PDA

View Full Version : Jimmy Torano Suspended?



TequilaSun
Oct. 14, 2001, 05:26 PM
Hey I just wanted to start a new topic for this (it was mentioned in the "Paige Johnson" thread). Why was Jimmy Torano suspended??

TequilaSun
Oct. 14, 2001, 05:26 PM
Hey I just wanted to start a new topic for this (it was mentioned in the "Paige Johnson" thread). Why was Jimmy Torano suspended??

Scarlet 1
Oct. 14, 2001, 05:29 PM
I believe it was detailed in this month's AHSA magazine. I think it was drugs in 1999 with a jumper, Lancier 4? 10/01/01-11/31/01 I believe. I have thrown my issue away so I can not confirm.

Glimmerglass
Oct. 14, 2001, 05:39 PM
From the AHSA ruling in the Spring of 2001:

JIMMY TORANO, as trainer, and MEGAN MORAN, as owner, violated Rule IV of this association, in that on or about March 12, 1999, at the Palm Beach Finale Horse Show, they exhibited the horse STATE FAIR in Class 2102/2103 (First Year Green Working Hunter), after it had been administered and/or contained in its body reserpine.

Gifty
Oct. 14, 2001, 06:25 PM
Sorry, Glimmer but that is not why Jimmy is on vacation until the end of November.

Cocaine found in one of his jumpers last year at the Cosequin USGPL Finals.

Yes it is in this months Equestrian mag.

I have heard that it tested for less than the Gonda case the other year and less than a bank teller could be charged for.

I may not always win, but I will always try to win.

E
Oct. 14, 2001, 06:45 PM
My trainer pointed this out to me today Lancier 4 was found to have traces of Cocaine in his body at the time of the 1999 USGPL Cosequin Finals at Culpeper when competing in the GP. We could not recall if he had won that year or not however it states that Jimmy Torano is receiving a $3500 fine and suspension from October 1 to November 30. Sir Ruly Inc. the owner of the horse must return all trophies and prize money won by the horse to the horseshow.

R&R
"Dmklinger: LOL - sorry - wouldn't know a backstreet boy if one came up and bit me!!"
Now if that isn't a classic!

SBT
Oct. 14, 2001, 06:53 PM
...the horses were actucally given cocaine, or that the grooms/barn help were smoking/snorting it around the horses, and traces got into their system?

GirlNextDoor
Oct. 14, 2001, 07:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sbt78lw:
...the horses were actucally given cocaine, or that the grooms/barn help were smoking/snorting it around the horses, and traces got into their system?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

is that an actual question or sarcasm? praying for the latter here lol

CBoylen
Oct. 14, 2001, 07:12 PM
I'm not certain why this specific case is meriting such discussion on so many boards. You'd be pretty hard pressed to find people that have never been suspended at one point or another, either through ill intent or just simply through accident or negligence. However, I think we could use this discussion to look at the way in which cases like these are treated. Otherwise, it simply turns into a slamming fest against one particular rider without a clear understanding of the facts. I know a number of these cases have had a great deal of publicity, as regards the cocaine issue. It seems to me that the guidelines for that issue need to be re-examined, they don't appear to be useful in distinguishing the truth of the matter. The limits are, from what I have read, and from what I can determine, slightly ridiculous when in relation to a horse. I realize the outrage that comes in reaction to the thought of cocaine being administered to animals, but could we look at this in a light that is fairer to the people involved? Wouldn't you want to be given the same courtesy?

RumoursFollow
Oct. 14, 2001, 07:21 PM
Excellent post, CBoylen. My sentiments exactly.

JustJump
Oct. 15, 2001, 06:08 AM
HUH? Talk about bending an issue to suit the moment!

Actually, C. Boylen, I can name far more people that I know who have NOT been suspended, or caught with forbidden substances in their horse's bloodstreams.

Maybe those in the small circle of "top" competitors (who would attract attention by being caught doing) are just disproportionately represented among those tested, or perhaps a large number of top competitors have embraced forbidden substances as a legitimate training tool.

Even if your contention that most people have been in trouble with this rule is true, since you seem to know more that have than haven't, (a contention that I can't agree with), since when is it acceptable logic that because "everybody" seems to be doing it, that something is not so bad?

Yikes. Flame suit fully zipped. Have at it!

JustJump
Oct. 15, 2001, 06:15 AM
A premise of handing down suspensions is that those suspended end up suffering the "stigma" of public notice and punishment---ie it is BAD to be suspended....

Thus, it is a scenario that most whom I know take great pains to AVOID. To some, this means, simply, "don't get CAUGHT." To others, it means "don't BREAK THE RULES." The notion that most of these folks have ended up on the suspended list completely innocently is one that would totally send many A-show grooms in my acquaintence into convulsions of laughter...they know better! And so do those who have been caught.

The wierd thing is that suspension, fines, etc seem to have become simply a routine inconvenience-- no big deal (unless the suspension happens to coincide with important competitions, in which case this is absolutely bewailed by the "wronged" party and associates) and life goes on as per normal. Give me a break! The attitude that we'd be "hard pressed to think of someone who HASN'T been suspended....." proves this point!

RumoursFollow
Oct. 15, 2001, 06:17 AM
In my agreeing with her- I took that post as... there are quite a handful of people that get this kind of suspension/fine/whatever. As much as we would like to think that not many people do it.. they do. The point is, why come on this board and single him out? Its not like hes some ungodly heathen in a world full of perfection. All of a sudden 659 threads ahve been started about how Jimmy Torano got suspended. Well what about all the other people? Why just talk about him? That was the point I was agreeing with.

Molly99
Oct. 15, 2001, 07:23 AM
In no way is Jimmy being singled out.

Look at all the past posts on other suspended, fined individuals. His just happens to be the most recent and looks like many got the Equestrian mag a few days ago.

TequilaSun
Oct. 15, 2001, 08:57 AM
Just because lot's of people do it, doesn't make it right or acceptable at all. And I think that anyone who deliberately puts harmful drugs into an innocent animal's system deserves to be publicly singled out and embarassed.

Not that I'm saying this is what Jimmy Torano did... as I was not there in person and that is the only way it can be known for sure. I'm just stating my opinion about using drugs on horses!

Anyplace Farm
Oct. 15, 2001, 09:44 AM
So, here is my question: if people get nailed for having horses that have cocaine in their systems, why don't the other authorities also nail them for possession? I guess they have to catch you with it on you?

I think it is interesting how if you were caught using, distributing or having cocaine outside the horse world, you'd be in really big trouble. Yet the fine in the horse world is a few months suspension, a $50 fine (I think) and return your wins.

wadino
Oct. 15, 2001, 09:52 AM
What does cocaine do to a horse?

Ryan
"Here's to goodbye, tomorrow's gonna come to soon."

CBoylen
Oct. 15, 2001, 09:53 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>since when is it acceptable logic that because "everybody" seems to be doing it, that something is not so bad?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I really don't see how you interpreted my post to be condoning illegal drug use. To restate my opinion, yes, use of illegal substances or use of legal substances above the legal limit in horses is bad. No, people who perform above activities should not go away unpunished. However,there seems to be indication that the system does not always work. And as to Jimmy, my problem is the big fuss. He's one rider of many. One trainer of many. It's not just the known trainers, and it's certainly not just the people that you read about in your Equestrian magazine. Debate the issue, don't focus on one particular person. This case is the result of some cause, not the driving force behind all illegal activity in the show world.I don't take any offense to your opinions, but please take mine in the manner in which they were intended.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 15, 2001, 10:00 AM
I guess it is OK to give reserpine derrivatives IF you don't "know" they are in the supplement but you cannot under any circumstances have any TRACE of stimulant in the system or you get a huge fine and a long "vacation". The whole thing kinda makes me gag. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

dublin
Oct. 15, 2001, 11:19 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You'd be pretty hard pressed to find people that have never been suspended at one point or another, either through ill intent or just simply through accident or negligence. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If one assumes that this statement is in fact true, it certainly is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the horse industry, is it??? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

UCLA football RULES.... Undefeated and #6 in the nation, baby!!
"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." - Dennis Miller

Zaboobafoo
Oct. 15, 2001, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Ryan:
What does cocaine do to a horse?

Ryan
"Here's to goodbye, tomorrow's gonna come to soon."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was told that they give the horses cocaine a while before they show so that when they go into the ring, they are coming down off the high and very mellow.

Ruby G. Weber
Oct. 15, 2001, 12:49 PM
The interesting thing here is the inconsistency of punishments handed down to various "guilty" parties.

Duffy
Oct. 15, 2001, 12:49 PM
I would have to think LONG and HARD, and do a LOT of investigating, before I considered training with someone who had been suspended on a drug related issue.

Miniwelsh
Oct. 15, 2001, 01:42 PM
looks like a moderator will be paying this thread a visit shortly. Lilmellow, it looks like you haven't posted here much but unsubstantiated attacks on people are not allowed on the BB - may want to edit your post.

Hope I am not stepping out of bounds moderators, but this looked a bit extreme /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

*Behind every good woman lies a trail of men*

Erin
Oct. 15, 2001, 01:57 PM
Uh-uh... we are not going there.

You are welcome to share opinions of trainers -- i.e. your opinions of their riding or teaching. But making allegations like that is not going to fly.

We have absolutely no way of knowing whether or not such things are true, so we keep them off the board as a general rule. If you can find an allegation IN PRINT (i.e. in Horse Show), you can post it. Otherwise, no.

I don't think this thread is going in a very constructive direction, and if it doesn't change track pretty soon, I'm closing it.

Ponyperson and JustJumpIt, hope you don't mind, but I deleted your posts as well, since they referred to the other post I deleted. Thanks for being good BBers and paying attention to the rules, though! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

[This message was edited by Erin on Oct. 15, 2001 at 05:09 PM.]

Beezer
Oct. 15, 2001, 02:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Anyplace Farm:
So, here is my question: if people get nailed for having horses that have cocaine in their systems, why don't the other authorities also nail them for possession? I guess they have to catch you with it on you? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At a guess, I'd say the necessary evidence/burden of proof wouldn't be there for a criminal case. Plus, someone would have to call the police and report it (unless, of course, the cops get wise and start hanging out at horse shows /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ).

Since the trainer is considered solely responsible for the care and custody of the animal, at least as far as the AHSA/USA Equestrian/whatever is concerned, it really doesn't matter *who* was in possession of the banned substance and gave it to the horse. From a criminal prosecution standpoint, that's exactly what matters. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

****Bulletin Board Goddess****

Jair
Oct. 15, 2001, 02:36 PM
That's an interesting legality Beezer. Makes sense.

This may sound odd - but considering how often I've heard that cocaine is a very expensive habit (i have no first or even second hand experience), I was so surprised to hear that people would even consider using it on a horse!

I just can't imagine "scoring" some cocaine for my horse! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif It just boggles the mind. I mean I cringe at the prices of regular veterinary treatments like bute etc.

I find it very sad really /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif and like Duffy would think long and hard before training with someone with a past suspension for drug abuse on a horse.

wtywmn4
Oct. 15, 2001, 03:22 PM
Well said Beezer. And that is why the rule reads that way, after many changes.

I believe what CBoylen was stating is, many people knowingly or unknowingly were set down for a variety of reasons over the years, depending on what rules were in force at a particular time. And that we should look at each case individually, and maybe not just go for the throat.

I do not condone the use of cocaine or any drug. But I do believe we need to look at all aspects of each case on it's own merit.

findeight
Oct. 15, 2001, 05:43 PM
Absolutely true. Each case has it's own merits, understand the amounts are below what would constitute possesion or under the influence in a person.
The coke question came up a few years ago too. My question is why on God's green earth would you want to enter the ring on a "mellow" horse to jump the really big sticks??????? Perhaps it was incidental contamination.

From Allergy Valley USA

farfel
Oct. 15, 2001, 09:27 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by sbt78lw:
...the horses were actucally given cocaine, or that the grooms/barn help were smoking/snorting it around the horses, and traces got into their system?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If anyone in the horse show world IS smoking/snorting cocaine around the horses, I bet it isn't the grooms & barn help!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

havaklu
Oct. 15, 2001, 09:52 PM
A - Some grooms/handlers do partake of illeagal substances (you don't have to be rich to "score" a little cocaine now and again)

B - Some grooms are known to "relieve" themselves in horses stalls (not enough time for the port-o-let)

Cocain in urine - urine on hay - horse eats hay

Voila! horse tests positive... /infopop/emoticons/icon_frown.gif

JustJump
Oct. 16, 2001, 05:38 AM
That is gross...But I have a hard time believeing that grooms would PEE on hay. Even busy ones with no time to use the port-o's.

No, I think there is a far more basic explanation (if that could be possible). Someone is giving it/has given it to the horses. Duh. And got caught. (oooops)

brilyntrip
Oct. 16, 2001, 05:49 AM
I still don't get it ??I have heard all the theories about using the coke to get horses worked up then calm on way down ... but honestly it still doesnt wash for me ...so what happens if horse has some sort of bizarre reaction to this drug or something else happens by that I mean that the horse injures itself due to the drug ?Also groom relieving selves on hay horse eating hay is to me unlikely wouldn't the smell of urine make hay unpalatible to the horse?Again i just don't get it callme thick dense whatever .. it all just seems too bizarre !!!!!

BronkBusterTX
Oct. 16, 2001, 08:19 AM
...I was unable to find many references to the Shahinian/Gonda/Doubletake case, where cocaine was also allegedly administered. And apparently the trace levels of this drug were not as high in Lancier 4. Someone stated that the trace levels were LESS than what would be legally acceptable for a bank teller. Yet you have attacked Mr Torano. (Read, inconsistent.)

My question is why are the two incidents different? Why is the Torano/Sir Ruly Inc/Lancier 4 case apparently more inciteful?

Someone needs to refresh my memory but I think the penalties for Shahinian/Gonda were less severe. Is this true?

I am not condoning the alleged use of this "medication", however I find the lynching of Mr Torano to be unnaceptable.

Duffy
Oct. 16, 2001, 08:24 AM
Oh Bronkbuster!! The Shahinian/Gonda case was discussed plenty as well, I assure you! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

BronkBusterTX
Oct. 16, 2001, 08:28 AM
Thanks, Duffy. I knew I could count on you to clear that up for me! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Anyplace Farm
Oct. 16, 2001, 11:45 AM
For the person that asked what cocaine does to a horse, I heard that it gets them high-high and it is the low thereafter that the rider wants. In the low, the horse is really quiet and dull, almost depressed.

BronkBusterTX
Oct. 16, 2001, 02:54 PM
...based on what I have heard over the years. It is my understanding that there are a couple of different situations in which trainers might use cocaine. It differs according to the REASON why one wishes to use it.

Does anyone remember at Indoors a few years ago, two high profile trainers/barn managers used cocaine on a well known show hunter the night before. The horse was left in his stall during the HIGH, but his COME DOWN coincided with his classes that day.

The reasons for doing this; the lunging area was inadequate, overused and the scheduling. If anyone has ever shown at Indoors, you know what I mean.

How the horse was "medicated";IV injection.
(I believe the individuals responsible for this plead guilty. But I'm not sure that I remember correctly.)

It could be used on a jumper as well for the same effect. But more often than not, I would assume it would be used closer to competing to give a little bit more high to a speed horse, or maybe even to help a horse along with pain, since tester's basically search for such drugs as Bute, Banamine, Ace and a few other well known drugs.

I believe that the USA Equestrian testing labs are doing more broad spectrum drug testing. But I wonder what drugs, such as cocaine, are not detected.

lillian
Oct. 16, 2001, 03:27 PM
What I'd like to know is why anyone caught giving illegal substances to horses gets away with a mere 60-day "vacation." Let's face it, the punishment doesn't fit the crime. Perhaps if the suspension lasted one or two years, it would act as more of a deterent. A trainer making a living showing horses would start to see a serious bite in their income if they were barred from showing for a year or more. 60 days won't have that much of an effect. Me thinks perhaps, that the slap on the wrist, 60-day suspension policy by the AHSA may have an underlying purpose. But it's what I'd expect from this organization. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif Obviously, I'm no big fan.

Weatherford
Oct. 16, 2001, 03:50 PM
Since testing occurs AFTER the classes, and the EFFECT of cocaine is truly AFTER it has been metabolized...then a trace amount of cocaine does imply that the drug was used for it's AFTER WEARING OFF calming effects.

Think about it.

Also remember that the Hearing Committee - who hears and decides on violations and punishments - is a volunteer committee of our peers (mostly professionals.) If you think the judgments are not strong enough or whatever, LET YOUR VOICE BE HEARD - write committe members letters. And volunteer to CHANGE the system.

I will also say that some H/J pros expressed to me total horror and indignation that an "AMATEUR" or people from OTHER disciplines (!!!) might be able to sit on the hearing panel and make decisions about "our horses and the way we MUST run our business." /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

That attitude really annoys me!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

/infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

wtywmn4
Oct. 16, 2001, 04:44 PM
Ah Weatherford, you bring up a fascinating point. There's an invisable line thats been drawn. Most people are not aware of it. But this line of rethoric has been heard time and again.

However, there is some substance to it. If you were a business owner, and one of your customers told you how, what and when, you might feel the same way. This is your business. I know, it is volunteer job, as is jury duty. But with jury duty, that selection of people changes, this does not. One set for the east, and one for the west.

Just some thoughts on a very interesting subject.

jtorano
Oct. 18, 2001, 06:29 PM
Since everyone seems to be interested in Jimmy Torano's suspension I thoght I should get involved. My name is JIMMY TORANO. First of all, I wish people would realize that nobody is giving their horse cocaine.Several of the statements that I have read are not even realistic.Most of you do not know me,but I do not give my horses illegal drugs nor do I overmedicate them.Unfortunately, my horse "Lancier 4" was found with a trace level of cocaine.As one of you said, it was less than they found in other horses.As a matter of fact,it was possibly the smallest amount ever found in a horse, yet I received the harshest punishment of any of the cocaine cases.As you know I lost my case and therefore I am now suspended.I do not wish for anybody to have to go through what I am going through right now.As for the person that said that a two month suspension is not enough of a penalty, YOU ARE WRONG!The AHSA has suspended me for October and November.Not only do I miss all of the indoor shows, but I also miss three very important World Cup qualifiers,basically knocking me right out of contention of going to the finals and representing our country.Then again, maybe someone like you doesn't want someone like me representing our country.Besides all this, I also miss out on alot of prize money being offered,that I could possibly win a share of.I'm also missing out on being there to train and support my wife,Danielle who is at the shows and still competing.(Danielle also shows competively, but as an Amateur).Hopefully she can pull it off, despite trying to deal with all this and not having me there for support.Nobody realizes just how much we are affected by this suspension.You also don't realize that this could happen to you.Has anyone heard of environmental contamination?Do any of you know that cocaine is found on 79% of all money in the USA.This is a fact,I didn't make it up.Unfortunately, most of you don't know all the facts,but you are quick to point the finger and attack.Before signing off,I have to address one person in particular. JUSTJUMP, you don't me and you don't know the kind of person I am, so you shouldn't be so quick to judge me. I play by the rules and I do not give my horses illegal or forbidden substances.

Jimmy Torano

Gayle
Oct. 18, 2001, 07:01 PM
I have to back up what JT is saying about environmental contamination. I just did a month out at the TB racing track in the TESTING BARN here in Virginia. Five security guards were arrested and fired for selling crack cocaine to the grooms at the track this season. If a horse had tested positive for cocaine there is no way we could have proven that the trainer gave it to the horse and not that it wasn't contaminated by it's envrionment. When a horse goes to an A show, especially one that is campaigned, when all is said and done the only ones watching the horse at night is usually the nightwatch people. You pat your horse on the nose and head back to the hotel. Who else pats your horse on the nose or feeds it a treat and you don't know about it?

I believe that I read somewhere where it was acknowledged that our ability to test for drugs has gone farther than our knowledge of drug effects. In essence we can detect amounts so small down to a nanogram in the bloodstream, but does detecting it mean it was done on purpose or that it's presence affected the outcome of a competition? When we have talented riders suspended for detecting amounts of drugs so small that environmental contamination is a REAL possibility and others that are merely slapped on the wrist because they have more money to hire better lawyers how are we benefiting our horses and the sport as a whole? I would like to believe that the hearing committees are impartial but the huge differences in penalties handed out for the same infractions makes it impossible.

I have read the rules and medication guidelines (and no one believes in NOT drugging a horse more than me) but it seems that with the ability to detect amounts that small we need to review how up to date the rules are and account for the fact that environmental contamination can cause a positive test and possible ireprable (sp?) harm to someone's reputation and career.

Just my opinion. Then again I could be wrong. Dennis Miller

JustJump
Oct. 18, 2001, 07:15 PM
Your name may be on this thread, but I didn't put it there and it is certainly NOT in any post I have ever made. I took strong exception to the statement, made by C. Boylen that:

<<You'd be pretty hard pressed to find people that have never been suspended at one point or another, either through ill intent or just simply through accident or negligence.>>

--a statement with which I completely disagree! I do happen to know plenty of people who have NOT been suspended, who play by the rules, and who have been able to be plenty competitve doing so. I also know several people who have been at the receiving end of astonishingly bad treatment by the hearing committees, which seem in the habit of handing out wildly inconsistant sentences these days. I am sorry you are painfully on the receiving end of this flawed process, but please do not take it out on me!

...I believe that if you re-read my posts, you will find that I made rather pointed GENERAL statements about the process, the punishment, and the circumstances that in my experience, I have been privy to, in responding to what others have written.

I am the first to say the process is hyprocritical and inconsistantly applied. I have also spent enough time around the back of the stabling tents to know that not everyone who is caught can honestly claim to be a victim of "environmental" contamination.

findeight
Oct. 18, 2001, 10:27 PM
Well Jimmy T. welcome to our angst ridden BB.
As a reminder to all BBers in the United States of America we are entitled to Due Process of Law. We also need to remind ourselves of slander and it's definition.
Mr. Torano was probably caught in a backlash created when several world class Grand Prix riders tested positive for resurpine and begged off saying it was incidental contamination in a "natural" feed additive. NONE recieved more then a slap on the wrist resulting in substantial backlash from others.
Mr. Torano was caught the backside of this as nobody would give coke to a horse jumping the big sticks. In this he joins other noteble trainers in both jumpers and TB race horses in a suffering test results revealing trace amounts of a substance that does nothing to enhance performance, merely creating the illusion in the mind of the abusuer that they will succeed. Where in the mind of the horse does this take place??????
Nonetheless these gentleman accepted their punishment because, under the rules of their respective organizations, as trainers they are ultimately responsible for whatever is accidently or otherwise introduced into the systems of animals under their care.
Cocaine and other recreational pharmaceuticals are rampant in our society.
Click on my profile for my E-mail address if you would care to discuss this on a more personal and private basis.
I urge everyone to avoid making accusations not based on fact.

From Allergy Valley USA

M. O'Connor
Oct. 19, 2001, 03:43 AM
Has there ever been a study to determine whether the average show horse/race horse whatever is carrying a trace amount of any substance which could be attributed to environnmental conditions...for instance, if the idea of a trace amount of whatever is due to environmental conditions...wouldn't all horses in the same environment be carrying the same trace amount? Couldn't this be determined by testing large numbers of horses in the same environment? Wouln't this be more fair than running the risk of applying a penalty to somone for something that is genuinely unavoidable? And, sorry it is under such trying circumstances, but welcome Mr. Torano, and thank you for stating your piece.

brilyntrip
Oct. 19, 2001, 03:57 AM
Whatever the truth is I admire you for having guts OK! As I stated before I still don't get it.Enviromental contamination ?? ok so test 15% of the horses at any show anywhere .It would be very interesting to hear the results!

Gayle
Oct. 19, 2001, 04:43 AM
Actually I think M. Oconnor's idea of a long term study would be more beneficial in determining the level of positive tests and identifying the risks of environmental contamination. I wish I could remember where I had read about the testing capabilities being so sensitive that it had surpassed the ability to determine actual guilt due to the detection of such incredibly small quantities. Some jobs such as trucking take a small hair sample from the end of the hair since you can't environmentally contaminate that so a positive test would be conclusive. I also remember that environmental contamination was identified years ago in a drug case in criminal court where the government was trying to seize a large sum of money from someone claiming it was the proceeds of drug money since some of it tested positive for cocaine. When the defense attorney tested the money out of the pockets of the judge, a clerk, and a few others and some of it came out positive the man got his money back and that was when it became obvious that no one really knows where there money has been. Yet after that I don't know of any studies that were done to determine how much of the actual circulating cash would have traces of an illegal drug on it and how it would effect people or animals in a drug testing situation. A long term study is desperately needed to determine how much you would have to have on your hands to pass on to a living organism to make it detectable in the blood stream at the small levels they are getting. One of the physicians I checked with told me that in humans you can detect "metabolites" about 48 hours out from exposure. Not knowing about horse physiology he couldn't carry it over but it would seem that possible that it could be detected in a larger animal as far out as a week from exposure. However, we know that anything like cocaine given a week earlier would have no benefit at a competition.

What makes it so infuriating for us in our sport is that the hearing committees have no rhyme or reason as to the variations in the penalties they hand out and why they accept the reason from one person it was environmental and then set the next person down hard. Again, the ones that suffer the most are the ones who can least afford it. Lets face it when you are up and coming and have to make it with one or two of your own grand prix horses and one or two of a client's split with coaching and training a suspension hits you right in the pocket hard and then sets you back by months playing catch up. This is where the adjudicating panels have a responsibility to conduct fair and impartial hearings. Something that so far they have not done.

M. O'Connor
Oct. 19, 2001, 05:11 AM
<<A long term study is desperately needed to determine how much you would have to have on your hands to pass on to a living organism to make it detectable in the blood stream at the small levels they are getting.>>

I don't agree with the above---all that's needed is to determine the average amount, if any, of contamination present in a large number of horses in the same environment as the ones that are in question. It's not necessary to learn how it got there. Certainly, if every competitor runs the same risks of being unfairly penalized, it would be in everyone's interest to participate in such a study. The winter circuits are coming--large numbers of horses will be sharing the environment in question.

The idea of environmental contamination should be easy to prove or disprove, although I'd bet doing so might be pricey. The environment isn't going anywhere and there are plenty of horses in it.

There are 3 possibilities that I can think of:

1. People are giving their horses illegal substances to enhance performances.

2. All horses in the same environment are carrying similar amounts of these substances as a result of being exposed to that same environment.

3. "Other parties" are involved in introducing these substances to these horses, without the knowledge of those who are associated with the animals as owners/trainers/etc for reasons we can only surmise are not good ones.

The second possibility can be proved or disproved, as I've suggested. If the parties that take part in the first scenario can simply claim the third scenario as a defense and succeed, then we might as well take the whole D&M rule and throw it out. Security in the stable area is an issue, but could obviously be improved if people are willing to pay the price. How sad that it should be necessary to consider this.

[This message was edited by M. O'Connor on Oct. 19, 2001 at 08:28 AM.]

[This message was edited by M. O'Connor on Oct. 19, 2001 at 08:29 AM.]

Jumphigh83
Oct. 19, 2001, 05:32 AM
I agree with anyone that posted that the punishments are NOT CONSISTANT with the "crime"..Making an "example" of ANYONE after the reserpine incident is unfair and biased. The reserpines SHOULD have had the book thrown at them and then those that come after them could take their own fines and suspensions a little more "easily". What's good for the goose should be good for the gander but NOT at the AHSA. I mean "the federation". It's ALWAYS WHO you know not what you know and people like Jimmy Torano who take the beating for the mucky mucks to make the membership "feel good" about the hearing proceedures. I feel for him and everyone else who has been USED to justify the system and how it "works".

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Lord Helpus
Oct. 19, 2001, 06:20 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glimmerglass:
From the AHSA ruling in the Spring of 2001:

JIMMY TORANO, as trainer, and MEGAN MORAN, as owner, violated Rule IV of this association, in that on or about March 12, 1999, at the Palm Beach Finale Horse Show, they exhibited the horse STATE FAIR in Class 2102/2103 (First Year Green Working Hunter), after it had been administered and/or contained in its body reserpine.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And I am re-posting it here, because it appears to be a direct quote from Horse Show Magazine. The response to it only stated that this was not why J. Tornao was under suspension at this time.

But this 1999 incident with the horse State Fair and reserpine leads me to believe that the cocaine incident is the second time Mr. Torano has been before the AHSA on a drug charge. Could he or someone else more informed than I am please address this issue?

If this is true, then the discussion of severity of penalty is easily explained. If not true, then the discrepancy needs to be cleared up for everyone's edification, since the implication is out there and might be unfair if not true.

DMK
Oct. 19, 2001, 06:51 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. O'Connor:
3. "Other parties" are involved in introducing these substances to these horses, without the knowledge of those who are associated with the animals as owners/trainers/etc for reasons we can only surmise are not good ones.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't know M.O'C, at least as it pertains to cocaine, I can certainly see that if a groom who worked in the barn was a regular user, and either mixed feed, cleaned tack or groomed or fed that specific horse, I could see where certain horses would have higher levels of contamination than others, and none of it would be with the intent of altering the horse's performance. I confess, I can also see a link to a Friday/Saturday night of partying and, umm, shall we say a certain likelihood that levels might be higher in the horse on Saturday/Sunday.

But as you say, that defense renders the D&M committee practically obsolete. Perhaps trainers should follow large corporations lead and be doing some drug testing on their employees? My oh my, could you see your trainer's bill if that were to happen /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Of course, Option B would be for the horse show world to realize that cocaine is so... 80's... and get over it. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif My god, they have all that ketamine at their disposal, let's get with the new century's program! /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif (sarcasm, folks, sarcasm)

TeriKessler
Oct. 19, 2001, 07:06 AM
but you can count on Danielle and Eeyore's many friends and fans to send her all our support and best wishes.

Teri

Lucassb
Oct. 19, 2001, 07:34 AM
written by Dr. Lengel, I believe, that was posted on the Fed website. I just looked for it and couldn't find it, but if I can come up with a copy I will post it here.

The gist of the article, as I recall, was that it would take enormous amounts of cocaine to influence the performance of a horse, and that there was no way to reliably predict the magnitude of the effect it would have once administered.

Personally, while I am opposed to medicating horses to alter their performance in any way, I think we could stand some improvement in the application of our drugs and meds programs. I don't think the FEI no foreign substances rule is the answer (can you say "undetectable substances with unknown potential side effects"?) and I do think that we should address the perception (accurate or not) that the hearing process applies the rules unfairly or unevenly.

**********
To appreciate heaven well
'Tis good for a man to have some fifteen minutes of hell.
Will Carleton (1845-1912)

Janet
Oct. 19, 2001, 07:39 AM
I know nothing about the details of this case. And I have my doubts about the "environmental contamination" arguments.

But THANK YOU for coming here and defending yourself.

Ampy
Oct. 19, 2001, 10:17 AM
I have had the fortune of knowing Jimmy Torano's family since before Jimmy was born; therefore I am sure that I can speak about his moral character an his upbringing better than most.

In response to Duffy who would have to think LONG & HARD or do a lot of investigating before you consider training with someone who has been suspended on a drug related issue, in this particular case if you did investigate you would find out from those who REALLY know Jimmy Torano that he is as straight and HONEST as they come. I have ridden with many top trainers throughout the years and consider myself very lucky that both my daughter and I are able to ride with Jimmy.

I am 100% sure that Jimmy did not give cocaine to his horse. For those that do not know Jimmy I must add that he does not drink, smoke or do drugs.

I am not only upset by the unfairness of a suspension to someone for something which he did not do but also by the inconsistency of the punishments like many of you have stated. YES, Jimmy's horse tested with the least trace of all the cases, yet he got the longest suspension. Is this fair?

I can imagine the frustration Jimmy must feel knowing that he is being punished for something he did not do. But there are many of us who love you, believe in you and will always support you.

lillian
Oct. 19, 2001, 11:39 AM
I still stick by my comments about a two-month suspension not being long enough. I did not refer to Mr. Torano directly, although I will admit this thread is about him. I should have been more clear because I was not singling Mr. Torano out. In general, I believe that if you are caught giving banned substances to a horse(s), the punishment must be more severe. It has to be a deterent, and obviously, 2 months ain't cuttin' it.

Duffy
Oct. 19, 2001, 11:46 AM
Welcome to the BB, Ampy! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

I think it's wonderful that you feel that way about your trainer. I wouldn't have a trainer I didn't feel the same way about! /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

lauriep
Oct. 19, 2001, 01:01 PM
who posted re: the sensitivity of our testing as opposed to our ability to determine what is really performance enhancing quantities and what is considered truly "trace" amounts. It was a thread last spring, I think, but I don't remember spec.

Having lived and worked in horses through the coke years of the 70's and 80's, I can attest to the fact that if the testing was as sensitive then as now, nearly every horse would have been at risk of testing positive for trace amounts. The stuff was EVERYWHERE! I know of grooms that worked for us that did it, and then fed the horses, mucked stalls, groomed, etc. And we were a pretty straight barn compared to some. Abby, M.O'C, Dolcevita, KLG, will back this fact up. It is not a cut and dried issue, and to be a "purist" about it is to do some (not all) potentially innocent people a disservice, and maybe deprive yourself of an excellent coach.

Each case must be considered on its own merit; some drugs are available "environmentally" and some can only get into a horse's system by being put there. I think it behooves us to use whatever clout we get to be sure that all accused are treated the same, regardless of money or power behind them.

Laurie

PMJ
Oct. 19, 2001, 01:13 PM
For me, I find many of the punishments handed out by the federation unjust. It just seems to me that too many times things like this are going on. One thing that really turned me off was the person who protested her suspension and wrote a letter to the Chronicle a few months ago. She also took the time to defend her case; however, because she was listed as the trainer, and the trainer is responsible, while the fed. did find that she had never done something like that before and basically presented a good case, they socked it to her anyway. Quite honnestly, any of us could have this happen. It must be horribly embarassing, upseting, and expensive to try to keep your good name. It really turns me off especially because there are unscrupulous people out there who when given the opportunity will not only injure their own horses but someone else's. Unless you sleep outside your horse's stall, have someone as dependable as yourself to cover for bathroom breaks, and never leave your horse alone, it could happen. Unfortunately, I saw it happen at 4-H shows, overnight horse shows (unsanctioned) and dog shows. I think that the system does need to be looked at and instead of guilty unless proven innocent, it should be innocent until proven guilty.

Portia
Oct. 19, 2001, 01:20 PM
This has nothing to do with Mr. Torano's case in particular, and I have no knowledge whatsoever of the details of that case. However, to be able to discuss the subject of the Hearing Committee and whether or not the process is fair productively, IMHO it is important to understand some things about the USA Eq Hearing Committee and how it operates.

The Hearing Committee is made up of volunteers, at least 20% of which must be Active Athletes as defined by the USOC Constitution, meaning pros and others riding or driving at the top levels of competition nationally and internationally in the 7 FEI disciplines. The make-up of the Committee is designed to reflect a cross-section of the people in the different breeds and disciplines that are part of USA Eq.

While the Hearing Committee as a whole consists of some 45 members, the entire Committee seldom, if ever, hears a particular matter. Instead, an individual hearing may be held with a quorum of as few as 3 committee members. Therefore -- just as with a judge and a jury in a courtroom -- the people deciding the issues are different from case to case. They decide those issues based on the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable rules. As I understand it, the committee members get no compensation and they pay their own expenses.

The respondent (accused) is allowed to be represented by counsel and to present such evidence as may be relevant in an evidentiary hearing. My recollection of the process (without going back to check the rule specifically) is that following the decision at the hearing by the panel of the Hearing Committee, the respondent may appeal the decision to the larger Hearing Committee. He/she may then seek arbitration, which would be another full evidentiary proceeding in front of a panel of 3 neutral arbitrators conducted under the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association (AAA).

It is not a perfect system, but -- just as the system of a judge and jury -- it is the best one we have come up with so far. If anybody has suggestions for improving it, I'm sure USA Eq would be happy to hear them.

FYI, the current members of the Hearing Committee are as follows:

MRS. JEAN T. BLACKSTONE
MRS. T. V. W. CUSHNY
MR JAMES C WOFFORD
MR LARRY J BACON
MR. MIKE BAKER
DR. SAMUEL J. BARISH
MRS. SALLY S. BEHNKE
MR. WASHINGTON D BISHOP
MRS. FERN P. BITTNER
MR. JAMES C. BROWN
MR. J. WILLIAM CRAWFORD
MS. MARY ANNE CRONAN
MR. DEREK DI GRAZIA
MR. ROBERT S. DOUGHERTY
MR. KEVIN J. FREEMAN
MR. JOHN H. FRITZ
MS. NONA GARSON
MS. LENDON F GRAY
MRS. ANNE GRIBBONS
MS. HILDA C. GURNEY
MR. KARL V HART
MR. ARTHUR HAWKINS
MR. STEPHEN O. HAWKINS
MRS. CECILE K. HETZEL DUNN
MR. BRENT A. JACOBS
MS. DIANNE JOHNSON
MRS. VALERIE J. KANAVY
MS. KAVAR KERR
MR. FRANK V. LLOYD
MR. J. ASHTON MOORE
MR. WILLIAM J. MORONEY
MR. DAVID J. O'CONNOR
MR. STEFFEN PETERS
MR. GLENN T. PETTY
MS. KATHLEEN H. RAINE
MRS. JESSICA RANSEHOUSEN
MR. ROBERT A. RIDLAND
ROBERT C. ROST DVM
MRS. MARSHA H. SHEPARD
MR. WYATT A. STEWART III
MS. GAY TALMEY
MRS. EVE LLOYD THOMPSON
MR. ALVIN R. TOPPING
MRS CHRISTINE S TRAURIG
MRS. JUDITH F. WERNER

PMJ
Oct. 19, 2001, 02:25 PM
While I do agree that it seems that they have a system in place where you can defend yourself, the fact is that the horses at a show are not actually secure. Some people are going to get caught up in something that they are not actually responsible for and end up paying a great deal of money to defend their good name, and it does not seem (and granted all I know is from what I read in the USAE mag and here)like everyone is treated equally, which is a shame.

Gayle
Oct. 19, 2001, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I don't agree with the above---all that's needed is to determine the average amount, if any, of contamination present in a large number of horses in the same environment as the ones that are in question. It's not necessary to learn how it got there. Certainly, if every competitor runs the same risks of being unfairly penalized, it would be in everyone's interest to participate in such a study. The winter circuits are coming--large numbers of horses will be sharing the environment in question.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes having all the horses at WEF would be in the same environment but not all would be exposed to the same care by the same people. A truly scientific study would be to take a small group of horses within a confined research area off limits to public traffic and (unfortunately) expose them to small amounts of cocaine orally and take blood samples regularly to establish metabolism rates and then test the theory by having cocaine residue on the GLOVED hands (to prevent human positive tests!) of caretakers during grooming/preparing of feed etc. and again take regular samples of blood for positive tests. With this information in a controlled environment it is possible to establish the likelyhood of the possibility of environmental contamination from a horse exposed to a caretaker with a drug problem or a visitor with one who encounters the horse. To just randomly apply it at a horse show has no controls on exposure.

On the subject of hearing committees. Again I have to say that if you are an up and coming rider like Jimmy then hiring the big gun lawyers to get you the slap on the wrist penalty that others have received may be out of reach of the pocket book. I had tried to leave specific names of penalties out of it but Nicole Simpson recently (within the last year) beat a charge of giving cocaine to a horse in her care by the environmental exposure defense. And as I remember the big deal with it was they had hired several lawyers to hammer the point home with the committee. So the question begs: why did she get one penalty and Jimmy get another? The drugs and medication rules are necessary so that lame horses aren't drugged to competition readiness or hot ones sedated to improve performance. Ela is right. The system does seem to run contrary to the US Constitution basic right of innocent until proven guilty and go with guilty, prove yourself innocent. Until that changes no one will be safe.

Sparky22
Oct. 19, 2001, 03:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lillian:
I still stick by my comments about a two-month suspension not being long enough. I did not refer to Mr. Torano directly, although I will admit this thread is about him. I should have been more clear because I was not singling Mr. Torano out. In general, I believe that if you are caught giving banned substances to a horse(s), the punishment must be more severe. It has to be a deterent, and obviously, 2 months ain't cuttin' it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Perhaps in some cases, the suspensions may not be tough enough, but...

People also have to realize that a two month suspension is very serious. Let's say, for instance, you are a trainer. You run a H/J facility where you teach lessons and go to shows. Let's also say that it is the middle of the show season (of which you are on the road every week). You are suspended for two months (for whatever reason). It is not an easy punishment. Granted that for a very serious offense, it isn't so bad...but when you think about it....
This is their life! It's their business. If they are not showing horses for clients and training at shows, that is a huge cut in their income! It affects their life in every possible way...because this is what their life revolves around! It is not cheep to run a respectable facility, and any cut in income and be extremely costly! I am sure someone will respond to what I am saying with a comment similar to, "well then they shouldn't break the rules." Well, life is a b****, and the horse world can be too. I know people whose horses have been drugged overnight at shows. How do you control that? AS far as it affecting the person's whole life...Take Mr. Torano for instance....if you have ever seen Danielle ride, and his training with her, you can see that they are an excellent team....it isn't easy to lose a member of your "team," not even temporarilly. You lose a lot from a suspension. You lose A LOT money, and perhaps your good name (which is something that is very hard to get back).
I agree that the system is far from perfect, and I agree that people need to be punished for any violations to the rules...but unless you are looking through the eyes of someone whose whole life revolves around this sport, it is difficult to understand how much a suspension can affect someone.
I admit that I always checking the list of suspensions in the mag, but I do not and will not form an opinion about someone who I don't know. We never definitely know the real story, but only what the Committee has decided is the real story.
I do have confidence in Mr. Torano and some others who have been under the glare of the Committee, and I am confident that he will not lose his good name over this incident.
I have always worried about the horses when we are not there...and it only makes you wonder, who will be victim of a crime they didn't commit? And who will slide through the system scott free?

So that's just my ten cents (definitely more that two).

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

Ruby G. Weber
Oct. 19, 2001, 03:57 PM
As I stated earlier on this board, the inconsistency of punishments is a problem.

What is the difference between the Simpson/Gonda case and the Torano case? If the evidence in the S/G case (and the amount found in the horse's system was the same or less), why did the hearing committee rule drastically differently?

Portia, it is helpful of you to explain how the "system" works, however it seems that there is a considerable difference between theory and practice.

If said hearing committee is, in fact, the "jury" I do not believe they would (or should) have been privy to any previous infractions by the defendant. I doubt that is the case with this instance, as Weatherford pointed out.

I do not condone the use of banned substances, but I do think we are in desparate need of a level playing field.

I have been witness to such a hearing (albeit twenty plus years ago), and I can tell you first hand, it is quite different than Portia imagines.

Duffy
Oct. 19, 2001, 04:16 PM
I believe Nicole Simpson's name has been dragged through the mud as much, if not more than Jimmy Torano's, even though she only got a "slap on the wrist. I don't know if that means anything or not as far as "guilt" or "innocence" is concerned.

I don't support or condemn either of them. I don't have enough facts to do that. I do know that Mr. Torano has picked up at least one rather big client recently, so I guess it hasn't hurt his name but so much.

The results of the hearings, to us as outsiders, does seem unequal...But, that is based on what we know, which isn't much.

I think it speaks very well of Mr. Torano that he seems to have many supporters. That, to me, speaks in higher volume than some other criteria in choosing a trainer, or a friend, for that matter.

wtywmn4
Oct. 19, 2001, 04:56 PM
Well as owners of horses, we could make this much easier on our trainers. Simply by signing the line where it states, on the entry, trainers signature. This in no way makes anyone a professional, but it does alleviate the responsibilty factor over to the owner. Many trainers who meet clients at shows, require this. The animals are not under their care or custody.

Having done this for an untold number of years, I feel it's the way to go. If in fact you feel strongly in this matter. What about the owner who can't make the shows, you ask. Then it is up to the owner and trainer to figure it out.

DMK
Oct. 19, 2001, 05:14 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by lauriep:
It was a thread last spring, I think, but I don't remember spec.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Debated it quite endlessly as I recall... /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Here it is, in case anyone wants to wade through 9 pages.

AHSA Hearings thread (http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?q=Y&a=tpc&s=691099205&f=602099205&m=8610911341&p=1)

Couldn't possibly be a point made here that wasn't already made 18 times already /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Gee, Jimmy - glad to hear about your "up & coming" status, you spring chicken, you /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

lillian
Oct. 19, 2001, 05:48 PM
Sparky -- the rules are quite clear, in my opinion. If you choose to break them, then you must suffer the consequences. I have absolutely no sympathy for a trainer (or owner, for that matter) that knowingly drugs a horse, then gets a mere 2 month suspension (or less). Lose income? Boo hoo. Perhaps, if trainer/owners knew going in that if caught, they'd potentially lose a year of income, they may think twice before breaking the rules. I'm only hoping some day that I can find a trainer that DOESN'T break the rules....do they exist??????

Palomino19
Oct. 19, 2001, 08:15 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky22:

Let's also say that it is the middle of the show season (of which you are on the road every week). You are suspended for two months (for whatever reason). It is not an easy punishment. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ya know what, that's the thing about punishment, its not supposed to be EASY.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>
This is their life! It's their business. If they are not showing horses for clients and training at shows, that is a huge cut in their income! It affects their life in every possible way...because this is what their life revolves around! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And I would like to think that if their lives really revolved around the horses (and not the $$) they wouldn't dare to get involved in something as stupid as drugging a horse.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>It is not cheep to run a respectable facility, and any cut in income and be extremely costly! I am sure someone will respond to what I am saying with a comment similar to, "well then they shouldn't break the rules." Well, life is a b****, and the horse world can be too. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

What's that saying about if ya can't stand the heat? Oh yeah...get out of the horse show business! Boo freaking hoo b**** or no b**** a hard life is NOT ever an excuse to break the rules. I'll be sure to try that one the next time I get pulled over for speeding "well officer my job is really tough..."

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>You lose a lot from a suspension. You lose A LOT money, and perhaps your good name (which is something that is very hard to get back).<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Argh! And you should lose a lot of money, and time, and your good name if you're illegally drugging horses. If you sign up to play the game then no whining about the rules. It's punishment! By definition you're going to lose something, and should too if this is ever going to work as a deterrant.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>but unless you are looking through the eyes of someone whose whole life revolves around this sport, it is difficult to understand how much a suspension can affect someone. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Their life sadly enough isn't revolving around the sport if they have to drug horses to get them to perform properly.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I admit that I always checking the list of suspensions in the mag, but I do not and will not form an opinion about someone who I don't know. We never definitely know the real story, but only what the Committee has decided is the real story.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Agreed, no part of my post was meant to attack Mr Torano (who incidentally I didn't know existed until today). Rather I thought you made some interesting points I could argue...Not that I'm argumentative or anything /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jess

PMJ
Oct. 19, 2001, 08:26 PM
Comparing the drugging charges to speeding charges is like comparing apples to oranges unless you are comparing pictures taken of someone driving. When someone is pulled over for speeding, the officer stops and tickets the person behind the wheel who is actually driving the car. In these cases, the trainer is not proven to have administered the substance, only that he/she is the person responsible for the horse. While it is nice to think taking responsibility for your horse would make a difference, just signing your name under trainer only makes you the soley liable party in case of an infraction. Anyone could give the horse in question a substance and you would never know, but you would be held responsible--doesn't seem fair to those of us who don't give our horses anything because we have to defend ourselves when the environment is not secure. And how many times have people been noted as not having done something prior and it being the first time only to be slapped with an outrageous fine and suspension? While it is good in theory, there are some substantial flaws.

Flash44
Oct. 19, 2001, 08:45 PM
Hay, oats and water. The good old days. That's when trainers trained and good horses won.

Use the Force.

Miniwelsh
Oct. 19, 2001, 08:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Duffy:
I believe Nicole Simpson's name has been dragged through the mud as much, if not more than Jimmy Torano's, even though she only got a "slap on the wrist. I don't know if that means anything or not as far as "guilt" or "innocence" is concerned.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Duffy...do you have to drag OJ's wife into EVERYTHING. Hasn't the poor man been through enough???

Sorry couldn't resist....back to your regularly scheduled programming
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

*Behind every good woman lies a trail of men*

Sparky22
Oct. 19, 2001, 10:16 PM
Some of you don't understand what I am saying....it is difficult to prove what happened to a horse...where it could have come across an illegal substance...who gave it to them. It is not as cut n' dry as when people are caught. The horse can not say...."well, there was this guy at the bar, and he well, bought me a drink..." NO. Horses cannot say what happened to them. Sure, it is the responsiblilty of the trainer...but I know trainers who would never do anything like that, who have gotten fined for such things. I can't recall who said it, and I don't feel like going back to quote them, but somone remarked tha tif they did it...they deserve a harsh punishment...or something along those lines. Yeah, they do...but how exactly DO you prove it? Do you see what I am saying? It is a big deal to be suspended. TRainers end up with a lot less finances coming in..and who really knows if the trainer did it or not...no one really does but the trainer.
Someone also remarked (this time I am going back to see who it was)...Palomino...that they SHOULD lose a lot of money. YEah, I am not saying a guilty person shouldn't...but how do we really know they are guilty? Unless somone catches the trainer, or someone sees them. Sure, you are at a show, the trainer will sign for a horse...but there is noone watching out for the horses 24/7. How do we REALLY know what happened? The Committee can investigate, but like I said, the horse isn't going to talk.
Palomino (I'm not trying to attack you or anything...but this is interesting) you said a person's life is not revolving around the sport if they are drugging horses...but AGAIN...how do you know it was the trainer?
There are just so many flaws in the system in general. If only the horses could talk to us! BUT they can't. The lives of so many could be much better, and the people who deserve to be punished could be punished, if only the horse could talk!

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

Sparky22
Oct. 19, 2001, 10:18 PM
OK...that was a little discombobulated (sp.), but as you can see by the time...it is late! Sorry for all those typos and stuff! I need ot learn to proofread!

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

Sparky22
Oct. 19, 2001, 10:26 PM
By the way...I was just reading something over b4 I go to sleep...the comment I made about life being a b**** is not as clear as I thought. I meant that "manure happens." Things aren't always fair...things happen that are out of our control. I didn't mean that they should break the rules bc things are tough...I meant that they can't control everything (such as what happens to the horses sometimes). And if you had quoted a little further, it would have been a bit more clear (at least it seems that way to me. Sorry if I didn't make that very clear! That's the ol "proofreading" thing coming back to haunt me again!

OK...sleepy time!

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

Sparky22
Oct. 19, 2001, 10:28 PM
Lillian...yes, they do exist! There are many!

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

M. O'Connor
Oct. 20, 2001, 05:51 AM
as such an insurmountable issue...

So your staff does drugs...isn't it the responsiblility of the trainer to hire people with integrity?

Shouldn't there be an advantage to running a "clean" outfit?

While I share some of lauriep's employment history, I can only attest to the fact that I absolutely never saw any evidence of illegal drug use on the part of the staff while I was employed by those we both worked for--then again, she and I didn't work there at the same time. But the prospect of indirect contamination because of drug use by staff as described by some posters here was not, IMO a real possibility anywhere I worked while I was working there. I still think the scenario is pretty unlikely unless staff is grossly negligent...if this is the case, why shouldn't those who hire competent, caring, ethical staff members (and pay them accordingly) have an advantage?

As far as the stable area being "insecure," if this is seen as the case, I can only suggest that round the clock staffing by ethical and trustworthy employees be considered as a real possiblity. Of course there is that problem of hiring staff and paying them according to their competence and ethical standards.

I still think that the notion of "environmental contamination" should be examined...though I disagree with Gayle's contention that the environment needs to be controlled: I contend that those horses who are in the open environment as it exists now IS the control group that we should be studying. Determining how a contaminant reaches a horse's system is only valuable once it is concluded that large numbers of horses share such exposure.

Definitively closing the loopholes that have allowed some to escape charges while others are hit with the books is the only answer.

[This message was edited by M. O'Connor on Oct. 20, 2001 at 09:54 AM.]

Jumphigh83
Oct. 20, 2001, 06:17 AM
Boo Hoo indeed if you DID NOT do it!! Moral of the story..walk through the tents and "accidently" drop a few pinches of an illegal substance into the feed tubs of your "favorite" trainers and watch the suspensions mount! All due respect to the "list" on the hearing committee but some of them need to have "emeritus" after their names! When are you too old/jaded/biased to make an informed decision? Just because the list is long, doesn't mean the depth of understanding is as deep as the list is long.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Ampy
Oct. 20, 2001, 06:54 AM
lillian, YES, they do exist and Jimmy Torano happens to be one of them. He did not break any rules, yet he is suffering the consequences of the unfairness of, (contrary to a court of law,) being guilty unless proven innocent. And how do you prove your innocence? By the way, I also have no sympathy for trainers or owners that drug their horses.

wtywmn4
Oct. 20, 2001, 09:13 AM
Thank you Jumphigh83, that is so very true. And unfortunately, easily done.

Flash44 if you think the good ole days were golden, well.......We had many of the same problems then. It seems where ever horses are concerned, people who use drugs abound. The race track can attest to that.

MHM
Oct. 20, 2001, 09:42 AM
For those of you who propose environmental studies or round the clock private security at shows- who is going to pay for these things?

Are you prepared to pay higher membership dues to fund a study through the Drugs & Medication program? Are you willing to pay your trainer with a bigger check at every show to cover the cost of a guard and a drug screening program for the entire staff?

In an ideal world, everybody could have perfect conditions, but as it is... As the saying goes, good help is hard to find. When you think of the number of people who may come in contact with your horse at a show- the grooms, the braiders, the farrier, the night watch person, the guys who deliver feed, etc., there may be grounds for reasonable doubt when a substance shows up as a trace level.

Maybe it's time the rules reflect this while still punishing the people who intentionally break the rules.

Sparky22
Oct. 20, 2001, 10:10 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
Boo Hoo indeed if you DID NOT do it!! Moral of the story..walk through the tents and "accidently" drop a few pinches of an illegal substance into the feed tubs of your "favorite" trainers and watch the suspensions mount! All due respect to the "list" on the hearing committee but some of them need to have "emeritus" after their names! When are you too old/jaded/biased to make an informed decision? Just because the list is long, doesn't mean the depth of understanding is as deep as the list is long.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

AMEN Betsy!

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

Ruby G. Weber
Oct. 20, 2001, 11:54 AM
LOL. Jumphigh. There are some individuals on that list who I bet haven't been to a horse show in twenty years!

VTrider
Oct. 20, 2001, 12:33 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> Gee, Jimmy - glad to hear about your "up & coming" status, you spring chicken, you /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

DMK - Can you repost the picture of Jimmy showing Raven that is printed on parchment paper?

Sparky22
Oct. 20, 2001, 01:05 PM
LOL Emmet!!

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

Palomino19
Oct. 20, 2001, 02:08 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by M. O'Connor:
(I'm not understanding why stable security is seen) as such an insurmountable issue...

So your staff does drugs...isn't it the responsiblility of the trainer to hire people with integrity?

Shouldn't there be an advantage to running a "clean" outfit?

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I completely agree M. O'Connor, now so as not to imply you meant anymore than the above I'm gonna interject my opinion /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

When you choose to train and take responsibility for people's horses having security on them is not an option it is a necessity. So if the trainer had such help that accidentally gave the horse drugs, did drugs and the horse ate the hay (???), let someone get in to give the horse drugs yes I still feel the trainer should be punished. It's their JOB, what horse owners are paying them to do, to make sure things like that can't happen. Nelgect of an animal's welfare is imo equally as bad if not worse than drugging for enhanced performance.

How the heck could someone get in and slip a horse cocaine if they were properly watched by competent, knowledgable staff? I don't think they could. The whole money required for that type of staff argument is absurd. Everyone knows there's money in this sport. I would guess there is even more moeny in the families of those who train with the top trainers who would be at risk for the "sabotage" everyone is describing. Solution, charge more. Hire better help. Stop whining and do something to change the system (or your own system) if ya don't like it.

Jess

Sparky22
Oct. 20, 2001, 02:17 PM
Most of the time...it isn't someone on the staff who does it.

And I just have a question..do you show?

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

DMK
Oct. 20, 2001, 03:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by VTrider:

DMK - Can you repost the picture of Jimmy showing Raven that is printed on parchment paper?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

You is treadin' on dangerous ground, missy /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif However old the spring chicken might be, he is still younger than me... Keep it up and I may have to send horse show hexes your way /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jumphigh83
Oct. 20, 2001, 07:28 PM
It is VERY easy to "slip" something to a horse at a show. No one is around for MOST of the night save the braiders who are busy doing their jobs..Night watch is for issues like colic and casting not to prevent someone from "accidently" dropping something in another horses feed tub. It is VERY east to get access to the horses at an A show! I don't think using drugs on a horse is right BUT I do think there should be a presumption of innocense since there are so MANY variables that are beyond the control of the "trainer" and/owner/horseshow manager/rider etc! Look how easy it was to KILL horses at a show!!! (with a light socket!!) No one "noticed" until the next morning the horse was DEAD! And we are supposed to be able to watch our horses 24/7??!!!! I am not being pollyanna about this but one could do irrepairable damage to someone's repute without trying too hard if one was so inclined...and they would have NO defense! THAT is scarey!!!!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

M. O'Connor
Oct. 21, 2001, 04:40 AM
<<For those of you who propose environmental studies or round the clock private security at shows- who is going to pay for these things?

Are you prepared to pay higher membership dues to fund a study through the Drugs & Medication program? Are you willing to pay your trainer with a bigger check at every show to cover the cost of a guard and a drug screening program for the entire staff?>>

<<And we are supposed to be able to watch our horses 24/7??!!!! I am not being pollyanna about this but one could do irrepairable damage to someone's repute without trying too hard if one was so inclined...and they would have NO defense! THAT is scarey!!!!!!>>

My point is that if the rules are going to be considered unenforceable due to "outsiders" or staff members who use drugs having access to horses at shows...there are only two possibilities if fairness is desired, so either:

1) throw out the rule entirely,
or
2)don't allow the access.

A study of the issue of environmental contamination paid for by the AHSA (USAE or whatever) is entirely in order, if anyone is to respect the rule. Perhaps a charitable donation might be solicited from a wealthy individual or group who desires an answer to the question. And to be safe, rather than sorry, extra costs for security may end up being a necessary additional cost.

It seems to me that leaving the question of environmental contamination open, and continuing the practices that result in lax security only play into the hands of those who would rather the drug rules and their enforcement remain a gray area. "Close the loopholes and find the answers" seems like common sense to me.

[This message was edited by M. O'Connor on Oct. 21, 2001 at 08:31 AM.]

Natty Dread
Oct. 21, 2001, 06:36 AM
I know nothing about this issue and would never dare to judge anyone, including Jimmy Torano....but regarding security at horse shows you would think that it would behove the people showing at this level to actually hire a private firm. Why the hell not? With the price tags on some of these horses I would think a professional security guard would be chump change. If I had an "asset" valued so high that I have insured it why wouldn't I have somewhere there to watch over it at all times? Maybe this is impractical, maybe not, but with a barn chock full of wealthy people another paycheck can't put such a huge strain on the pocketbook. And it is true I haven't been to a horseshow to exhibit in at least 15 years but I do go and watch all the time. It does seem particularly easy to enter a stabling area without supervision, far easier then at the racetrack. I remember, as a kid, people cutting tails off horses and painting horses and doing all sorts of "bad" things. his could be avoided if you had 24 hour security.

Just a thought.

Gayle
Oct. 21, 2001, 07:15 AM
Or we could look at it from the another angle. Let the punishment fit the crime. If the trainer, owner, handlers, groom and all barn personnel test negative for the drug in question then it can be said that it must have been given intentionally and therefore would warrant a huge penalty. If someone in direct contact with the horse tests positive then the trainer would be censured provided the employee was terminated and appropriate barn discipline was taken.

I have been at A shows where security was nonexistent. And as far as nightwatch goes at one show one of our horses got out of his stall and they didn't even bother to find out why he was missing. Just drew a line through the rest of the night. No call to anyone. Hmmm wonder why the halter and lead rope are here and NO horse? Thankfully the horse wasn't hurt and just got a free night grazing but still. If he had tested positive for something the trainer would have been nailed for it and we certainly hadn't let him out all night where he could have been exposed to something and we relied on nightwatch to ensure the horse was in his stall. At WIHS last year even without ID I was able to go in and out of the stable area without being questioned to visit friends who were there and I believe that there were many complaints about the homeless being in the stable area. If a horse had tested positive in that case and the team handling it were negative how would the AHSA prove that one of the homeless people (who are known to have serious drug problems especially cocaine) didn't contaminate a horse? Should the trainer take the hit when the show isn't providing responsible grounds security after hours? Natty is right. If you are riding million dollar horses for a client then adding the cost of a private security person to watch them after hours shouldn't be a big issue if it ensures the safety of the animal and the integrity of the barn/trainer. Plus, I would think that if there was a positive test and the security guard was found to be responsible either through not performing their duties or having their own drug problem (like at the racetrack here this summer) then the trainer would have recourse in court to sue the company hired for their losses.

It still goes back to the rules have to be applied EQUALLY to all riders. Not just the ones who can't afford to fight the issue with expensive lawyers.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 21, 2001, 07:29 AM
Security ALL NIGHT????!!!! Surely you jest!!! Not all of us showing are Jane Clark (who by the way DOES have personal security for her horses) That would be the end of showing for the "regular" guy, thus reinforcing and perpetuating the elitist image of showing (mostly because it WOULD be)I am not saying throw out the rules or to hell with the suspensions I AM saying that the current system is not working!! Once again the AHSA puts the enforcement onus on the exhibitor...(I saw so and so lurking around the barn etc...) there is NO way to know WHO gave the substance to the horses, beyond a reasonable doubt. What is the answer? I don;t know but it isn't "fair" the way it is because the trainer/owner/rider are NOT the only ones with access to the horses....MOST of the gernal public have access too...way to easy to implicate someone and damage their repute and business without their knowledge and or consent.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Palomino19
Oct. 21, 2001, 07:44 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Sparky22:
Most of the time...it isn't someone on the staff who does it.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, but if people are getting in past whomever is supposed to be responsible for the horses at night then the staff isn't doing a stellar job are they?

I'm not saying the system is perfect, since obviously if Mr. Torano is innocent it isn't. However, I AM saying that theoretically if a horse was drugged by someone on "the other team" it isn't entirely NOT the trainer's fault.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>And I just have a question..do you show? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

And from left field here it comes! I used to but now event, this whole thread makes me glad I do too. My horse is calm enough after all that dressage, no need for drugs there /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Jess

M. O'Connor
Oct. 21, 2001, 08:20 AM
24 hour security isn't so far fetched at all...and I can see it now: a little box next to the stall order line on the entry blank: "Secured" stabling or "Insecured" stabling...hmmmm...at ea. tent 50 stalls x $5per night x 5 nights =$1250 per week for the security guard per each tent with 50 stalls, at a $25 cost to the exhibitor...another show related industry is born....

wtywmn4
Oct. 21, 2001, 09:18 AM
Oh sure, now that you have spelled it out for them M.O'Connor, you know it will be right around the corner. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

And as Jumphigh stated, it will put most people out by just the $$$$...

PMJ
Oct. 21, 2001, 10:08 AM
While extra security is a possible choice, why not fix the rule so that it reflects innocent until proven guilty. Basically, the rule is not fair to those who do not drug their horses, try to be fair and have a good name, are concerned with their reputation and then have their horses test for traces of a substance. Then the punishments are not the same, again based on who you are, who your attorney is and how much you spend to defend yourself. I doubt seriously if someone has a high powered lawyer who keeps raising issues and doesn't let inconsistancies drop, if they are punished to the extent others who protest but do not have such savy legal expertise do--and that does not come cheap so who does this actually favor.

No, I don't think someone should be put out of showing because of the price of stabling, but I also don't find it fair to be accused of something and basically be told you are responsible becauseyou signed your name to a piece of paper when the accusor cannot prove it was you who did the drugging. Showing can be a cut throat business and I do not find it surprising that someone would drug another person's horse to put it out of the running for indoors or other awards. Drugging is wrong, but people being punished for things they have not done is disgusting. I have to say that I always look at these "suspensions" with a bit of a wary eye because it is just too easy to ruin someone's reputation in an instant.

Shorty
Oct. 21, 2001, 10:50 AM
Having paid for professional security guards, I can assure the cost is very, very high. Unless you can one person at the end of each aisle, who can also see what is going on on the backside of your stalls, it is only an attempt at security.
At the race track the stable area is surrounded by chain link fence.
NO ONE is permitted past the stable area without picture ID, whick requires a back round search before you ever get a perm card.
NO ONE casually walks into another trainers barn.
The public never casually walks up to a horse in its stall and gives it a pat, a treat or a trick.
It is too bad that it is so easy to tamper with our horses.

wondrlnd77
Oct. 21, 2001, 11:13 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Palomino19:



Quote: "
And I would like to think that if their lives really revolved around the horses (and not the $$) they wouldn't dare to get involved in something as stupid as drugging a horse.

I am an equine professional. I would not even know where to begin as far as drugging a horse to enhance their performance. So as a precursor to the following post- I do NOT condone this practice HOWEVER, I can see where others can try to justify drugging an animal for an easier horse show....you do not realize as an amateur or a junior how much stress is on a pro's head- and I don't even do the A circuit!


"What's that saying about if ya can't stand the heat? Oh yeah...get out of the horse show business! Boo freaking hoo b**** or no b**** a hard life is NOT ever an excuse to break the rules. I'll be sure to try that one the next time I get pulled over for speeding "well officer my job is really tough..."

This comparison is nowhere near valid. AS an example, my trainer was fined by the AHSA when I was a junior. It was a couple thousand dollars by the time she gave up trying to appeal. My horse had seemed muscle sore and she gave him banamine. She was not aware the manager had already fed him dinner with bute in it after noticing the same thing. We were drug tested....suddenly she is a huge criminal?

Jumphigh83
Oct. 21, 2001, 11:32 AM
I believe the "Do you show?" question was more to see if you realy had any idea how easy it is to access horses, not to cast aspersions on your sport of choice. It is too easy, security is so NOT do-able, and only the IRS has a corner on the guilty until proven innocent tactic! Total security is immpossible and therefore the drugs and medications rules need to be revisited. I feel sorry for the trainers/owners/etc for whom someone has a grudge! They could be in for a really long vacation.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Ruby G. Weber
Oct. 21, 2001, 11:55 AM
Possibly out of this whole USAE/USET debacle will come the much needed revamping of our drug testing/hearing system.

I'm going to go WAY out on a limb here, donning a bioterror resistant flame suit, I am IN FAVOR OF regulated use of tranqulizers.

That said, it will never happen. However, what is better for the horse? Some mixture of drugs in a cocktail, lunging by the clock in bad footing by someone who is not trying to train the horse but merely exhaust it, withholding feed and water or
giving it a 1/4 of Ace?

I don't want to hear from all the purists out there about "correct" training alliviating the need for any drugs because, although it sounds plausible in print, reality is something very different. Don't talk to me about changing the way hunters and equitation is judged. That subject has been hashed, hashed, and rehashed.

All I am sure of, after thirty plus years in the sport of horse showing, our horses were better off in "the old days."

Guess I'll be seeing alot of the testers in the future. LOL.

Showpony
Oct. 21, 2001, 12:44 PM
Can I share your bioterror resistant flame suit with you?? (sence I agree with you!!)

I especially agree with, and I quote....
"That said, it will never happen. However, what is better for the horse? Some mixture of drugs in a cocktail, lunging by the clock in bad footing by someone who is not trying to train the horse but merely exhaust it, withholding feed and water or
giving it a 1/4 of Ace?"

AND...

"I don't want to hear from all the purists out there about "correct" training alliviating the need for any drugs because, although it sounds plausible in print, reality is something very different. Don't talk to me about changing the way hunters and equitation is judged. That subject has been hashed, hashed, and rehashed."

/infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

Duffy
Oct. 21, 2001, 01:44 PM
No flames from me on this one, Emmet!!! /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Jumphigh83
Oct. 21, 2001, 03:18 PM
It was done ALL the time in the "good" old days!! Why did trainers like Carl Knee get 15 years?? Reserpine! It was used and abused and then they could test for it and presto out came the lounge lines, out came the water buckets, up were tied the heads...

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

lauriep
Oct. 21, 2001, 03:52 PM
I'm with you. It is so easy to puritanically post about a perfect world, instead of figuring out how to manage the very imperfect one we have.

24 hour surveillance of your horses by your own staff is completely cost prohibitive; you would have to hire a double staff, and even then, who is to prevent the night watch person(s) from falling asleep, or wandering over to a friend's barn to unwind, have a beer, etc? There is no way, other than loading them up and taking them to your own barn (not a possibility). So establishing a "trace level" that could not affect performance in any way is the logical means to that end.

And being able to give and declare 1/4cc of Ace, an advantage available to anyone that wanted to use it, would be sooooo much easier on the horses.

Laurie

Palomino19
Oct. 21, 2001, 03:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by wondrlnd77:
HOWEVER, I can see where others can try to justify drugging an animal for an easier horse show....you do not realize as an amateur or a junior how much stress is on a pro's head- and I don't even do the A circuit!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But see that's my point, no one has an easy job (ok some people do but unfortunately I don't know many of them lol). If they're drugging an animal because they can't handle the show pressure than they need that mandatory "vacation" to get their priorities in order.


<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>(Palomino19 writes:) a hard life is NOT ever an excuse to break the rules. I'll be sure to try that one the next time I get pulled over for speeding "well officer my job is really tough..."

wonderlnd writes: This comparison is nowhere near valid. AS an example, my trainer was fined by the AHSA when I was a junior. It was a couple thousand dollars by the time she gave up trying to appeal. My horse had seemed muscle sore and she gave him banamine. She was not aware the manager had already fed him dinner with bute in it after noticing the same thing. We were drug tested....suddenly she is a huge criminal?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That too is not a valid comparison to the point I was making in the response to the original post. I'm speaking of when someone knows the rule, knows the consequences, and breaks it regardless - using the excuse of "so much pressure" or "such a hard life". Those all being, in my opinion - no excuse at all.

Jess

Sparky22
Oct. 21, 2001, 04:28 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jumphigh83:
I believe the "Do you show?" question was more to see if you realy had any idea how easy it is to access horses, not to cast aspersions on your sport of choice. It is too easy, security is so NOT do-able, and only the IRS has a corner on the guilty until proven innocent tactic! Total security is immpossible and therefore the drugs and medications rules need to be revisited. I feel sorry for the trainers/owners/etc for whom someone has a grudge! They could be in for a really long vacation.

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Like, Betsy said, I have no intention of bashing your sport of choice, I was jsut checking to see how much you know about these shows.
/infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

"Just when you thought something was idiot proof, they go and make a better idiot...damned evolution"

findeight
Oct. 21, 2001, 05:12 PM
Yeah take a quart of blood, that will calm him-still around today. So are dehydrating or starving.
A minority will always sink to the lowest level if money is involved as it always is in ANY business. Doctors, lawyers, dentists, that pharmacist in Kansas City who diluted cancer drugs for patients and sold the rest on the street corner.
You can't legislate morality.
It is unfortunate that anybody who has snorted anything can hand feed my horse at the state sponsored showgrounds, my trainers staff does a wonderful job but cannot see everything 24/7.
We do need to reexamine amounts and substances.

From Allergy Valley USA

wtywmn4
Oct. 21, 2001, 08:08 PM
Emmett, you nailed it!! Zipping into suit as we speak.

Natty Dread
Oct. 21, 2001, 08:38 PM
I never implied that everyone had to have security. It is not a requirement. And I really don't understand why it would be so difficult for a big barn with lots of horses couldn't add it in to the cost of "full service". Like I said, spread over many the cost is less. I applaud the lady who has her own, she is wise. I could never leave my horses on a show ground in those tents unattended. And as far as night watch...they probably just do quick pass bys to make sure everybody is alive. You can't count on a small group of guys to know what is going on with sometimes thousands of horses. It is cost effective over the long run.
As far as drugs go....again I am in polo where you can administer any drug you want to enhance performance or tranquilize or give pain meds. Nobody is there to say a word. Is it right? Probably not. Do I like the fact that these mares are so shot up with steroids that they look like studs to play high-goal. Nope. Do I like that some players jug horses all night before big games so the horses are just jumping outta their skins? Nope. Do I like the fact that I can bute or give pain meds to a horse who happened to play really hard that day? You betcha!!! Because it is the right thing to do. And ain't nobody gonna come collect blood/urine and fine me. Your horses work equally to polo and the added stress on the legs must be incredible. Wouldn't you like to be able to help them out when they aren't feeling great without fear of being banned? I think honestly it is absurd. Sure the high-goalers are "cheating" but so is everyone else so they remain on a level playing field. Who is to say if it is better or worse? Not the USPA.

SBT
Oct. 21, 2001, 08:54 PM
...was at the Essex 3-day many years ago. He put in a solid dressage test, but then the weather changed DRAMATICALLY overnight, and his horse colicked. They called the vet, who gave the horse 12 cc's of Banamine. They were then informed by a steward that because they had exceeded the legal limit of the drug, they would be eliminated! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif WHAT were they thinking? That the vet would say, "Well, I could help your horse's colic, but then you'll break a drug rule and not be able to compete?" OBVIOUSLY my trainer withdrew because of the colic, and trailered home as soon as his horse was feeling better. The whole system is just screwy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Jumphigh83
Oct. 22, 2001, 05:13 AM
Natty, you blithely want to add on 24/7 security ?? A FULL TIME employee, 35,000 (about) plus travel, benefits, etc??? "Just add that to the cost of "full service"..." are you kidding?? I hope so. I laughed when I read it! The "lady" with 24/7 security is about a zillionaire sponsoring multiple Olympic discipline horses!! She isn't Jane Q Public!! I guess polo players have unlimited money. Or they think that we who horse show do??!!!!

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

JustJump
Oct. 22, 2001, 05:26 AM
Think of all that money you could save by pitching a tent in front of your stalls instead of checking into the hotel room....you might end up SAVING!

OK, now it seems that those who advocate legalizing the use of foreign substances have been flushed out of the bushes! (I had NO IDEA that anything goes in polo--wow!!)

Shouldn't the person with a naturally well-behaved, sound horse have any advantage over the too-hot lame ones? Seems to me that the suggestions to "leveling the playing field" by declaring open season on the meds chest would just put those few really nice horses and trainers with the patience and skills to keep them sound and bring them along out on the street!

Natty Dread
Oct. 22, 2001, 06:25 AM
Geez...this is a tough crowd!!!
First, I am not talking about your everyday show person...Obviously Jimmy Torano, et al, are at the highest echelon of the sport. Duh! Why would it be so ineffective? At this level you would think that it would be nothing to add. It would completely be up to the individual. Obviously you don't need security, but at these big shows with 3,000+ horses why would you not want it?!?!
Secondly, it is not open season on drugs in polo! Gawd could you take what people say to the extreme? It is just up to the individual. I have never eluded that I think its right! We just would not tolerate it! What would we do? 10 goal player at the top plays a mare 2 1/2 chukkers in the Argentine open. The absolute best 40 goal tournament in the world. The horses are more fit than any racehorse. After game tester arrives and proceeds to collect sample. Tests positive to steroids, you lose! Too Bad, sooo sad!

Not gonna happen! These horses work their butts off! Racehorses are put on steroids all the time. They very often need some sort of post-exersion medication. They hurt. Should I deny them? No way.

Why are some so quick to jump on me? We are talking hypothetically about the "best" of the sports. WHen you are at the top you obviously have the funds needed to provide the best. I figure the vast majority of us are not at this level. But it is fun to discuss all possibilities, don't you think?
Also...the cost would be spread evenly... if you own 1 horse it is thus and such, if you have 3 horses it is jiggalymawhat...if you have 10 it is dillywhatit. Get it? It could be done. And wouldn't you sleep better at night?

lauriep
Oct. 22, 2001, 06:28 AM
advocating open season on the meds chest. What we are trying to get is an establishment of what constitutes a trace, non-performance enhancing amount, so that if there is a chance that someone is being nailed unjustly, that one area could be cleaned up. If someone wants to really sabotage you, they wouldn't stop at a trace.

24/7 security is absurd. There is no possible way for it to work short of one person per horse. The way tents are set up, and the solid vinyl partitions, it is absolutely easy to be wherever the security guard is not. It just isn't an option, so let's move on to what WOULD work. Airports can't even get competent security guards to save HUMAN lives; why in the world would the horse show world be able to get better people to protect horses?

And even if the big trainers, with 40 horses and multiple wealthy clients COULD afford to do this, what about the smaller, 10 horse barns, who win just as much, but can't absorb the cost? Is it fair to leave them swinging in the wind? The horse show management is never going to do much; I can't see how something the size of CWEF would ever be able to be "secured", it covers many, many acres. So then, what?

Laurie

Natty Dread
Oct. 22, 2001, 06:49 AM
Not one person per horse...that is absurd...why not one person per tent, split among everybody stabled in a tent. Whatever, they are your horses. I don't think I could leave my horses over night anyway. I would buy a stall but ship in/out. When we go to play away at places like Kentucky Horse Park they have security. Obviously, polo isn't like horse showing. We ship everywhere all the time. Our horses tie anywhere and then we go home. We also don't have the problems associated with with jealousy and potential bad people doing bad things when horses are left unattended. Noone would think of touching someone elses horses. I feel as though this is falling on deaf ears. I am just commenting on my comfort level thats all.

wtywmn4
Oct. 22, 2001, 07:03 AM
Does anyone remember the Dobermans that were tied in the isle of Hunterdon, whilest at the Garden? That certainly stopped people from wandering thru there. And was the intent.....

PDQBach
Oct. 22, 2001, 07:12 AM
sbt71l - You really think a horse SHOULD run a * or ** or *** star XC course after having colicked - after having colicked enough to give it that much Banamine?? A Hunter class maybe, a Dressage test, maybe, a low jumper class, maybe - but an XC course the next day?

I don't think so - but that is just IMHO.

I diagree with the use of drugs - I also disagree with the crap that happens. What about England where the drug rule is FAR stricter, and such meds aren't even readily available? I think we need to look at the Divisions that we enter and the judging before we allow more drugs.

(Flamesuit)

Portia
Oct. 22, 2001, 08:00 AM
OK, many of you believe the the system needs changes. What can be realistically done to fix it? Natty Dread and Emmett both made suggestions, and some agree and some don't, but at least they offered a suggestion.

What other suggestions for resolving the perceived problems in the system do you all have?

Not to exempt myself from this, I'm trying to think of something -- but before I can make any useful suggestions, I need the answers to some questions:

1. Is environmental contamination and/or sabotage a problem in disciplines other than hunters?

2. Are horses testing positive for trace amounts of cocaine in eventing, or dressage, or reining, or saddlebreds, or Morgans, or Arabs, etc?

3. If such contamination and/or sabotage has not been a problem in the other disciplines, then what are they doing -- or not doing -- that is different from the hunters?

4. How can we make the drug rules enforceable and meaningful if we put the burden of proof of the source of the drugging on USA Eq? How could USA Eq ever prove that the source was the trainer or the owner rather than some unknown stranger or saboteur?

5. Would that shifting of the burden of proof make the rules unenforceable? That is, could any trainer say, "I don't know how my horse got the drugs, but since you (USA Eq) can't affirmatively prove it was not somebody else who did it, you can't punish me"?

6. If the burden of proof were shifted in that manner, which is the lesser of the evils -- the prospect that a person who is wrongly accused may be punished, or that the rules cannot be effectively enforced and therefore can be routinely violated, regardless of the welfare of the horse?

Anyplace Farm
Oct. 22, 2001, 08:14 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR> (Originally posted by DMK) I can certainly see that if a groom who worked in the barn was a regular user, and either mixed feed, cleaned tack or groomed or fed that specific horse, I could see where certain horses would have higher levels of contamination than others, and none of it would be with the intent of altering the horse's performance. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I have to say, when I was a groom, the guy I shared a grooming stall with did cocaine regularly. He kept it in his grooming box that hung on the wall in our stall.

He handled it, chopped it, did it right there in the grooming stall, sometimes while the horses stood right there in the cross ties. Imagine those same hands putting a bit into that horse's mouth shortly thereafter.

An interesting thought now that I ponder it.

PMJ
Oct. 22, 2001, 08:36 AM
I don't quite understand the point about the federation not being able to enforce the rules ifthe riders/trainers/owners don't take blind responsibility for their horses and if you are innocent, but your horse tests positive you are automatically guilty. Can you imagine how many people would be convicted in the realworld if we worked under such a circumstantial method of justice. "Gee, you were around the body, so you must be guilty of the murder." Granted the penalty would be much harsher but the standard is the same. Some of the breed shows I attended with my mother in the 80's were some of the harshest cutthroat places, so before any are held up as better than another you may want to re-evaluate. Because this is something that effects all levels of riding, not just the elite, but amateur and pro alike, I think the security is not realistic, but I also think that since the security cannot be 100% then we must re-evaluate the standard.

DMK
Oct. 22, 2001, 08:37 AM
Portia, I've said it before and I'll say it again /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif From what I gather, the sensitivity of the ELISA test has way outpaced the current rule...

I think first and foremost we should invest some time and money in establishing what are performance affecting levels of ANY substance, because if it is so insubstantial as to have no affect on performance, what is the point of punishing someone for performance altering drugs?

Second, last month in the suspension list there were 4 very well known trainers/riders fined for issues relating to substances that were all legal if applied in an appropriate timeframe or if a D&M report was filed. They were all trainers who KNEW the rules, and (IMO) would not intentionally violate them. It made me start to wonder if there is a problem that needs to be addressed, because I can't see four people screwing up over relatively simple issues like this...

Finally, as it relates to enviromental cocaine, I think it would be tough to compare to other disciplines. In as many horses that show in hunter/jumpers, and are tested, there have been very few cases discovered. I wonder if you can draw a comparison between the percentages of cases given the law of large numbers that may not apply in other disciplines? As far as I can tell the sheer number of h/j shows and horses involved is way more than any other current discipline...

As to the people who talked about hiring your own security, honestly, if someone was bent on doing you harm, it would still not be a problem for them. If you have ever been in those tents - especially after hours, they are an underlit rabbit warren, and unless you had a guard posted at every aisle, it would be child's play to evade any security.

And total security, a la the racetrack, that is no more effective a solution either (if it was even feasible). At the track, sponging your competition's horse wasn't done by the outside betting public, it was done by fellow trainers!

Portia
Oct. 22, 2001, 08:55 AM
I wasn't holding up the other breeds or disciplines as examples, I was asking a question. If environmental contamination is the problem, and not deliberate drugging, then the same environmental contaminants should be showing up in the identical testing done on the other breeds and disciplines, which collectively far outnumber the H/J's. I honestly don't know whather it is or not, that's why I asked the question.

On your other point, I personally do see a distinction between criminal procedure "in the real world" and enforcing rules meant to protect the welfare of the horse and the fairness of competition. I understand a suspension or other disciplinary action can be very damaging to an individual, but it is not (IMHO) equivalent to a criminal conviction that may result in jail time and in the loss of basic civil rights (such as the right to vote). In every system of justice and punishment, there must be a weighing of competing concerns, and decisions must be made regarding which concerns outweigh others and how those concerns are best balanced.

In the USA Eq D&M rules, there is a rebuttable presumption that if a horse tests positive for a banned substance or a substance in excess of allowed therapeutic quantities, then the persons responsible for the horse have the burden of proving why and how that happened. It is a rebuttable presumption, meaning that the accused person has the right and opportunity to prove that the presumption is incorrect. In reaching this decision, apparently the majority of the Board of Directors determined that the interests of protecting the welfare of the horse and the fairness of competition outweigh the concerns that the presumption may sometimes result in an undeserved punishment.

Whether that is the "correct" weighting of concerns and balancing of interests, I don't know. But if it is not, we need to find another formula that will effectively balance those interests and achieve the goals for which those rules exist.

PMJ
Oct. 22, 2001, 09:15 AM
Portia,

I was not responding to you directly, and feel that many of the points that you raise are valid and clear. I saw a great deal of this going on at both 4-H nationals and Quarter Horse shows (meaning horses being intentionally sabataged, and since money--meaning prize and while the horses can be extremely expensive, they at the time my mother was showing were no where as expensive as an upper level dressage horse or show hunter, not implying that showing, owning or buying any of these horses is inexpensive-- was not as highly involved as it is in the show world as covered by the USAE--while this thread is H/J I don't see them differientiate in the magazine--while it is a presumption, I do not find it a far stretch for some of those people who have gone to lengths to declare themselves innocent of everything except signing a slip of paper that says they are the responsible party for the horse as being truly innocent victims.)I know there are people who are dishonest and am not foolish enough to think there aren't. There are also plenty of examples of how horses could get something without the person responsible--by the standard--actually doing it--and not knowing.

You obviously know the rules better than I and perhaps you can answer this question, how many people are accused and then found "innocent"?

What I have a strong objection to is the fact that to compete we have to sign over our rights as innocent people. While I don't know this for fact, I imagine it is very costly to defend yourself against something you haven't done--to have to prove your innocence. While I will have to check on the information, the case I am thinking of is the one where the woman took the time to write the Chronicle, as well as the USAE. While I acknowledge that I do not know the details of the case in the least, she went to a great deal of trouble to protect her integrity and it really turned me off to this entire system.

So, and I realize this may be extreme, if you haven't done anything but can't prove who did or that you didn't you are just plain out of luck. When I compared it to our justice system it was to point out that this system seems flawed (and granted there are innocent people in prison). While I have never been around cocaine, if my horse tests positive I am automatically assumed to have given it to him since he is my responsibility. Since I didn't do it and I don't know who did, under the rules, I have no defense. I get fined, suspended, and my name is linked with drugs. My reputation is tarnished. This does not seem fair. And I paid for it.

[This message was edited by Ela on Oct. 22, 2001 at 10:27 PM.]

SBT
Oct. 22, 2001, 09:48 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PDQBach:
sbt71l - You really think a horse SHOULD run a * or ** or *** star XC course after having colicked - after having colicked enough to give it that much Banamine?? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

PDQ, I think you misread my post! /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif (Or maybe I mis-wrote it /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) I was horrified that the steward in that case felt it necessary to tell my trainer he was out of the running because of the drugs...never mind that the horse was colicking!!! I DO NOT think a horse should run XC, or anything else for that matter, after having colicked!

wty...As for the Dobermans at Hunterdon...those are GM's pets. /infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif They are protection dogs (for good reason, as you pointed out), but when they're let out, they are just regular dogs. While re-hashing a lesson once, one of the big ones had his head in my lap the whole time. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif Still, I would NOT want to mess with one. There is a sign on the fence around the back of the house that shows a picture of a Doberman and reads, "I can get to the fence in 3 seconds. Can you?" /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

lauriep
Oct. 22, 2001, 10:14 AM
the grooming stall scenarion is exactly what I was referring to. 20 years ago, the same things were going on, but the tests weren't this sophisticated. so no one was ever caught for administering coke.

DMK, absolutely agree that trace levels must be established, non-performance enhancing levels that will cover these circumstances of POSSIBLE environmental contamination.

Laurie

Weatherford
Oct. 22, 2001, 11:49 AM
OK BEFORE this goes ANY further, I would like EVERYONE (including myself /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) to read the information posted on the USA Eq website:

www.equestrian.org/aboutus/meds/ (http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/meds/)

As I get more information on testing, trace amounts, etc, I will post it here.

Thanks.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Flash44
Oct. 22, 2001, 01:05 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Shorty:
Having paid for professional security guards, I can assure the cost is very, very high. Unless you can one person at the end of each aisle, who can also see what is going on on the backside of your stalls, it is only an attempt at security.
At the race track the stable area is surrounded by chain link fence.
NO ONE is permitted past the stable area without picture ID, whick requires a back round search before you ever get a perm card.
NO ONE casually walks into another trainers barn.
The public never casually walks up to a horse in its stall and gives it a pat, a treat or a trick.
It is too bad that it is so easy to tamper with our horses.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

There was a blurb in the Balto Sun the other day that I SWORE was written by Moesha. On Maryland Million Day, a car closely following a horse van went right through 2 security gates into the Pimlico barn area without being stopped or IDs checked. The occupants of the car, upon arriving in the stakes barn area, got out of the car and attacked the grooms who had been riding in the horse van. The occupants ran all over the stable area chasing the grooms with a board that had nails sticking out of it. The occupants allege that someone from inside the van threw a bottle out the window while driving down the highway and it broke their windshield. During the ruckus, the 2 grooms were arrested and the car occupants left the scene without ever being questioned for entering the stable area or attacking the grooms.

Use the Force.

brilyntrip
Oct. 22, 2001, 02:46 PM
Once I go to the d/M sector of UAE which thing do you recommend???

poltroon
Oct. 22, 2001, 02:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Weatherford:
OK BEFORE this goes ANY further, I would like EVERYONE (including myself /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif ) to read the information posted on the USA Eq website:

http://www.equestrian.org/aboutus/meds/

As I get more information on testing, trace amounts, etc, I will post it here.

Thanks.

/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Weatherford - all I see is the contact info... is there more on this page than that?

Aha... I just realized that the equestrian.org site is not compatible with Netscape 4.7... all is clearer in IE.

[This message was edited by poltroon on Oct. 22, 2001 at 07:17 PM.]

findeight
Oct. 22, 2001, 03:25 PM
Well this has gone a little away from Jimmy T but I think it is still on target.
I too stable at the KHP for h/j shows, "tourists" are permitted to roam the aisles. If my trainers six grooms are all occupied, very possible at a big 6 ring show, what if a dad gives his 6 year old a treat to hand feed my horse? What if he snorted coke last night? I will allow any starstruck youngster to pet her or give her a carrot, what if they have a crack pipe in their tote bag? This is what scares all exhibitors and trainers.
Another thought is it is time owners took some responsibility for what goes on. Comment was made a 1/2 cc dose is better then the alternatives for calming a hot horse/pony. Very true. Where are the owners who buy these unsuitable horses for their children or themselves? Yes some trainers mislead clients to buy these. Most of these clients come to the trainer with the horse/pony demanding it be made ready for them. In the real world trainers need to feed their children and will do whatever it takes.
Owners need to pay attention to what is going on in their own barn and to what is being done to prepare the horse for them. They must take some responsibility for demanding a perfect performance from a horse that is unsuitable for them or their child instead of demanding the trainer make it right.
Those who dream of becoming trainers need to stop and appreciate that fine line between keeping a big money client who pays the rent and feeds the kids happy and a twist of the rules to get that client's horse fit for his kids. It is a muddy playing field at best.
Personally do not approve of any enhancement other then a little bute after the second show day, within approved limits and declared. I can see how some trainers feel it protects their livelyhood to drug.
Not a perfect world.
Owners need to take some responsibility for it.

From Allergy Valley USA

wtywmn4
Oct. 22, 2001, 04:11 PM
Ela I beg to differ on the money levels. Maybe it isn't there for 4H, but the QH industry has millions, plus their racing has surpased many of our oldest with the purses they give. They are fighting the same things we are as well. The headway they have made is remarkable.

And now that you're thru the quantitative levels etc, has anyone thought about the cost? Tests, with levels that are finite will be very expensive. Guess who gets that? The cost of the equipment to run these tests, is something we could help the national debt with. (being tongue in cheek here) But regardless, there will be a cost, it will be passed on to the members. How much do we want to spend? How far do we want to go with testing?

[This message was edited by wtywmn4 on Oct. 22, 2001 at 07:22 PM.]

JustaLurker
Oct. 22, 2001, 04:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by findeight:
Well this has gone a little away from Jimmy T but I think it is still on target.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I agree with this statement and I think it's time to begin another thread as I'm uncomfortable seeing Jimmy Torano's name popping up at the top of the topic list over and over, especially when what's being written no longer pertains to that subject.

Yes, the whole drugging and testing question is important, but, IMHO, not under this subject any more. So, would someone heavily involved in keeping this going please start afresh.

Cheers, Maggi

M. Braley
Oct. 22, 2001, 05:11 PM
I would love to take this opportunity to confirm Jimmy Torano's innocence. I realize we all have opinions on his punishment, but please be certain about one thing: his innoncence! Therefore, no punishment is just.

My husband and I have known Jimmy both personally and professionally for approximately 15 years. While over zealous at times, his love, care and admiration for his animals have always been a priority and non-deserving of any "sentence".

Jimmy and his wife have made many remarkable contributions to the horse industy at all levels. He is the type of professional the equestrian industy needs, a man who exhibitis professionalism, honesty and integrity.
M. Braley

PMJ
Oct. 22, 2001, 07:17 PM
wtywmn4

I must not have been clear. My intention was not to imply that QH or 4-H are inexpensive--my mother showed QHs for quite a while and my sister did all around stuff for the 4-H and quite often spent much more than I did eventing due to the cost of the horse--not really a place to take a "project"--equiptment (silver and outfit changes--hats alone cost a fortune), other gear etc. My point was that these are not under the sanction/rules of the USAE, and many times the classes for youth/amateurs where there is no prize money are just as cut throat as anything. When we took my sister to the 4-H Regionals, we took turns camping out in front of the horses stall because the competition was so fierce and people did do things to better their odds of winning. Trust me, I do know how much money is spent and was not speaking out of ignorance. The price tags of the horses often astounded me. Sorry if I was not clear.

wtywmn4
Oct. 23, 2001, 04:40 PM
Thanks Ela..You are so right about how cut throat they could be. Makes the H/J industry look like babes in the woods, literally. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

lillian
Oct. 24, 2001, 08:01 AM
Ela -- I read your post and started to laugh....I showed quarter horses for 30 years and in no way does the cost of QH shows come anywhere near the cost of sending one hunter down the road for a year. I could show a pleasure horse all year on the cost of 5 A hunter shows. Even my cutting horses (cattle charges included) cost about half what a hunter costs to show in one year. Cutthroat? Maybe. But you have to define that in the context of the shows and in my opinion, it's like comparing apples and oranges. I don't have exact figures but I would estimate that there are probably 5 or 6 times more QHs showing on any given weekend than H/Js. They are just more popular, and the lower expense of showing is one reason why!

lillian
Oct. 24, 2001, 08:03 AM
One more thing....having the AQHA under the sanction of the AHSA makes me shudder....the AQHA does just fine without their troublesome business practices, in my opinion. As a matter of fact, the AHSA could learn a thing or two from the AQHA.....

Josie
Oct. 24, 2001, 04:23 PM
Amen lillian The AQHA has their share of problems but they do listen to their members and try to remedy any abuse of the horses that is brought to their attention.

Jumphigh83
Oct. 25, 2001, 01:32 AM
There was a thread about this subject a while back..I agree the AQHA has many many great qualities! Of course there are "warts" but at least it is affordable and there is a great incentive (fund) program to GIVE BACK to the membership! (not including all the great prizes/trophies/trucks/trailers/etc!)

Betsy
Lead, follow, or get out of the way...

Weatherford
Oct. 25, 2001, 06:06 AM
USA Eq is trying HARD to emulate much that the AQHA is doing - especially in terms of sponsorships, etc. The AQHA is trying to emulate the USA Eq's D&M rules and proceedures, and now uses "our" testing facilities.

If and when you have problems with the USA Eq, write them - tell them YOUR vision for the sport. They DO want to hear from all of us, these days. (Although, I will say, that I do not believe that is as true for the NJHC - however, that is JUST my opinion.)

On the subject at hand, I will get Erin to post a couple of articles on testing proceedures and tolerances. OR I may copy and paste them into a new thread.

Weatherford
Oct. 25, 2001, 06:22 AM
Let's continue this discussion on the new thread and limit it to the D&M rules, objections, etc etc. This thread is getting long!

Thanks.

New Thread link (http://chronofhorse.infopop.net/2/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=691099205&f=602099205&m=6143084523&r=6143084523#6143084523)

[Edited to fix the URL link so it's not so wide]

[This message was edited by Portia on Oct. 25, 2001 at 12:08 PM.]