11:19 PM
You should take advice from the MANY people who have taken horses to the olympic , let alone,the AA level, whom have had their horses tested hundreds of times without a single violation.

chunky munky
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:19 AM
Well, I haven't had any of mine at olympic level, but I have had many win at AA level and be Champs at Palm Beach and indoors since 1966. Mine have been tested, many, many times. I have no violations.

lauriep
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:28 AM
Skydy, but does that mean they were lucky? Or 100% honest? Who knows? You? Me? I don't, as I have not worked in every.single.barn.ever. of all the people that have never been caught. But, perhaps you have, so I bow to your superior knowledge. I know that I, personally, have worked for people that have gotten caught, and people that haven't but DID have reason to be. So, the fact of not getting caught does not necessarily equate with not doing anything wrong.

chunky munky
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:34 AM
I need the "LIKE" button Laurie.
Yup, know many that should be caught, but keep evading the reaper.

skydy
Mar. 8, 2012, 01:06 AM
Skydy, but does that mean they were lucky? Or 100% honest? Who knows? You? Me? I don't, as I have not worked in every.single.barn.ever. of all the people that have never been caught. But, perhaps you have, so I bow to your superior knowledge. I know that I, personally, have worked for people that have gotten caught, and people that haven't but DID have reason to be. So, the fact of not getting caught does not necessarily equate with not doing anything wrong.

Yes, I'm sure it could have been luck, and several big names have been "caught", but many have run clean and careful operations to stay within the rules.

I do not have "superior knowledge" and I have never "worked for every single barn ever" however I have never worked for a barn that cheated with medication(and I realise, that is probably just a lucky break on my part). Perhaps if I had ,I would be able to make excuses for breaking the rules.

We really have to stop making excuses and move on to do something about the problem. Isn't that what we are discussing?
Of course that seems to be the crux of the matter , some people seem to feel that they are banging their heads against a wall trying to ensure the well being of the horses and a level playing field, and others are feeling oppressed by the rules (that they seem to feel require a level of stable management, that is impossible to maintain).

chunky munky
Mar. 8, 2012, 01:14 AM
ugh.. Skydy...are you sure? Maybe you just weren't the administrater.

skydy
Mar. 8, 2012, 01:39 AM
ugh.. Skydy...are you sure? Maybe you just weren't the administrater.

Have I been sure about the medication given to the horses in my charge? Yes. 20 horses, not that hard. If you have a large barn then more staff is required to keep from making "mistakes" . Of course as I said I was lucky to not work for people who broke the drug rules, of course the people I was associated with were not as "big time" as so many who seem to need to break the rules to keep their "big time" status and make the excuse of too many horses and sleepy staff?
The people I have worked with did well and earned their places (and I as I said before, it was probably my luck to work with them).
Can't you see how ugly this looks from the outside of the industry and how much business the hunter business is losing because of the increasingly publicized cheating.
The business does seem to feed off of owners , many who become disillusioned, some who are completely trusting of their less than ethical trainers and some who are knowledgeble and expect and receive their horses to be trained and presented according to the rules. Others are quite willing to do anything to win..

The "administrater" ?

S A McKee
Mar. 8, 2012, 03:21 AM
As you write this, hundreds of barn managers at winter venues are just going to bed after doing night check. Hopefully. Possibly, they stopped at the bar on the way home. At four am tomorrow morning, they'll pick up a stack of 15 or so buckets and go feed. Or they'll be late because they were out at the bar all night, and one of the grooms will feed for them. Now repeat this scenario for 5 show days a week, 12 weeks in a row. Add in a few brand new horses, and factor in the stall shifting that occurs as horses move weekly from off to on grounds, the help that quit mid-circuit and the new girl learning on the fly, and every other imaginable factor that could cause human error under stressful, sleep deprived conditions. You end up with many potentially mis-medicated Dobbins at the same show, and one unlucky one that gets randomly chosen.
It's easy to do something right. It's much harder to do something right all.the.time. And frankly, some people aren't all that concerned about it. You can try not to hire them, but you also may not notice until it's too late.

I guess this is the alternative to the 'switched bucket' defense.
The 'drunk, sleep deprived, and/or incompetent' defense.

Perhaps a good question is why EVERY horse in some BNT barns need medication?
The answer is they don't but 'this is the way it's done' or 'everybody does it'.

S A McKee
Mar. 8, 2012, 03:26 AM
Skydy, but does that mean they were lucky? Or 100% honest? Who knows? You? Me? I don't, as I have not worked in every.single.barn.ever. of all the people that have never been caught. But, perhaps you have, so I bow to your superior knowledge. I know that I, personally, have worked for people that have gotten caught, and people that haven't but DID have reason to be. So, the fact of not getting caught does not necessarily equate with not doing anything wrong.

True that not getting caught does not mean they don't do it.But if the pattern continues they will be caught.

Interesting that you mention you have worked for people who were caught. My understanding is you are often the barn manager or head groom and would be in a position to know why or how the rules were broken. Were you working for those people when they had a bad test? If so, do you know which defense was used?

mrsbradbury
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:56 AM
Well, I haven't had any of mine at olympic level, but I have had many win at AA level and be Champs at Palm Beach and indoors since 1966. Mine have been tested, many, many times. I have no violations.

As you have a long history being voliation free, you should be a steward for the integrity of the sport; rather than coming across as defending true violations, and cop out excuses.

I have no beef in the use of therapeutic meds, I am on the fence with several substances. But, I have really hard time buying into the illicit use of drugs, FDA approved or methlab cooked, that alter the outward demeanor of an animal in competition.


"it is hard to take advice from back yard show folks that have never taken an AA horse to the ring, and especially those that have never made it that far in any discipline. Sorry."

Comments like this, from the people at your level; are part of why this stays swept under the rug. You are comfortable with the way things are, maybe you have turned a blind eye because it has been going on for. so. long.


Just to clarify, I have taken horses to the AA ring, with students, and myself in all rings, and earned respectable and appropriate ribbons. Am I uber decorated with PB wins, and hundreds of championships no; but that doesn't make me less of a horseman, or concerned about what happens at the top of our sport. I am not a moron, I have worked for people that have taught me great things, and things that I have chosen not to do.
The backyard grassroots shows have a place in our industry, and cutting down people who are content at or like that level of competition for many reasons is distasteful.

Oh and back to your comment to me on reserpine, in veterinary medicine there isn't much else to use it for than long-term sedation. It is no longer the drug of choice to treat pregnant mares with fescue toxidosis. It does have a test that can be swayed by related plants in hay. I guess all the upper echelon trainers feed the same hay that sways the reserpine tests?

The fescue toxidosis was new to me, but I was pretty positive about the sedation quality. And yes, it available as both an injectable (IM), and pill or powder form.

The easiest way to help with some of these bucket mix ups, is to just inject the proper medication. You know the dose goes in, rather than hoping horsey cleaned it out of the feed tub.

HGem
Mar. 8, 2012, 09:48 AM
You should take advice from the MANY people who have taken horses to the olympic , let alone,the AA level, whom have had their horses tested hundreds of times without a single violation.

I don't like how people infered this to be impossible. :eek: I worked for a STB racing farm for 5 years. The trainer had been in the business for 30+ years and never once tested positive and never would have been. He was straight laced. And guess what - accidents did happen in our barn. The horses were scratched.

Last time I checked, grade A barn help was not flocking around to get under paid in crappy working conditions. So it is not as easy as "finding the right help"........

axl
Mar. 8, 2012, 10:00 AM
Yes mrsbradbury, and then everyone complains that the sharps containers are suspicious and give the sport a black eye.

I for one entered the "switched bucket" conversation in response to the poster who stated she would never use a trainer who had ever failed a test. I think a comprehensive argument has been made for how and why accidents can happen. Now I'm just frustrated by posters who seem to think that if buckets ever got switched in your barn, you are guilty of such sloppy stable management that your clients should leave you anyway. It is toward that attitude that the backyard comment was directed, I believe-IMO, not in disdain but because the local rider just doesn't know how barns operate at the AA level.

Unless your horse is at a show barn that charges some of those truly outlandish fees, there is probably 1 groom for each 5-8 horses. I have been to shows where the ratio is worse if someone quits/get sick/gets fired last minute. There will hopefully be a competent and professional BM, but the rest of the staff will be eager-yet-green young girls or low paid, semi-motivated people whose attitude varies. The staff will general have fairly constant turn over. The hours are brutal. CBoylen explained it beautifully.

I am not trying to excuse cheaters, just explain where some gray areas can appear. Also, I just enjoy banging my head against the wall.

skydy
Mar. 8, 2012, 10:02 AM
Well, I haven't had any of mine at olympic level, but I have had many win at AA level and be Champs at Palm Beach and indoors since 1966. Mine have been tested, many, many times. I have no violations.

So it IS possible , or were you just lucky?

VCT
Mar. 8, 2012, 10:29 AM
Egads.

Mistakes can happen. Most people accept this. Using a banned substance is not a mistake and the penalties for that should be harsh and not to be flaunted with duct tape. Making a mistake with an allowed/regulated substance could be excused... once or twice.

Maybe if the barn help at AA rated show circuits was better because they weren't getting paid minimum wage with no benefits you'd get better quality of help.

Acting snobby towards people who don't go to AA shows and asserting that their opinions are somehow not valid due to this is just inane. Maybe some of them take 15 horses to their local show and manage to do so without drugging up all the dang horses they bring. Maybe some of them have worked for barns that went to the big shows and decided that they could not ethically keep working in that environment because of all the cheating, drugging, excuses and perhaps the insinuations that if you aren't okay with it you are somehow not worthy.

It seems like some people are missing the point entirely. No one is saying mistakes don't happen.

What is being said is that blatantly flaunting the rules and penalties should not be allowed. Punishments should fit the crime and be harsh enough to deter the crime in the first place.

skydy
Mar. 8, 2012, 11:00 AM
Egads.

Mistakes can happen. Most people accept this. Using a banned substance is not a mistake and the penalties for that should be harsh and not to be flaunted with duct tape. Making a mistake with an allowed/regulated substance could be excused... once or twice.

Maybe if the barn help at AA rated show circuits was better because they weren't getting paid minimum wage with no benefits you'd get better quality of help.

Acting snobby towards people who don't go to AA shows and asserting that their opinions are somehow not valid due to this is just inane. Maybe some of them take 15 horses to their local show and manage to do so without drugging up all the dang horses they bring. Maybe some of them have worked for barns that went to the big shows and decided that they could not ethically keep working in that environment because of all the cheating, drugging, excuses and perhaps the insinuations that if you aren't okay with it you are somehow not worthy.

It seems like some people are missing the point entirely. No one is saying mistakes don't happen.

What is being said is that blatantly flaunting the rules and penalties should not be allowed. Punishments should fit the crime and be harsh enough to deter the crime in the first place.
Thank you! This is the point I have been trying to get across,without much success it seems,to people who are making many excuses that just don't hold up.

Alter-ramma
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:02 PM
To help out the overworked, underpaid, and possibly, hungover grooms of big show barns: Maybe something as simple as using a red bucket for a horse's premixed food that needs a " Caution" sign. Blue buckets, premixed and stacked, mean...no meds involved.

Donkerbruin
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:26 PM
it is hard to take advice from back yard show folks that have never taken an AA horse to the ring, and especially those that have never made it that far in any discipline. Sorry.

This is so incredibly condescending. The "back yard show folks" you're talking about might have the skills and know-how, but lack the money to go to the AAs.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:30 PM
This is so incredibly condescending. The "back yard show folks" you're talking about might have the skills and know-how, but lack the money to go to the AAs.

But most of the time they don't. Sorry, but it's not condescending at all.

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:31 PM
it is hard to take advice from back yard show folks that have never taken an AA horse to the ring, and especially those that have never made it that far in any discipline. Sorry.


This is so incredibly condescending. The "back yard show folks" you're talking about might have the skills and know-how, but lack the money to go to the AAs.

Yeah.

And another thing!

I may show my current horse at some non-rated shows. But when I was part of the AA scene:

1. I signed my own entries as "Trainer." I did my own day care and no one but me fed my horse grain.

2. I was the damned professional groom whose job it was not to screw up the buckets and meds.

Donkerbruin
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:34 PM
But most of the time they don't. Sorry, but it's not condescending at all.

Okay, really? Case in point: yours truly. I used to be at the AAs almost every weekend, cleaning up. I outgrew my pony and the money ran out. Now you could consider me a back yard show person because that's what I can afford. Trust me though, I know what I'm doing.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:34 PM
Yeah.

And another thing!

I may show my current horse at some non-rated shows. But when I was part of the AA scene:

1. I signed my own entries as "Trainer." I did my own day care and no one but me fed my horse grain.

2. I was the damned professional groom whose job it was not to screw up the buckets and meds.

Okay? Not everyone has the time or the desire to that for their own horses. How does that somehow make you better than everyone else?

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:52 PM
Okay? Not everyone has the time or the desire to that for their own horses. How does that somehow make you better than everyone else?

Jesus H., you guys, ya'll misunderstand!

It doesn't make me-- the backyarder-- better than anyone else.

It also makes me-- the backyarder-- no better or no worse than any AA show-goer.

Anyone can sign their entry as trainer/drug dealer.

And you omitted the part of my post that did speak directly to the hubbub about backyarders just not knowing how hard it was to run the AA show barn.

Once again, I was that groom! I lived the experience you guys are talking about, 16 hour days and all.

RockinHorse
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:56 PM
I don't think I have seen this mentioned yet, but one reason I would not vilify a trainer a trainer for a medication violation once or twice is that the limits are set based on average metabolism. I believe drugs do not clear the systems of all horses at the same rate which could account for an occasional problem.

That being said, I would have a problem with any trainers whose name pops up continually for any type of violations.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 8, 2012, 12:57 PM
And you omitted the part of my post that did speak directly to the hubbub about backyarders just not knowing how hard it was to run the AA show barn.

Once again, I was that groom! I lived the experience you guys are talking about, 16 hour days and all.


...For one horse. Where did you say that you did it for 40, for 12 weeks straight?

RockinHorse
Mar. 8, 2012, 01:02 PM
it is hard to take advice from back yard show folks that have never taken an AA horse to the ring, and especially those that have never made it that far in any discipline. Sorry.

Wow, this is rude.

I am not sure how you are determining this. I am currently a B/A show person based on finances. I have, however, ridden with two BNTs who are doing very well at WEF so I think I can have an opinion.

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 01:25 PM
...For one horse. Where did you say that you did it for 40, for 12 weeks straight?

No, when I worked those 16 hour days as the cited "professional groom," I took care of other people's horses. You could have inferred that from what I wrote.

I didn't do that for 12 weeks straight. I also didn't do that for 40 horses. But then no groom I have known has been in charge of 40 horses per day. either. I see 6, or perhaps 8 for the guys who are total rockstar machines.

Have you split enough hairs yet to invalidate what I said? How many horses per show and weeks per year would be enough to "count"? Geesh!

skydy
Mar. 8, 2012, 07:59 PM
To help out the overworked, underpaid, and possibly, hungover grooms of big show barns: Maybe something as simple as using a red bucket for a horse's premixed food that needs a " Caution" sign. Blue buckets, premixed and stacked, mean...no meds involved.

Yes! There are many ways to manage medication in the barn to avoid mistakes. It is done successfully by the vast majority of well run barns :yes:

CBoylen
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:33 PM
I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying that mistakes probably aren't all that unusual, so catching an accidental positive with random testing wouldn't be surprising or in spite of huge odds.
I've never had a positive, knock on wood, but I know I made one big mistake once in which I and several other people involved with the same horse dropped the ball on communication, and a horse was tested with Bute and Banamine given close enough together to make us all sweat once we realized the mistake. Luckily, the Banamine was apparently out of its system, and there was no problem. Could have easily gone the other way, and if the horse hadn't gotten tested we never would have had the discussion that led to the discovery of the mixup. Have I made other, hopefully more minor, mistakes? Probably, without noticing, even though I consider myself extremely conscientious.
And I know I have told the story here before about the time I ran into the trainer stabled at the end of our row... as he was walking into my horse's stall with a syringe, thinking he was still medicating his row. I might have been scratching my head for a long time wondering where I had gone wrong, had that gone differently.
My point is simply that unless I know the circumstances, I don't assume someone set out to play the odds when I see they've had a positive test. Even if it's not something you'd find at a show, things like reserpine test for 90 days. You could have a horse in your barn for two months and still have it test positive for something that someone else gave it before it arrived. It's possible to be honest and still end up breaking a rule, and it doesn't hurt to give people the benefit of the doubt. You may need them to return the favor some day.

poltroon
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:49 PM
Mistake or not, none of that matters.

The rule is that the trainer is suspended.

I agree that duct tape over the name is a big silver finger of "rules don't apply to me."

How freaking hard is it to go to a horse show without tack room drapes? Are y'all aware that it is not actually required?

Or, you could stay home for a month.

it's a lot easier to give people the benefit of the doubt when they don't come to a show with duct tape covering their name on the drapes.

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 08:55 PM
I agree that duct tape over the name is a big silver finger of "rules don't apply to me."

How freaking hard is it to go to a horse show without tack room drapes? Are y'all aware that it is not actually required?

Or, you could stay home for a month.

it's a lot easier to give people the benefit of the doubt when they don't come to a show with duct tape covering their name on the drapes.

Hehe. So Fancy Barn could go Bare Butt Naked for a month instead of wearing the Duct Tape Fig Leaf Of Shame. (That's a Biblical Reference. 'Member how Adam and Eve had no shame until Eve ate from the tree of knowledge? If I understand it right, the fig leaf loin cloths came after that.)

CBoylen
Mar. 8, 2012, 09:04 PM
Oh, we're actually debating the duct tape? I thought it was a metaphorical discussion. And actually, I thought the duct tape approach was the officially recommended procedure. I have no basis for this, other than the fact that I've seen people do it since the early nineties. It's easy to leave the banner home, but I've seen taped coolers, etc. and figured no one would be that thorough unless advised to be.

mvp
Mar. 8, 2012, 09:21 PM
Oh, we're actually debating the duct tape? I thought it was a metaphorical discussion. And actually, I thought the duct tape approach was the officially recommended procedure. I have no basis for this, other than the fact that I've seen people do it since the early nineties. It's easy to leave the banner home, but I've seen taped coolers, etc. and figured no one would be that thorough unless advised to be.

There's almost always some metaphysics involved if I brought up the topic. But I'll get down and talk about duct tape, too.

I appreciate your report on How Things Are Done. Kind of the Emily Post chapter on "Should one be found cheating...."

And another thought. I have a lot of stuff with my logo plastered over it. I'd need a honkin' big roll.....

I think it would be really funny to see me walking around a show with duct tape on everything-- all over my set up at the barn, on my baseball cap, on the jumper's pad in the ring. Yeah, don't mind the duct tape. Business as usual. No one would give it a second thought.

skydy
Mar. 8, 2012, 09:26 PM
I'm not saying it's impossible; I'm saying that mistakes probably aren't all that unusual, so catching an accidental positive with random testing wouldn't be surprising or in spite of huge odds.
I've never had a positive, knock on wood, but I know I made one big mistake once in which I and several other people involved with the same horse dropped the ball on communication, and a horse was tested with Bute and Banamine given close enough together to make us all sweat once we realized the mistake. Luckily, the Banamine was apparently out of its system, and there was no problem. Could have easily gone the other way, and if the horse hadn't gotten tested we never would have had the discussion that led to the discovery of the mixup. Have I made other, hopefully more minor, mistakes? Probably, without noticing, even though I consider myself extremely conscientious.
And I know I have told the story here before about the time I ran into the trainer stabled at the end of our row... as he was walking into my horse's stall with a syringe, thinking he was still medicating his row. I might have been scratching my head for a long time wondering where I had gone wrong, had that gone differently.
My point is simply that unless I know the circumstances, I don't assume someone set out to play the odds when I see they've had a positive test. Even if it's not something you'd find at a show, things like reserpine test for 90 days. You could have a horse in your barn for two months and still have it test positive for something that someone else gave it before it arrived. It's possible to be honest and still end up breaking a rule, and it doesn't hurt to give people the benefit of the doubt. You may need them to return the favor some day.

Oh dear,seeing a trainer in your stall with a syringe must have been frightening! :eek: What good luck that you were there at that moment.. Hopefully they would have recognized that it was not one of their horses.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 8, 2012, 10:04 PM
My point is simply that unless I know the circumstances, I don't assume someone set out to play the odds when I see they've had a positive test. Even if it's not something you'd find at a show, things like reserpine test for 90 days. You could have a horse in your barn for two months and still have it test positive for something that someone else gave it before it arrived. It's possible to be honest and still end up breaking a rule, and it doesn't hurt to give people the benefit of the doubt. You may need them to return the favor some day.

Thank you.

A lot of people on this thread seem to think that all drugging = bad, nefarious usage without recognizing that a) a lot of these meds have their time and purpose and b) trainers can have horses tested for meds they didn't actually deliver (or intend to be delivered).

I don't think *anyone* on this thread is defending repeat offenders, but honestly how many of those can you name? I know a few trainers who have been "set down" at some point or another (mostly for one of the scenarios discussed here ad nauseam) but no one who flagrantly disregards the rules show after show.

MistyBlue
Mar. 8, 2012, 10:46 PM
As you write this, hundreds of barn managers at winter venues are just going to bed after doing night check. Hopefully. Possibly, they stopped at the bar on the way home. At four am tomorrow morning, they'll pick up a stack of 15 or so buckets and go feed. Or they'll be late because they were out at the bar all night, and one of the grooms will feed for them. Now repeat this scenario for 5 show days a week, 12 weeks in a row. Add in a few brand new horses, and factor in the stall shifting that occurs as horses move weekly from off to on grounds, the help that quit mid-circuit and the new girl learning on the fly, and every other imaginable factor that could cause human error under stressful, sleep deprived conditions. You end up with many potentially mis-medicated Dobbins at the same show, and one unlucky one that gets randomly chosen.

It's horse showing, not military boot camp, FFS.
We can't stop accidentally overmedicating our horses because we're tired and drunk?
You're showing horses, at a horse show, on show grounds. You're hardly invading enemy territory or anything. Or deciphering code. It's not rocket surgery and no barn has too many horses to remember who gets what.
Blue bucket = no meds
Red Bucket = meds
Bleary hangover eyeballs can tell the difference in colors.
Also...are there really folks that don't wash out the feed buckets daily at a show where horses are intermingling and possibly picking up who knows what? Pretty damned gross, IMO.



it is hard to take advice from back yard show folks that have never taken an AA horse to the ring, and especially those that have never made it that far in any discipline. Sorry.

Not everyone on here not buying the "it's too HARD to be careful" excuses is a backyarder.
Not to mention: way to not support and project the "We're Not Elitist" attitude.
Not showing AA does not mean "poor people don't understand when it's okay to cheat." Stacking Nsaids...cheating. There is not any medical benefit to doing so, period. Science trumps excuses.


Yup, know many that should be caught, but keep evading the reaper.

So does everyone else. And who reports them? (crickets) Good job y'all.


Originally Posted by Donkerbruin http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.chronofhorse.com/forum/showthread.php?p=6183990#post6183990)
This is so incredibly condescending. The "back yard show folks" you're talking about might have the skills and know-how, but lack the money to go to the AAs.
But most of the time they don't. Sorry, but it's not condescending at all.

And many have the money and choose not to galump a tick-fat horse at 3 mph around a simple 8. And then congratulate themselves for not falling off. :winkgrin: Skills? :lol: Mind alter them, NSAID them out of any lack of soundness due to galumping them endlessly over the course and in longeing so they're good and worn out and mind-drained for the class, slip them a little something-something once in a while playing the testing odds...hunters in some aspects has devolved into the thing I *used* to defend it against....the old lower-level excuse of "well with enough money and enough lack of morals with drugging and ANYONE can show well in the AAs!" I was one of the first to holler, "Absolutely not!" Now...not saying a thing. They're getting more right. (and USEF hunters is starting to look just like AQHA hunters :eek:)

FWIW...the mid levels kinda support the upper levels. Ya know...the trickle up effect? There are tens of thousands of mid level riders, horses and trainers. How many top levels? So who is financially supporting the sport? And people do move up, not everyone starts at the top.


And I know I have told the story here before about the time I ran into the trainer stabled at the end of our row... as he was walking into my horse's stall with a syringe, thinking he was still medicating his row

Oddly enough...I medicate based on individual need of equine...not by which ROW they're in. :eek:

This is why, despite being from h/j land myself, I usually avoid this forum like the plague. It gives me agida. :D

Ghazzu
Mar. 9, 2012, 11:09 AM
Well said, MB.
I am also weary of the "if you're not one of us, you couldn't *possibly* understand" line.

Y'all are beginning to sound like Mitt Romney.

2bayboys
Mar. 9, 2012, 11:32 AM
As you write this, hundreds of barn managers at winter venues are just going to bed after doing night check. Hopefully. Possibly, they stopped at the bar on the way home. At four am tomorrow morning, they'll pick up a stack of 15 or so buckets and go feed. Or they'll be late because they were out at the bar all night, and one of the grooms will feed for them. Now repeat this scenario for 5 show days a week, 12 weeks in a row. Add in a few brand new horses, and factor in the stall shifting that occurs as horses move weekly from off to on grounds, the help that quit mid-circuit and the new girl learning on the fly, and every other imaginable factor that could cause human error under stressful, sleep deprived conditions. You end up with many potentially mis-medicated Dobbins at the same show, and one unlucky one that gets randomly chosen.
It's easy to do something right. It's much harder to do something right all.the.time. And frankly, some people aren't all that concerned about it. You can try not to hire them, but you also may not notice until it's too late.

This is exactly why I have never subscribed to "day care" at a horse show. And it is simply shocking to me that people would put the care of their animals, some of them individually worth more than my house, into a system in which this appears to be a normal scenario.

fair judy
Mar. 9, 2012, 12:10 PM
the mixed up bucket argument is complete hogwash after the FIRST time it happens. so is the "i just got the horse in" excuse..... if you have any doubt as the trainer you should have blood work done as a baseline.

i knew a successful trainer in the 3' children's hunters who for years consistently had to borrow a horse to ride for ribbons because she stuck her winning childrens horse to the gills for M&S day right before the class and immediately put it on a trailer off the grounds the minute it was done with its round. She did this every week at hits ocala.....the owners knew all about it...... and were the first to bitch when they were exposed. it was hard not to feel like poetic justice had finally been achieved when this student couldn't stay on an unmedicated lovely mare who was a second ride for my student.... sure you can use her to ride for that blue ribbon you just cheated my student out of!:cool:

AllOverFarm
Mar. 9, 2012, 01:20 PM
The " bucket switch" should worry everyone....I sure wouldn't want my ponies getting 2 scoops of pellets/sweet feed in place of their low starch handful of feed breakfast. Not to mention all those expensive smart packs all the top show people love to use.

Donkerbruin
Mar. 9, 2012, 01:36 PM
Y'all are beginning to sound like Mitt Romney.

:lol:This makes me happy.

Plumcreek
Mar. 9, 2012, 02:09 PM
These threads are deciding for me that I want to direct my efforts and money to Big Goal shows where the winners, every one of them, will be drug tested - immediately when the horse comes out of the deciding final class.

My USEF trainer will not do illegal or even fringey medication (which is one reason I respect her), and (yes, CM) I have been Champion at larger USEF AA shows by sheer work put into the wonderful Appx. QH I lucked into. But if illegal medicating is indeed this widespread, and random testing makes the risk acceptable for the cheaters, only an exceptional horse, plus exceptional effort on the owner/trainer/rider's part can win honestly.

Why fight those odds?

I often reference AQHA examples of uber slow and quiet horses as the pit at the bottom of the slippery slope which USEF is sliding down. Sure, the WCHR Classic and Derby horses are exceptions, but the 'novice rider with big checkbook' horses are the same. The controls of testing winners and the judging criteria changes made through threatening judges with losing their cards were not instigated by AQHA thru altruism; it was because experienced owners like me were voting with their feet and leaving. If shows are going to drug test AT ALL, the only intelligent thing to do is test the winners, plus maybe a random place horse, in the most prestigious classes, across the board as much as funding allows. Testing winners won't stop cheating, but it will encourage a higher percentage of owners/riders who are not clueless to participate.

ALLIGORY
Mar. 9, 2012, 02:36 PM
Wow how lively this topic is... I mentioned duct tape in the other thread and now it has it's own headline. I can see how things can be innocently mixed up. I don't know if anyone remembers me posting about a drug tester at an unrated show (CA) getting a urine specimen from one horse tied to my trailer and finding another horses' number and assigning that horses' info to the horse that was tested.
I do think that maybe a system that recognizes human frailty and perhaps doles out punishment accordingly. In showing hunters, equitation it becomes dicier to project blood levels due to the fact that the animals may start showing in the first class of the day and be at the in gate for the last class of the day.
Most professionals do their part with alternative therapy to keep the horses happy and sound, magnetic blankets, massage,accupuncture to name a few.
I am far more suspicious when a test shows some bizzare medication that is only prescribed for use in humans.
Frankly the abilty to modify a horses' performance through means that are not testable i.e. using thyroid meds on a horse who doesn't need it then withdrawing it so the horse now suddenly has a low thyroid and feels lethargic is also a "clean" way to cheat.
Everyone needs to be awake and participate with the choices you make for your animals. I think owners are just as culpable as trainers for putting their horse in harms way to earn a tri-color . Afterall trainers want to keep their clients happy or they will move on down the barn aisle. I personally see the duct tape as a stupid ploy, I would rather they just not bring out the trunks, drapes and equipment, so what if the stalls are undecorated.

Pennywell Bay
Mar. 9, 2012, 02:40 PM
Wow. What a trainwreck this has become.

-covering the suspended trainer's name on a drape is just to appease that part of the rule that prohibits (this is not the exact phrase and I am not bothering to look it up) a horse showing to their credit or to their reputation

-it's just a smokescreen, duct taping Mr. X's name- everyone still knows Mr. X's daughter shows all the horses

-incredibly condescending comments from people but, take it from the sources and don't let it bother you

-being a scientist, I'd like to do a study on how much of drug X I'd have to leave crushed in the bucket for the horse to really test positive. Most of these drugs have incredibly short half lives and are out of the system or metabolized quickly and drug tests show the amount of drug, qualatative or quantative, depending on the test... I'd imagine quite a lot for that "mistake" to happen..

S A McKee
Mar. 9, 2012, 03:12 PM
Thank you.

A lot of people on this thread seem to think that all drugging = bad, nefarious usage without recognizing that a) a lot of these meds have their time and purpose and b) trainers can have horses tested for meds they didn't actually deliver (or intend to be delivered).

I don't think *anyone* on this thread is defending repeat offenders, but honestly how many of those can you name? I know a few trainers who have been "set down" at some point or another (mostly for one of the scenarios discussed here ad nauseam) but no one who flagrantly disregards the rules show after show.

Public information from USEF's website. 'For the Record'
These cases involve over the limit amounts of medication.

In the first case the owner has a horse who tested over the limit. However, the same owner shows up again, this time with a different trainer and a different combo of meds.

The second and third paragraphs relate to the same trainer.
Note that he was picked up on over the limit drug tests twice within a one month time frame. For the second 'problem' USEF is imposing a one month vacation on the trainer.

SANDRA (SANDY) FERRELL of Bernville, PA, violated Chapter 4, GR410 of this Federation, in connection with the WEF 8 Horse Show held on March 2-6, 2011, in that SANDRA (SANDY) FERRELL, as trainer, exhibited the horse MUSIC STREET after it had been administered and/or contained in its body firocoxib in a plasma concentration exceeding the maximum permitted level. For this violation it was determined that SANDRA (SANDY) FERRELL be censured pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1a and fined $750 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j. It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, ALEXA WEISMAN of Sherborn, MA, as owner, must return for redistribution all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by MUSIC STREET at said competition and must pay a $300 fee to the competition in connection with this penalty pursuant to Chapter 4, GR406.15.


SCOTT STEWART of Wellington, FL, violated Chapter 4, GR410 of this Federation, in connection with the I Love New York
Horse Show held on July 5-10, 2011, in that he, as trainer, exhibited the horse CARLOS-BOY after it had been administered and/or contained in its body phenylbutazone and flunixin. For this violation it was determined that SCOTT STEWART be censured pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1a and fined $1,000 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j. It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, KRISTA and ALEXA WEISMAN of Sherborn, MA, as owners, must return for redistribution all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by CARLOS-BOY at said competition and must pay a $300 fee to the competition in connection with this penalty pursuant to Chapter 4, GR406.15.

SCOTT STEWART of Wellington, FL, violated Chapter 4, GR410-411 of this Federation, in connection with the Upperville Colt & Horse Show held on June 6-12, 2011, in that, he, as trainer, exhibited the horse WORLD TIME after it had been administered and/or contained in its body firocoxib in a plasma concentration exceeding the maximum permitted level, phenylbutazone and meclofenamic acid. For this violation it was determined that pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1b and GR703.1f, SCOTT STEWART be found not in good standing, suspended from membership and forbidden from the privilege of taking any part whatsoever in any Licensed Competition for one month and is excluded from all competition grounds during Licensed Competitions for that period: (1) as an exhibitor, participant or spectator; (2) from participating in all Federation affairs and activities, (3) from holding or exercising office in the Federation or in any Licensed Competition; and (4) from attending, observing or participating in any event, forum, meeting,
program, clinic, task force, or committee of the Federation, sponsored by or conducted by the Federation, or held in connection with the Federation and any of its activities. The one month suspension shall commence on June 1, 2012 and terminate at midnight on June 30, 2012. Any horse or horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his, or shown in his name or for his reputation, (whether such interest was held at the time of the alleged violation or acquired thereafter), shall also be suspended, pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1c for the same period; and that SCOTT STEWART be fined $1,500 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j.
It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, BECKY GOCHMAN of New York, NY, as owner, must return for
redistribution all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by WORLD TIME at

RAyers
Mar. 9, 2012, 03:13 PM
Most professionals do their part with alternative therapy to keep the horses happy and sound, magnetic blankets, massage,accupuncture to name a few.

Maybe few less classes and an increase in horsemanship in terms of judging the capacity of the animal instead of relying on gimmicks and "silver bullet" solutions.



I am far more suspicious when a test shows some bizzare medication that is only prescribed for use in humans.

Most medications used in horses come from the human side such as bute, banamine, ketamine, dexamethasone,... and are still used in human conditions. There are few equine drugs developed solely for horses as that has no economic return on investment to a pharmaceutical company.

In the end, at the absolute bottom line, it is the owner who is responsible and too many have abdicated that knowledge understanding to trainers/riders/grooms who go for the quick and easy buck.

Reed

ALLIGORY
Mar. 9, 2012, 03:43 PM
Rayers, please don't quote me out of context... reread the entire post . I explained that both trainer and owner need to adjust their goals to keep the animals health and contentment as a priority.
Further I am well aware of the funding for prescription medicine and it's applications for human consumption. Conversely many medications are approved by the FDA for use in livestock before ever being approved for humans. Take for example Surpass which is a very useful drug for joint pain and has a very prospective market for humans.
I am stating the case that most professionals aren't cooking up some crazy "crank" to produce winners. We have the most at stake to lose if the test comes up positive.
BTW I have never seen Bute as a drug indicated for human use, can you elaborate ?

fair judy
Mar. 9, 2012, 03:55 PM
bute did "come from" human use but has been banned due to "known to induce blood dyscrasias, including aplastic anemia, leukopenia, agranulocytosis, thrombocytopenia and deaths. Hypersensitivity reactions of the serum-sickness type have also been reported. In addition, phenylbutazone is a carcinogen, as determined by the National Toxicology Program."

i agree with ray, that more judicious choices in classes and schedules would alleviate many of the situations wherein many of the "mistakes" are conceivable. personally, if my student had a class first and last of the day, i normally chose ONE ( especially in the insane equitation which was never an actual division or a goal unto itself previously) and prepare well for that One. in divisions the ability to back to back classes largely overcame those issues......

yes, trainers need to keep clients happy to retain their customers and their $$$$$ , but far too often that includes keeping them ( and their $$$$)on the road for 40+ weekends per year.

Trevelyan96
Mar. 9, 2012, 04:12 PM
You are kidding yourself if you don't think the non-horse owning public will not have an opinion on this - just look at the threads about the NYC carriage horses. The general population doesn't need to tune in to GP jumping or go to horse shows. All that is needed is to have PETA and HSUS send out mailings and put commercials on the tv to their target audience - the non-horse crowd (the majority of the population) to get them to sign a petition or send in money so they can eradicate the nasty show world. They will appeal to the majority of people who do NOT own them but love animals. There are more of them than there are of the horse owning set. If you think PETA doesn't have their eyes on the horse show crowd you are not paying attention. Then we'll see how many :lol: emoticons will be in these posts.

Picture this, a commercial showing a horse show with fancy horses at a very nice facility and the camera panning to the stalls with spent needles on the ground or in the trash can and a good sound bite. The general population might not care because it is a horse - but with the right sound bite, it wouldn't matter. It is an animal being drugged to suit the human and the sport.

This ^^^^

Ghazzu
Mar. 9, 2012, 04:33 PM
Take for example Surpass which is a very useful drug for joint pain and has a very prospective market for humans.
I am stating the case that most professionals aren't cooking up some crazy "crank" to produce winners. We have the most at stake to lose if the test comes up positive.
BTW I have never seen Bute as a drug indicated for human use, can you elaborate ?

Diclofenac topical has been available in a form labelled for human use for some time now.

As for phenylbutazone, it was once fairly commonly used in humans, but has been discontinued as a human medication due to side effects and the development of better NSAIDs with fewer detrimental effects in humans.

RAyers
Mar. 9, 2012, 04:43 PM
Rayers, please don't quote me out of context... reread the entire post . I explained that both trainer and owner need to adjust their goals to keep the animals health and contentment as a priority.
Further I am well aware of the funding for prescription medicine and it's applications for human consumption. Conversely many medications are approved by the FDA for use in livestock before ever being approved for humans. Take for example Surpass which is a very useful drug for joint pain and has a very prospective market for humans.
I am stating the case that most professionals aren't cooking up some crazy "crank" to produce winners. We have the most at stake to lose if the test comes up positive.
BTW I have never seen Bute as a drug indicated for human use, can you elaborate ?

You present inconsistent information. The main ingredient for Surpass was originally developed as a pain relief drug for cancer patients as well as rheumatology (Diclofenac) and then adapted to the veterinary market. I don't need to take your comments out of context as you are not providing sufficient context initially.

As for phenylbutazone it was initially used in 1949 and is only banned for humans in the US (even though it is still in the PDR). It is used for gout, rheumatoid arthritis etc. While it is not approved, and thus not marketed, it is still available for humans (100mg tablets).

My point is that you argue that you are against "funky" drugs when the reality is they all are human drugs adapted for the equine markets. Thus, based on your previous comment, "I am far more suspicious when a test shows some bizzare medication that is only prescribed for use in humans.", you have to be suspicious of ALL drugs administered to the horses.

I am sorry but this is evidence of the ambivalence and refusal of trainers, riders and owners to educate themselves on what they are actually doing when administering drugs.

Reed

ALLIGORY
Mar. 9, 2012, 04:44 PM
Ok thanks, must have missed the obvious... and in an attempt to stay on topic I remain a big fan of duct tape.

VCT
Mar. 9, 2012, 05:01 PM
But most of the time they don't. Sorry, but it's not condescending at all.

Well, I may not have the horse or the skills to ride at AA Hunter shows (not that I want to anyways) but... I *DO* have the skills not to mismanage my horses and constantly make mistakes with medications. I also have the ethics installed NOT to use illegal medications.

I also had those skills when I worked as a groom at A shows. Sorry that, evidently, the trainers and staff A shows now are so incompetent. Things must have changes in the last decade+... :lol:

Trevelyan96
Mar. 9, 2012, 05:28 PM
I'm sorry, I may be a noob, but I don't have a lot of respect for owners and trainers who play the 'barn help mistake' card.

These horses are in their care. It is their responsibility to be sure they are getting the correct feed and medication. I don't care if they have 6 or 60 horses at the show. If they can't tell one horse from the other and can't keep track of who is getting which medication at what time, then I have to wonder if they are competent enough to entrust with my horse's care. And if so many horses under their care needs so much medication, the are either over-trainng my horse or don't know how to properly get him fit enough to compete at that level.

The duct tape issue is just, as one poster stated "a big silver finger'.

USEF needs to stop paying lip service to the drug issue and come up with some penalties with teeth. I think the point system suggested by one poster is right on. A little over the limit on an allowed substance is minor. A banned substance or stacking is either intentional cheating or unacceptable carelessnes, neither of which should be tolerated.

CBoylen
Mar. 9, 2012, 08:31 PM
It's not rocket surgery and no barn has too many horses to remember who gets what.
Blue bucket = no meds
Red Bucket = meds
Bleary hangover eyeballs can tell the difference in colors.
Also...are there really folks that don't wash out the feed buckets daily at a show where horses are intermingling and possibly picking up who knows what? Pretty damned gross, IMO.

I've always actually tried to keep as many different color buckets as possible, or at least not assign two of the same color to horses in adjacent stalls. The most common way of feeding is to make up the food beforehand in labeled small buckets, then stack them by aisle, and whomever feeds dumps the contents into each stall's feed bucket. The places for error, are of course putting the wrong med in the wrong feed to begin with, or if the buckets are stacked wrong and no one reads the names and just continues dumping in order, or starts at the wrong end of the aisle, or misreads a name. I tend to feel like a visual cue of Fluffy has the blue bucket, in between stalls of white and red buckets, might pause someone before they make that error. Having all the buckets that contain medication, even different type medications, in the same color to me doesn't provide much benefit, but maybe it would work better in some systems. If you have one person that always feeds that of course minimizes errors, but it doesn't always actually happen that way. And it doesn't eliminate the cross-contamination errors you might get from someone tossing a horse in the wrong stall, especially at a lot of the winter circuits where you have more horses than stalls.
Anyway, my point once again is not that everyone is incompetent. My point is that mistakes are possible, for everyone, and it should be possible to recover from them. I have a hard time with some of the sentiment on this board that wants to tar and feather people for rule violations that may in fact have occurred by accident, with legal medications where there is little incentive to knowingly break the rules, when the real danger lies in the medications that are untestable.

MistyBlue
Mar. 9, 2012, 09:00 PM
I understand and agree with the "small mistakes sometimes happen and people shouldn't be crucified for that."

I disagree with the Bucket Excuse in general though. Because it's been the most common excuse for...oh...a few decades now. And it's a completely overused excuse...and has always been used with a wink and nudge.

The Bucket Excuse is the same as The Dog Ate My Homework. Do some dogs actually chew up books and papers? Sure they do. Does it happen as often as it's used as an excuse? Nope, not even close. Same with the bucket excuse. It's bullspit 99% of the time and everyone knows it. To constantly keep trying to explain it away is silly. Nobody at all is fooled. Not even a tiddly bit. :winkgrin:

As for the incompetent help? Frankly at the top levels the barns and riders can afford competent help. You hire the incompetent people to muck the stalls, clean the tack, etc. You hire competent people and pay them more than 50 cents an hour to handle the foods and meds that go into your animals. Your definitely not cheap animals.

And if your trainer is drunk every night and hung over every morning at shows and screwing up the meds on a semi-regular basis...enough that's it's the world's most common excuse...well then a rule change slamming them should sober those lushes right up. Wouldn't you think? (not that anyone believes that excuse either)

And as someone else mentioned: Every horse at a show shouldn't need something extra in it's feed. Endurance horses don't get a pharmacy in their feed. A hunter does about 1/100 of the physical activity of an endurance horse. Seriously. :rolleyes:

Try fitting up the horses instead of it requiring NSAIDs. Take some of the blubber off of them, excess weight on joints = not good. If the judges only have fit, forward horses to judge then the sport can go back to being a non-embarassment.

All y'all like to remind everyone of how elite and special and powerful and wealthy the AAs are...so act like it. Use your super-powers for good.

S A McKee
Mar. 9, 2012, 09:07 PM
I've always actually tried to keep as many different color buckets as possible, or at least not assign two of the same color to horses in adjacent stalls. The most common way of feeding is to make up the food beforehand in labeled small buckets, then stack them by aisle, and whomever feeds dumps the contents into each stall's feed bucket. The places for error, are of course putting the wrong med in the wrong feed to begin with, or if the buckets are stacked wrong and no one reads the names and just continues dumping in order, or starts at the wrong end of the aisle, or misreads a name. I tend to feel like a visual cue of Fluffy has the blue bucket, in between stalls of white and red buckets, might pause someone before they make that error. Having all the buckets that contain medication, even different type medications, in the same color to me doesn't provide much benefit, but maybe it would work better in some systems. If you have one person that always feeds that of course minimizes errors, but it doesn't always actually happen that way. And it doesn't eliminate the cross-contamination errors you might get from someone tossing a horse in the wrong stall, especially at a lot of the winter circuits where you have more horses than stalls.
Anyway, my point once again is not that everyone is incompetent. My point is that mistakes are possible, for everyone, and it should be possible to recover from them. I have a hard time with some of the sentiment on this board that wants to tar and feather people for rule violations that may in fact have occurred by accident, with legal medications where there is little incentive to knowingly break the rules, when the real danger lies in the medications that are untestable.

The real question here is why does every horse 'need' medication?
Your post sounds like every horse in the stable gets something.
Why is that?
Do they all have allergies or bad backs that require dex or robaxin?
Are they all chronically sore and need more than a little bute?
So what exactly are all these horses getting and why?

And before you say 'that's the way it's done' the answer is no, it's not done that way at every BNT barn.
I'm hardly a backyard rider and in way too many years of showing i've never shown a horse on more than a gram of bute towards the end of the show week.

CBoylen
Mar. 9, 2012, 09:32 PM
It's not up to you and I to decide whose dog really did eat their homework, and the USEF has never pretended to try to decide either, which is fine. But in the case of a violation that's simply a matter of timing or noncompliance with rules that there is little reason to knowingly risk breaking, given all the options available, I don't feel it's naive to at least allow for the possibility of unintentional error. Even if, as you call it, the "bucket excuse" is just shorthand for "I don't know what the hell happened, but something went wrong somewhere".
And, yes, I certainly think under todays standards of competition, every horse should have the benefit of an NSAID, and in my experience most do. You can't make a lame horse sound with one or even two NSAIDs, and now only one is allowed anyway. But that makes it a big deal if the horse with the bute powder gets a tab of naproxin or a scoop of Arquel, or the horse that gets the banamine paste gets any of the above in its feed. Previously, you'd see the occasional bute/banamine violation, which was clearly a mistake given there are plenty of other combinations to pick from, now you'll see more violations along that vein. It's very common for a horse to show on one NSAID, less common when it was allowed for them to show on two, so there was more room for error going undetected.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 9, 2012, 09:59 PM
Public information from USEF's website. 'For the Record'
These cases involve over the limit amounts of medication.

In the first case the owner has a horse who tested over the limit. However, the same owner shows up again, this time with a different trainer and a different combo of meds.

The second and third paragraphs relate to the same trainer.
Note that he was picked up on over the limit drug tests twice within a one month time frame. For the second 'problem' USEF is imposing a one month vacation on the trainer.

SANDRA (SANDY) FERRELL of Bernville, PA, violated Chapter 4, GR410 of this Federation, in connection with the WEF 8 Horse Show held on March 2-6, 2011, in that SANDRA (SANDY) FERRELL, as trainer, exhibited the horse MUSIC STREET after it had been administered and/or contained in its body firocoxib in a plasma concentration exceeding the maximum permitted level. For this violation it was determined that SANDRA (SANDY) FERRELL be censured pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1a and fined $750 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j. It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, ALEXA WEISMAN of Sherborn, MA, as owner, must return for redistribution all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by MUSIC STREET at said competition and must pay a $300 fee to the competition in connection with this penalty pursuant to Chapter 4, GR406.15.


SCOTT STEWART of Wellington, FL, violated Chapter 4, GR410 of this Federation, in connection with the I Love New York
Horse Show held on July 5-10, 2011, in that he, as trainer, exhibited the horse CARLOS-BOY after it had been administered and/or contained in its body phenylbutazone and flunixin. For this violation it was determined that SCOTT STEWART be censured pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1a and fined $1,000 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j. It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, KRISTA and ALEXA WEISMAN of Sherborn, MA, as owners, must return for redistribution all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by CARLOS-BOY at said competition and must pay a $300 fee to the competition in connection with this penalty pursuant to Chapter 4, GR406.15.

SCOTT STEWART of Wellington, FL, violated Chapter 4, GR410-411 of this Federation, in connection with the Upperville Colt & Horse Show held on June 6-12, 2011, in that, he, as trainer, exhibited the horse WORLD TIME after it had been administered and/or contained in its body firocoxib in a plasma concentration exceeding the maximum permitted level, phenylbutazone and meclofenamic acid. For this violation it was determined that pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1b and GR703.1f, SCOTT STEWART be found not in good standing, suspended from membership and forbidden from the privilege of taking any part whatsoever in any Licensed Competition for one month and is excluded from all competition grounds during Licensed Competitions for that period: (1) as an exhibitor, participant or spectator; (2) from participating in all Federation affairs and activities, (3) from holding or exercising office in the Federation or in any Licensed Competition; and (4) from attending, observing or participating in any event, forum, meeting,
program, clinic, task force, or committee of the Federation, sponsored by or conducted by the Federation, or held in connection with the Federation and any of its activities. The one month suspension shall commence on June 1, 2012 and terminate at midnight on June 30, 2012. Any horse or horses owned, leased, or of any partnership, corporation or stable of his, or shown in his name or for his reputation, (whether such interest was held at the time of the alleged violation or acquired thereafter), shall also be suspended, pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1c for the same period; and that SCOTT STEWART be fined $1,500 pursuant to Chapter 7, GR703.1j.
It was further directed that for this violation of the rules, BECKY GOCHMAN of New York, NY, as owner, must return for
redistribution all trophies, prizes, ribbons, and monies, if any, won by WORLD TIME at

Those are all NSAID violations—not banned substances. You're kidding yourself if you think we can ask horses to do what they do without NSAIDs. Now that would, in fact, be cruel. I don't know ANY trainer, BNT or otherwise, who shows their horses without.

As someone else pointed out, horses metabolize things differently, therefore a dose given just a few minutes too late can throw things out of whack. Not to mention the whole bucket mix-up possibility.

grandprixjump
Mar. 9, 2012, 10:14 PM
Those are all NSAID violations—not banned substances. You're kidding yourself if you think we can ask horses to do what they do without NSAIDs. Now that would, in fact, be cruel. I don't know ANY trainer, BNT or otherwise, who shows their horses without.

As someone else pointed out, horses metabolize things differently, therefore a dose given just a few minutes too late can throw things out of whack. Not to mention the whole bucket mix-up possibility.

Then GIVE THE HORSE A BREAK, or replace it...
Don't go to as many shows
Fewer classes.

DUH......

S A McKee
Mar. 10, 2012, 06:42 AM
Those are all NSAID violations—not banned substances. You're kidding yourself if you think we can ask horses to do what they do without NSAIDs. Now that would, in fact, be cruel. I don't know ANY trainer, BNT or otherwise, who shows their horses without.

As someone else pointed out, horses metabolize things differently, therefore a dose given just a few minutes too late can throw things out of whack. Not to mention the whole bucket mix-up possibility.

If you had bothered to read the post you would have noted there was no mention of a banned susbstance.
But you also should have noticed that the USEF penalty imposed was similar to what is given for a banned drug violation.

And I'm not kidding myself. As I noted, the most my horses ever get is a gram of bute and they do just fine at AA shows.
I suspect you really don't know that many trainers if your impression is they ALL medicate in excess. Big difference between some bute and stacking or over the limit doses.

I do appreciate the creativity of your excuse for over the limit drugs, namely that it would be 'cruel' not to medicate them.
But you did cover all bases by including the bucket defense and the metabolize argument. Why not mention the drunk employee option too?

Tha Ridge
Mar. 10, 2012, 02:53 PM
And I'm not kidding myself. As I noted, the most my horses ever get is a gram of bute and they do just fine at AA shows.
I suspect you really don't know that many trainers if your impression is they ALL medicate in excess. Big difference between some bute and stacking or over the limit doses.


I don't think stacking is okay. I don't think I ever defended that. I will defend giving NSAIDs within the legal limit though—and I do think that the violations you mentioned were unintentional. Does it mean there shouldn't be a consequence? Of course not. But as Chanda said, it's always wise to allow for the possibility of unintentional error. The horses trembling and falling over because of Carolina Gold are an entirely different story, and yes, that is intentional, excessive and cruel.

The bottom line though is that I just don't get why everyone on COTH is so concerned about what everyone else is doing. I know what my horses get and I know that they're happy, healthy and enjoy their jobs and receive the utmost care. Our NGB has standards in place to try and ensure that other horses receive the same. I understand that some people think they do a shit job at that, and that's fine, but maligning people who don't think it's a huge issue and don't agreed with your crusade is a bit ridiculous. If USEF doesn't have a problem with duct tape and you do, DON'T GO TO USEF-RATED SHOWS.

(I know, have ridden with, and have worked for, plenty of trainers, BTW.)

SaddleFitterVA
Mar. 10, 2012, 04:06 PM
Stacked NSAIDs could be a bucket mix-up/timing the doses wrong issue. No horse at a show ought to be getting Reserpine. That's the difference.

Stacked NSAIDS due to a bucket mix-up excuse - that one is a maybe, but timing the doses wrong? That means the trainer or owner is trying to stack within the rules and I think that is starting to go down the path of showing a horse who possibly shouldn't be shown at that point.

I find the casual attitude towards various drugs a bit disturbing. I've heard at least one H/J trainer advocating what I consider injury/rest levels of banamine or bute combined with robaxin for showing horses.

But, I actually think about it if I give my horse a single gram of bute while at an away show. Does she really need it? Would an extra bit of hand walking or hopping on to wander around be better to stretch out and keep the muscles loose?

If she really needs it, I question my fitness program, unless there was something exceptional that happened that day.

But, I'm not point chasing, and I only go to a handful of shows a year, and I always like to imagine that we have FEI rules, and figure if the elite at the top can follow FEI rules, I should be able to do manage it at my lower level.

ALLIGORY
Mar. 10, 2012, 06:02 PM
OK I'll admit it, when I show I am on nsaids.... that's right ME. I work out at the gym 5-6 times a week taking classes that are both aerobic and weight lifting. I really work on my fitness level- but damn it I still need the drugs.
Go ahead and put my head on a stick for that admission... :winkgrin:

vxf111
Mar. 10, 2012, 07:26 PM
For those of you who think bucket mixups are inexcusible... I assume you have never, ever handed in a paper or brief with even the MOST MINOR typo? You have never, every gotten lost going somewhere you've been before because you got distracted or stopped paying attention. You never, ever accidentally got in a fender bender because you zoned out. Never missed a stop sign and went through an intersection by accident.

True, there's no health at stake in some of these hypos... but perfection is an ideal you strive for and sometimes miss.

fair judy
Mar. 10, 2012, 09:04 PM
For those of you who think bucket mixups are inexcusible... I assume you have never, ever handed in a paper or brief with even the MOST MINOR typo? You have never, every gotten lost going somewhere you've been before because you got distracted or stopped paying attention. You never, ever accidentally got in a fender bender because you zoned out. Never missed a stop sign and went through an intersection by accident.

True, there's no health at stake in some of these hypos... but perfection is an ideal you strive for and sometimes miss.

but consider the fact that random testing is also involved, so that the "mistake" would have to also happen on a Particular day in the life of the show horse. sorry but those odds are just too much of a stretch .

Ghazzu
Mar. 10, 2012, 09:36 PM
You never, ever accidentally got in a fender bender because you zoned out. Never missed a stop sign and went through an intersection by accident.


And in the first case, you'd be found at fault and likely pay a fine plus your auto insurance would increase.

In the second, if there was a cop there, you'd get cited.

Honest mistake or not, you'd be paying a penalty.

MHM
Mar. 10, 2012, 09:42 PM
Honest mistake or not, you'd be paying a penalty.

That doesn't change the fact that it is possible to make an honest mistake.

chunky munky
Mar. 10, 2012, 09:54 PM
For about the fifth time, I don't think anybody on this whole thread has suggested that there be no penalty for medication errors made with legal drugs. These threads go on forever because people post without reading much of the thread.
The point that has been made is that some posters think that this is like cops and robbers with the drug testers and that all trainers are sneaking around giving untestable magic exlixors to win. Most are not. Some posters think that if a trainer gets a penalty for having a higher level than acceptable to the USEF of an NSAID that they should be banned forever; others said that they would never ride with someone who had been penalized. Frankly, the USEF is testing at a lot of shows. The persons that were listed in this thread as being fined and or set down I would venture to say have at least one of their horses tested at almost every show they attend. You don't see in print how many times they have been tested over the last 30 years and had negative results. Both of these folks have had pretty good records over the years.
Yeah, so they screwed up. Nail them to the cross. And I agree with the poster who wonders why you care so much about what the other guy does. Keep your horse and barn clean and within the letter of the law and maybe not worry about them so much.

Tha Ridge
Mar. 10, 2012, 10:00 PM
For about the fifth time, I don't think anybody on this whole thread has suggested that there be no penalty for medication errors made with legal drugs. These threads go on forever because people post without reading much of the thread.
The point that has been made is that some posters think that this is like cops and robbers with the drug testers and that all trainers are sneaking around giving untestable magic exlixors to win. Most are not. Some posters think that if a trainer gets a penalty for having a higher level than acceptable to the USEF of an NSAID that they should be banned forever; others said that they would never ride with someone who had been penalized. Frankly, the USEF is testing at a lot of shows. The persons that were listed in this thread as being fined and or set down I would venture to say have at least one of their horses tested at almost every show they attend. You don't see in print how many times they have been tested over the last 30 years and had negative results. Both of these folks have had pretty good records over the years.
Yeah, so they screwed up. Nail them to the cross. And I agree with the poster who wonders why you care so much about what the other guy does. Keep your horse and barn clean and within the letter of the law and maybe not worry about them so much.

Yay, you win the thread. :yes: Now can it die?

vxf111
Mar. 10, 2012, 10:14 PM
N/M. Let it die ;) Didn't mean to bump it. MHM said what I was thinking.

Alter_nativ3
Mar. 11, 2012, 12:25 PM
Frankly at the top levels the barns and riders can afford competent help. You hire the incompetent people to muck the stalls, clean the tack, etc. You hire competent people and pay them more than 50 cents an hour to handle the foods and meds that go into your animals. Your definitely not cheap animals.

.

Really? :confused: [edit] :no: And this is coming from someone who has had quite a few horses in "AA" programs where grooms are used.

MistyBlue
Mar. 11, 2012, 02:14 PM
Really? :confused: [edit]. :no: And this is coming from someone who has had quite a few horses in "AA" programs where grooms are used.

Use your words.
And make an actual point.
Other than pulling a thread back up to call a name on an older post on it and then point out that you have several horses and use grooms. ;)

Can you elaborate on what is bothering you about that quote? One person on this thread stated that bucket mishaps are common because the help is incompetent, and that competent help is tough to find due to the very low wages.

I made the point that if someone does have several horses at most of the shows, then paying help enough money to keep someone competent is not only do-able but responsible. It never makes sense to hire incompetence to handle your horse's feed and medications just because incompetence is cheap.

There's also been claims that bucket mishaps happen due to trainers and grooms being drunk.

Seriously...I'm the butthole for pointing out that:

Incompetent Cheap Help
Drunk Help

is never a good excuse for overmedicating a horses? Really?

Now use your big girl words to please explain your position.
A person should be able to hire cheap inexperienced people and expect zero mistakes?
A person should be able to get shnockered and screw up medicating your horses?

And maybe even be brave enough to not use an alter. I certainly didn't. :cool:

Alter_nativ3
Mar. 11, 2012, 06:10 PM
Gosh that must have really gotten under your skin considering the length of your rebuttal. Anyways...

In your first post you made the generalization that the people mucking the stalls and cleaning the tack were incompetent. Many of these "incompetent" people are the only ones to notice when a horse is sick or lame and !!!GASP!!! have to bring it to the attention of the "competent" people. Yes some people who do stalls and clean tack are just as you described, but that is not true of many of them and more specifically not true of the upper levels. Calling them inexperienced and calling them incompetent are two totally different things. Your original statement was disgusting.

Oh and I still stand by the original word I used :)

chunky munky
Mar. 11, 2012, 06:30 PM
Regarding cheap help. The last time I hired help to work full time in FL the minimum you could pay decent help was $500/wk plus housing. Then there was $25 per day for meals and full use of a vehicle ( out of necessity)
Do the math. That's a lot more than you make at Walmart. I don't think that is being cheap. I know of no decent show barn that can hire good help for less.
And I don't know of help at the upper levels that make mistakes because they are drunk. You can't work that hard and party that hard. And I assure you that the two trainersthat have been named on this thread as getting fined, etc are not partiers. And they have good help. And still things can go wrong. When you are at the ring with customers you cannot be in the barn medicating unless you happen to have a clone. With a big operation it takes a village.

SnicklefritzG
Mar. 11, 2012, 07:33 PM
Well, actually some people get set down just for having the assistant trainer give the wrong med to the wrong horse, or forgetting to file a drug report, or contamination from a coffee grinder used to grind up pills and not cleaned out well enough. You know most of these folks are not mother rapers and baby stabbers. Some times it can happen from a clerical error. And sometimes it can happen when I clients horse ships in for a show and mommy gave it ace 3 days before to clip its ears, and guess who signed the entry? I am not making this stuff up. These have all happened.


It's easy enough to buy a cheap $15 coffee grinder from Walmart and have one for each horse that needs to have pills ground up. How hard is it to clean these things out? Not that hard. I'm sure many of us have done it before. If you've got the time to take a lesson, time to walk a course, time to teach a lesson or whatever (depending on who does what at the barn), you can clean a coffee grinder.

mvp
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:12 PM
I don't think *anyone* on this thread is defending repeat offenders, but honestly how many of those can you name? I know a few trainers who have been "set down" at some point or another (mostly for one of the scenarios discussed here ad nauseam) but no one who flagrantly disregards the rules show after show.

I can name one BNT from the 1990s, but only by hearsay from pros local to him.

This is what's hard. For pros with lesser clients and lesser horses trying to compete, they are stuck in a "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em situation."

FWIW, this BNT was on many committees and seemed never to have the wrong horse tested on the wrong day. Now I have no way of knowing whether he was innocent or guilty, as I heard all this from one of his competing LNTs. But consider the "work environment" of that LNT if he/she believes his/her own gossip.

OK I'll admit it, when I show I am on nsaids.... that's right ME. I work out at the gym 5-6 times a week taking classes that are both aerobic and weight lifting. I really work on my fitness level- but damn it I still need the drugs.
Go ahead and put my head on a stick for that admission... :winkgrin:

I don't care what you take. Neither does the USEF. So your head is out of contention.

As others have asked before: Why is the comparison to clean competition in the rider relevant to this conversation and the way the USEF handles or fails to handle the welfare of the horse, the reputation of horse showing and the problem of keeping a level and manageable playing field for the hunter ring?

The really important point is to know what the sturm und drang about the lax D&M rules enforcement is about at bottom.


For those of you who think bucket mixups are inexcusible... I assume you have never, ever handed in a paper or brief with even the MOST MINOR typo? You have never, every gotten lost going somewhere you've been before because you got distracted or stopped paying attention. You never, ever accidentally got in a fender bender because you zoned out. Never missed a stop sign and went through an intersection by accident.

The question, then, is about whether or not D&M mistakes, rolled stop signs and typos on papers are equivalents. I argue that they are not. I'd put the missed stop sign at the top of importance with D&M stuff for horses at shows in the middle. The comparison to driving badly and failing to run spell check just ain't comparable.

chunky munky
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:26 PM
For the record who do you think shows up to take tests at USEf shows? Do you think there is a team that is full time that does this? No. From what I have seen is they send one USEF rep and the testers are most likely students from the nearest vet school. Do you think that the kid standing there for 3 hrs with the piss cup is a USEF employee, or for that matter anyone that knows much about horse shows? Not.

MistyBlue
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:28 PM
Gosh that must have really gotten under your skin considering the length of your rebuttal. Anyways...
Actually, I was just using my words. Attempting to make the post clear and understandable since you seemed to have misunderstood my post.
In your first post you made the generalization that the people mucking the stalls and cleaning the tack were incompetent. Many of these "incompetent" people are the only ones to notice when a horse is sick or lame and !!!GASP!!! have to bring it to the attention of the "competent" people.
Had you read the thread...or had you decided to not single my post out...you'd see I was about the 4-5 person to use those terms. They weren't my terms. More than one person stated that so many mistakes happen because hiring competent help affordably was very hard. Hence my "then use your incompetent help" for the less risky jobs...like medicating the horses. So it wasn't *me* who was calling the help incompetent.
Reading for comprehension...101.
Yes some people who do stalls and clean tack are just as you described, but that is not true of many of them and more specifically not true of the upper levels. Calling them inexperienced and calling them incompetent are two totally different things. I agree. Your original statement was disgusting.
Again...it wasn't my choice of words/terms to use. No idea why it's okay for the other handful of folks calling the help incompetent but it's not okay for me to repeat that back to them.
Oh and I still stand by the original word I used
I'm sure you do. Easy to stand by something under an alias. Takes a little more cojones to come out of hiding. :winkgrin:

Kinda silly to use an alter to single out one person on a thread to swear at, considering I wasn't even close to the first person to use the word incompetent. FWIW, I never stated I thought anyone was incompetent, just if you already had incompetent staff to not let them handle the meds.
:rolleyes:

BlissTate
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:49 PM
Just so everyone is keeping up, the list of excuses and explanations is now compiled on the handy dandy list below.

1. Buckets. Those pesky buckets. So easy to mix up. Even though bute paste is now de rigor, everyone is apparently still giving meds in community buckets.

2. You poor people who don't show at the BIG shows can't possibly understand cheating. Don't even weigh in.

3. Well, the help and trainers work awfully hard, and sometimes they just happen to go out and tie one on at Player's, and either come in with a giant hang-over or directly from the bar. In those circumstances, who could keep straight something that could suspend or fine the trainer and the horses owner.

4. Sometimes Number One and Number Two happen on those rare days that you get random tested.

5. Stacking Nsaids shouldn't be considered cheating, really.

6. The drug testers are likely incompetent idiots.

I will now be taking bets on who else can be thrown under the bus to take the blame away from the folks that it really does lie with.

We don't need it explained to us why a horse might need pain maintenance. We know. We get it.
We don't need it explained what it's like at a certain level. Many of us have either ridden at that level or worked at that level. Or both.
We don't need condescending attitude about the writing that is clearly on the wall (even if it is under duct tape).

Stop with the smoke and mirrors and excuses and finger pointing in the round and take responsibility. If you are an owner and smell something hinkey, check it out. If you are a trainer and are doing something hinkey, take your lumps and stop with the BS.
Regardless of someone on this thread scolding you for giving a hoot about what other people are doing, if you know that someone is blatantly breaking the rules, report it.

I've learned a lot on this thread about who has their head in the sand and who is ready to help make some changes.

fair judy
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:51 PM
Anyone who posts under a screen name is using an "alter". i don't mean to be impertinent, and seriously don't wish to offend (maybe you are so famous i should curtsy although i am not easily impressed) but is your name misty blue?

CBoylen
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:54 PM
if you know that someone is blatantly breaking the rules, report it.

There are no normal circumstances under which someone can "report" a medication violation.

Alter_nativ3
Mar. 11, 2012, 08:57 PM
My point MistyBlue (And the reason I am "picking on you") is that you are the only one on this thread that has said the people who muck stalls are cheap, incompetent help and are knowingly hired as such. It's not true, and if you have shown on that level or seen the inner workings of an operation like that you know that is not the case.

I will continue to ignore your comments about my alias because unless your name on your birth certificate is MistyBlue (And correct me if I'm wrong) then you in fact are posting under an alias as well.

Alter_nativ3
Mar. 11, 2012, 09:00 PM
Regarding cheap help. The last time I hired help to work full time in FL the minimum you could pay decent help was $500/wk plus housing. Then there was $25 per day for meals and full use of a vehicle ( out of necessity)
Do the math. That's a lot more than you make at Walmart. I don't think that is being cheap. I know of no decent show barn that can hire good help for less.
And I don't know of help at the upper levels that make mistakes because they are drunk. You can't work that hard and party that hard. And I assure you that the two trainersthat have been named on this thread as getting fined, etc are not partiers. And they have good help. And still things can go wrong. When you are at the ring with customers you cannot be in the barn medicating unless you happen to have a clone. With a big operation it takes a village.

Yup. This was my point, you just said it a lot nicer than I did :yes:

fair judy
Mar. 11, 2012, 09:12 PM
My point MistyBlue (And the reason I am "picking on you") is that you are the only one on this thread that has said the people who muck stalls are cheap, incompetent help and are knowingly hired as such. It's not true, and if you have shown on that level or seen the inner workings of an operation like that you know that is not the case.

I will continue to ignore your comments about my alias because unless your name on your birth certificate is MistyBlue (And correct me if I'm wrong) then you in fact are posting under an alias as well.

just asked the same question but since misty has over 20k posts maybe we are just too stupid to know who she is?

MistyBlue
Mar. 11, 2012, 09:57 PM
Assumed it was easily understood, my mistake.

Alter, not alias.
Being cute doesn't change what I said.

Alias or screen name is what we all use online.
Alter is a change of our screen name so we can hide who we are online in order to post something we don't want associated with our online names.

And geez thanks Fair Judy for the snide comments. I don't remember stealing candy from you or anything.

Alter...you quoted what I stated. I stated if YOU hire incompetent help then give them jobs they can't harm the horses doing. I muck stalls for heaven's sake. Why in the world would I consider that a dumb person's job personally? I was repeating what other people said back to them. It was not my sentiment. If you didn't get that by what I posted, I cleared it up afterwards. And yet you still are singling me out.
And using an alter to do so. :winkgrin:

And FWIW Alter or Judy...google my screen name. I'm not hiding who I am at all. It's just normal to use a screen name and not a actual name online. :cool:
or better yet, since you're both such super-sleuths...check my profile on here. Hey, there I am! Photo evidence. And oh look...my real name and email addy in my profile! Would you like birth certificate? Arial photo of my property? Past show records? DNA profile? ;)

I'm guessing you guys hide your profile info? ;)

mvp
Mar. 11, 2012, 10:13 PM
My point MistyBlue (And the reason I am "picking on you") is that you are the only one on this thread that has said the people who muck stalls are cheap, incompetent help and are knowingly hired as such. It's not true, and if you have shown on that level or seen the inner workings of an operation like that you know that is not the case.

I will continue to ignore your comments about my alias because unless your name on your birth certificate is MistyBlue (And correct me if I'm wrong) then you in fact are posting under an alias as well.

Along with BlissTate's nice post that means to straighten out all the people doing the infighting, I'll weigh-in on this little skirmish.

AlterNative, did you really get so angry that you cussed out Misty Blue? Was that you?

Are you offended because MB purportedly maligned the grooms?

FWIW, I don't think these people are incompetent. Take that from someone who has learned from them and asked to be shown what they know.

I do think they are underpaid. You High End Showers can complain about their weekly wage. But dollars to donuts, you would do what they do for what your trainers are offering. Yes, their wages add up to a lot of money. But that's only true on top of all the other people you are paying for the fun of showing.

And if it is correct that tired, underpaid and undertrained people are screwing up really important things like medications, then it has to change. Add that to the cost of horse showing.....unless your trainer's business model is to buy a roll of duct tape and risk the occasional mistake and getting caught with it.

The complaint, however, is not with the mistakes.

It's that

1) A roll of duct tape will take care of it..... making sure that there are no financial consequences for cheating. Apparently embarrassment doesn't to do it. And I'm sure show managers are on-board with this duct tape solution as it lets their shows stay predictably full. No big gaps in attendance when Big Barn has sit out for a while.


2) Even the honest, never-been-dirty HOs who gain nothing by turning a blind eye to their cheating competitors are getting in line to explain the mistakes that result in the infractions. Why do you want NGB that has so few teeth that it can't even take care of you, the honest competitor?

CBoylen
Mar. 11, 2012, 10:41 PM
Even the honest, never-been-dirty HOs who gain nothing by turning a blind eye to their cheating competitors are getting in line to explain the mistakes that result in the infractions. Why do you want NGB that has so few teeth that it can't even take care of you, the honest competitor?
Hey, MVP, who are you calling hos? ;)
I think that those of us who want to give people the benefit of the doubt and not make a judgement on who is trying to cheat and who simply made a mistake just don't believe our NGB is in a position to make that judgement either, under most circumstances. I don't have a problem with the current standard that all rule infractions are punishable, regardless of intent or explanation, under the current punishment structure that applies only fines for infractions involving legal medication, unless the offender is a repeat offender within a certain time frame. I'd have a problem with that standard and the judgement and appeals process if the NGB had, as you call it, more "teeth" and chose to punish people as strongly as many here seem to feel is warranted. With the undeniable fact that the NGB is in the unenviable position of necessarily being one step behind those who are actually cheating with intent, the simple fact is that the honest competitor is always vulnerable to being unintentionally in violation, while those that intentionally violate the rules rarely get caught for any serious violation.

fair judy
Mar. 12, 2012, 12:22 PM
Assumed it was easily understood, my mistake.

Alter, not alias.
Being cute doesn't change what I said.

Alias or screen name is what we all use online.
Alter is a change of our screen name so we can hide who we are online in order to post something we don't want associated with our online names.

And geez thanks Fair Judy for the snide comments. I don't remember stealing candy from you or anything.

Alter...you quoted what I stated. I stated if YOU hire incompetent help then give them jobs they can't harm the horses doing. I muck stalls for heaven's sake. Why in the world would I consider that a dumb person's job personally? I was repeating what other people said back to them. It was not my sentiment. If you didn't get that by what I posted, I cleared it up afterwards. And yet you still are singling me out.
And using an alter to do so. :winkgrin:

And FWIW Alter or Judy...google my screen name. I'm not hiding who I am at all. It's just normal to use a screen name and not a actual name online. :cool:
or better yet, since you're both such super-sleuths...check my profile on here. Hey, there I am! Photo evidence. And oh look...my real name and email addy in my profile! Would you like birth certificate? Arial photo of my property? Past show records? DNA profile? ;)

I'm guessing you guys hide your profile info? ;)


i see a photo of a pretty blonde and a geographic area, no name, no "addy". then, i am old compared to many here, so maybe my eyesight is failing worse than i suspected, or i am just not looking in the correct place?

I am sarah hochschwender. it isn't in my profile, but often mentioned. screen name is my junior horse from long ago but most of my vintage knew who i was the minute they saw the moniker. googling your screen name brings up ella fitzgerald:lol:

i wasn't trying to be impertinent, as i stated above, just pointing out the obvious......

Ravencrest_Camp
Mar. 12, 2012, 01:20 PM
Hey, MVP, who are you calling hos? ;)
I think that those of us who want to give people the benefit of the doubt and not make a judgement on who is trying to cheat and who simply made a mistake just don't believe our NGB is in a position to make that judgement either, under most circumstances. I don't have a problem with the current standard that all rule infractions are punishable, regardless of intent or explanation, under the current punishment structure that applies only fines for infractions involving legal medication, unless the offender is a repeat offender within a certain time frame. I'd have a problem with that standard and the judgement and appeals process if the NGB had, as you call it, more "teeth" and chose to punish people as strongly as many here seem to feel is warranted. With the undeniable fact that the NGB is in the unenviable position of necessarily being one step behind those who are actually cheating with intent, the simple fact is that the honest competitor is always vulnerable to being unintentionally in violation, while those that intentionally violate the rules rarely get caught for any serious violation.

Without making any judgements or comments on the various positions on this issue.

If we give people the benefit of the doubt, given the fact that testing is random and not very comprehensive, those people making mistakes are gaining an unfair advantage.

The only way to curtail this unfair advantage and greatly reduce if not totally eliminate mistakes, is to make the penalties harsh. If the penalities are severe enough, you can bet your bottom dollar that trainers & owners will come up with a system to ensure mistakes do not happen.

If we want to take this problem seriously and if we want our sport to be taken seriously, we need to get rid of the clubby attitude. The attitude that says, he/she is a good person and didn't mean to make a mistake. We need to adopt the attitude that he/she gained an unfair advantage and deal with it accordingly.

If I get pulled over for impaired driving, the police officer does not care if I am a good guy and accidentally made a mistake and consumed too many cocktails. He just cares whether or not I am over the legal limit.

MistyBlue
Mar. 12, 2012, 01:20 PM
My email is available in my profile, my email addy is my first and last name.


i wasn't trying to be impertinent, as i stated above, just pointing out the obvious......


maybe you are so famous i should curtsy although i am not easily impressed


just asked the same question but since misty has over 20k posts maybe we are just too stupid to know who she is?


Hey, whatever floats your boat. :winkgrin:

My screen name is also my first horse's name.

At least we both have the ovaries to stand behind what we say online, even if we disagree with each other. :yes:

mvp
Mar. 12, 2012, 02:00 PM
Hey, MVP, who are you calling hos? ;)
I think that those of us who want to give people the benefit of the doubt and not make a judgement on who is trying to cheat and who simply made a mistake just don't believe our NGB is in a position to make that judgement either, under most circumstances. I don't have a problem with the current standard that all rule infractions are punishable, regardless of intent or explanation, under the current punishment structure that applies only fines for infractions involving legal medication, unless the offender is a repeat offender within a certain time frame. I'd have a problem with that standard and the judgement and appeals process if the NGB had, as you call it, more "teeth" and chose to punish people as strongly as many here seem to feel is warranted. With the undeniable fact that the NGB is in the unenviable position of necessarily being one step behind those who are actually cheating with intent, the simple fact is that the honest competitor is always vulnerable to being unintentionally in violation, while those that intentionally violate the rules rarely get caught for any serious violation.

I'm calling you a HO, (Horse Owner.) I'm one, too.

And I'm calling our NGB a weasly sissy.

Ravencrest Camp summarizes the problem of a toothless policeman well:


Without making any judgements or comments on the various positions on this issue.

If we give people the benefit of the doubt, given the fact that testing is random and not very comprehensive, those people making mistakes are gaining an unfair advantage.

The only way to curtail this unfair advantage and greatly reduce if not totally eliminate mistakes, is to make the penalties harsh. If the penalities are severe enough, you can bet your bottom dollar that trainers & owners will come up with a system to ensure mistakes do not happen.

If we want to take this problem seriously and if we want our sport to be taken seriously, we need to get rid of the clubby attitude. The attitude that says, he/she is a good person and didn't mean to make a mistake. We need to adopt the attitude that he/she gained an unfair advantage and deal with it accordingly.

If I get pulled over for impaired driving, the police officer does not care if I am a good guy and accidentally made a mistake and consumed too many cocktails. He just cares whether or not I am over the legal limit.

IMO, the USEF is run by and for the Good Ol' Boys who find it necessary to medicate often. That's fine. I even see why they do it: Our soundness standards are high, the prices of horses are high, the showing you need to do in order to make a living as a pro is high.

IMO, those elite professionals have also wanted to make More Sure that no one was horribly punished than the sport squeaky clean. If people weren't complaining about stuff like the constant appearance of new ways to game the system like Carolina Gold (or nerving tails or whatever), this intention on the USEF would be good enough.

But I do believe that when the consequences get higher, trainers will find a way to eliminate mistakes that we now find SOP in a show barn.

MHM
Mar. 12, 2012, 02:30 PM
But I do believe that when the consequences get higher, trainers will find a way to eliminate mistakes that we now find SOP in a show barn.

Does SOP mean standard operating procedure?

I won't speak for any other poster on this thread, but I certainly did not mean that such mistakes were "standard," just that they are possible, even under the best of circumstances.

When you occasionally read or see a news story about someone who checks into a hospital and has the wrong procedure done on them by mistake, does that mean such a thing is "standard"? No, it's human error, and can happen even in a setting that has far more built in safeguards than most show barns.

My point was that it is possible for an honest mistake to happen in any setting. If a trainer has such a thing happen with a legal medication once in a decade, it was probably a fluke accident. If somebody gets caught repeatedly using banned substances, that's an entirely different matter.

Both people should expect fines or sanctions from USEF, but the person with one honest mistake in 20 years is not in the same category as the habitual offender, in my opinion.

mvp
Mar. 12, 2012, 02:51 PM
By SOP I did mean Standard Operating Procedure.

No, I don't think this is the intended "best practices" of any show barn. But the several leaps to the defense of professional horsemen (well-paid and underpaid/tired) made me think that folks did find the number of mistakes acceptable.

Only one poster added "And you little people, stay out of it. Elites get to make mistakes, too, but their lessers don't get to comment."

Both leave the impression that the USEF knows there is a problem and thinks it is handling well enough. So much for the D&M piece.

With the Duct Tape Solution-- the banned person acknowledges the ban, dresses up the barn the rest of the way and plays at the show anyway. That also makes me think that the USEF is more interested in creating the appearance of policing horsemen than in actually doing that.

That's were I got the some level of cheating as SOP for our industry sentiment.

RAyers
Mar. 12, 2012, 03:02 PM
When you occasionally read or see a news story about someone who checks into a hospital and has the wrong procedure done on them by mistake, does that mean such a thing is "standard"? No, it's human error, and can happen even in a setting that has far more built in safeguards than most show barns.




Except your logic falls apart when one examines the numbers.

Let's say there are roughly 1 million USEF registered horse showing animals in the US each year. Now, look at human hospital visits, procedures, etc. In 2009, there were 48 million inpatient hospital stays, 109 million outpatient visits, 123 million ER visits. In the US it is about 200,000 mistakes made annual (yes, it sucks to be one of the 200,000). Taking those numbers, the mistake RATE is 1 mistake in every 1,400 visits. To equate to the horses, if the same mistake rate is used (since you imply it is similar to what happens at hospitals) that means there should be roughly 714 mistakes in the entire US at EVERY horse show in all 26 disciplines overseen by the USEF.

From what is posted on COTH and such, including personal experiences, I suspect the "mistake" rate is MUCH higher, thus indicating a failure of the membership to actually take responsibility or they overtly flout the rules. And given the statements by USEF that they test around 200,000 animals annually there should be only 143 "mistakes" detected. Therefore, those who argue for the "mistakes" are using such a small number of people that it renders their arguments moot given that almost every infraction is claimed to be some sort of "mistake."

Or, the option is that one must NOT accept that this is not equivalent to a hospital scenario given that untrained public can and do administer controlled substances (those requiring a prescription) in an unregulated manner (e.g. outside the oversight of a licensed vet).

stolen virtue
Mar. 12, 2012, 07:08 PM
However, by RAyers calculations, every horse showing is doing so on some medication. I don't think you can make the statement that every horse that is showing is doing so medicated, so the incidents of mistakes would need to be much higher to equate hospitals to horses since hospitals are by defination caring for sick injured people and 100% are medicated.

Regardless, this casual acceptance of "mistakes" is what I find troubling. In the field I work in, mistakes are just that and are costly and will get you fired either by your employer or your client.

MHM
Mar. 12, 2012, 07:11 PM
I was not trying to make a direct comparison between mistakes in a hospital and mistakes in a show barn. So I did not worry about working the numbers.

My point (once again) is that honest mistakes can happen in any setting, despite the best efforts of everyone involved.

Someone who has one honest mistake with USEF in a ten or twenty year span is not the same in my book as someone who appears in the penalty box on a regular basis.

MistyBlue
Mar. 12, 2012, 07:39 PM
Someone who has one honest mistake with USEF in a ten or twenty year span is not the same in my book as someone who appears in the penalty box on a regular basis.

I agree with that.

Screw ups *are* bound to happen. They happen everywhere, work and sports.

I don't think a slight screw up should result in banning. However I do think even a slight screw up should be penalized. Monetarily. Painfully enough to keep it from becoming so common. And kept track of with numbers monitored.

People keep comparing this with a job...and it's a sport. Sure the sport is many peoples' jobs, but the penalties have to mirror sports as well as jobs. How many other sports allow so many little medication mistakes? If we want the sport taken seriously, we need to act seriously.

If some are noticed to have semi-regular little mistakes...they either have really sloppy care or those aren't mistakes and were playing the odds. (most likely the latter, we all know it, wink wink)

This way the honest mistakes get a heavy fine, pay it and done. It's only a once in a decade thing, so no big deal. Those who make regular mistakes...feel it in the wallet and those get tallied up to equal a much harsher penalty. Possibly banning.

Ravencrest_Camp
Mar. 12, 2012, 08:35 PM
Does SOP mean standard operating procedure?

I won't speak for any other poster on this thread, but I certainly did not mean that such mistakes were "standard," just that they are possible, even under the best of circumstances.

When you occasionally read or see a news story about someone who checks into a hospital and has the wrong procedure done on them by mistake, does that mean such a thing is "standard"? No, it's human error, and can happen even in a setting that has far more built in safeguards than most show barns.

My point was that it is possible for an honest mistake to happen in any setting. If a trainer has such a thing happen with a legal medication once in a decade, it was probably a fluke accident. If somebody gets caught repeatedly using banned substances, that's an entirely different matter.

Both people should expect fines or sanctions from USEF, but the person with one honest mistake in 20 years is not in the same category as the habitual offender, in my opinion.


I think that using the "mistakes even happen in hospitals" is a straw man argument.

Every single administration of a drug or substance in a hospital is recorded. And every instance of an incorrect administration is caught and documented.

The same can not be said of the administration of drugs or substances to horses. Testing is random, and even honest mistakes go undetected. So as Reed pointed out, the numbers that are getting detected are quite high.

vxf111
Mar. 12, 2012, 09:33 PM
I think that using the "mistakes even happen in hospitals" is a straw man argument.

Every single administration of a drug or substance in a hospital is recorded. And every instance of an incorrect administration is caught and documented.

Check state surveys of hospitals/nursing homes and you may likely be shocked :(

RockinHorse
Mar. 13, 2012, 06:41 AM
With the Duct Tape Solution-- the banned person acknowledges the ban, dresses up the barn the rest of the way and plays at the show anyway. That also makes me think that the USEF is more interested in creating the appearance of policing horsemen than in actually doing that.

That's were I got the some level of cheating as SOP for our industry sentiment.


You know there might be a side benefit to the Duct Tape Solution. I don't generally look on the web site to see who got set down and the info is no longer in the magazine. Now I can just wander through the stables to find out ;)

axl
Mar. 13, 2012, 10:30 AM
This way the honest mistakes get a heavy fine, pay it and done. It's only a once in a decade thing, so no big deal. Those who make regular mistakes...feel it in the wallet and those get tallied up to equal a much harsher penalty. Possibly banning.

I completely agree with you.


If my trainer was ever banned, I couldn't see myself continuing to train with them. Ever.

These are the people I was arguing with and trying to make see that 1 positive in a career doesn't make someone a nefarious evil-doer.

Trixie
Mar. 13, 2012, 10:57 AM
Regarding cheap help. The last time I hired help to work full time in FL the minimum you could pay decent help was $500/wk plus housing. Then there was $25 per day for meals and full use of a vehicle ( out of necessity)
Do the math. That's a lot more than you make at Walmart. I don't think that is being cheap. I know of no decent show barn that can hire good help for less.

Only the horse industry would use "a lot more than you make at Walmart" as a viable excuse to pay someone the equivalent of $26K a year "plus housing" and then try to indicate that these grooms are somehow living large. Are we suggesting that we'd like show grooms whose only alternative employment is a Walmart?

That being said, I do agree that mistakes happen - to an extent. Probably not to the extent that some folks would like to pretend that they do. But I'm a little people who doesn't get to have an opinion. :rolleyes: