<< Next shock for Isabell Werth: The five times Dressur Olympic champion has new suspension added by German FN.
FEI gave six months suspension.
The central recommendation of the commission of the German olympic sport federation (DOSB), that submitted its final report on Tuesday in goods village, demands a further one year suspension.
`We must follow the recommendations of the commission ´, said FN Secretary-General Soenke Lauterbach.
Thus the 40 years old Werth must fear there will be no time to try to qualify for 2010 WEG..>>
Yayy German FN.
They handpicked the commisssion that made the ruling. Breido made Wendt the scapegoat while he and his henchman Lauterbach continue to sup at the trough.
I actually got an email from Isabel last week. I had written to her just to offer my support & she wrote me back. Very nice of her.
I don't make a habit of writing people I don't know but she has given the dressage world so much. I just hate that all of this is happening to her.
It's only fair. She has damaged the sport massively with her actions and it is about time this kind of behavior from supposed role model athletes stops. A honestly earned bronze medal weighs more than a gold abonnement based on fraudulent activity. All she has been giving to the sport in the last couple of months is a bad reputation and massive negative press resulting in tremendous cuts into both TV coverage and public support of our sport.
Surely it is tough for her but she is educated and smart enough she was aware what the odds were when she decided to have longterm psychopharmaka administered to her showhorse. Why do so many people pretend nothing bad has happened? I personally hate to be robbed of TV coverage for the main show events and I hate suddenly having to defend my sport against critizism from non-equestrian friends. I'm tired of it and I applaud the FN they are finally at least trying to do something about it.
Does it start from the date of the initial fei provisional suspension when the drug test first came back? Then it really is just adding a little bit to the FEI suspension.
I don't feel the same as either the yay isabel's or the bad bad isabel groups.
I think both groups make this matter too black and white.
I think expecting the organizations to come up with drug clearing times and lists of what can be used and not used is unrealistic. They might come up with a list of what meds are considered 'dope' and what's considered 'medicine' but even that is fraught with difficulty and controversy.
First, it would be seen by the public as encouraging and condoning drug use. Second, it denies the complexity and variability of drug clearing times. Third, it denies the issues of drug masking and of new drugs, which are constantly becoming available.
The bottom line for me, is that the responsible person has to educate him/herself on medications he uses on his horses. He can't actually take his vet's word, not any more. He has to become something of a pharmacologist himself. He cannot resort to an excuse of 'I didn't know', and the public can't expect leniency for him if he does.
He may have to discuss it with several vets, a human doctor, talk to other riders and trainers privately, go to pdr.com...Yes, medication for horses has gotten complex enough that s/he has no choice but to learn a great deal about any med he is going to give his horse during the competition season.
The responsible person has to realize that at the top, he is under a public microscope. He has to realize he could be 'made an example of' if his horse gets a positive drug test. He has to realize that politics in organizations, alliances and dynamics, are such that he could get his ass handed to him on a platter if he draws the public eye with a positive drug test.
He has to realize the repercussions of using a human psychiatric drug, too, as many people (whether you think legitimately or not) have a horror of these particular drugs.
THIS drug, being used on a horse, just bothers me. Horsemen very often go by experience rather than research because there IS very little research on medications for horses. And they rarely would recognize the name of this drug or know what it's used for in humans, or even what it does, let alone its side effects. But this drug, as well as its wide use in the USA as a sedative on horses, just bothers me. I am not against medication, so don't even go there. But I think there are better alternatives if a sedative must be used, as well as times when sedatives are being used, and shouldn't be used at all.
I understand a rider needs to be able to give medications as she sees fit, to her horses, based on what she knows and what she is trying to do to help her horses. Whisper may have benefited from having this medication for the farrier - I'm sure the farrier benefitted if the horse was quiet and safer to work on. If the horse jerks its hind legs or pulls away on three legs, it can be horrible for the farrier's back and knees. He might even get hurt and not be able to work for some number of days. He might even refuse to work on a horse that hurts him or strains his back.
Whisper MAY have benefitted from getting this particular medication for Shivers. That is unclear. There is no research to read about this.
Whisper's performance MAY have been altered. Some of us insist it must have been and that Isabel is lying, and this horse was medicated to enhance his scores one person even named movements this was done to improve. Others insist she was telling the truth and just helping her horse be comfortable during shoeing. No one seems to agree on this.
I think how people come down on this depends not on what the truth is, because no one of us was there and saw what went on, but on their own experience and emotions. How we react says more about us and our experiences than about 'the truth', because none of us were there.
If they have had frustrating experiences with the organizations, they assume the organizations are unfair. If they were upset that Courtney King got a positive drug test for her horse after some unknown exposure during an emergency, they're more likely to condemn the organization in this case. If they're rah rah USA, they may assume Courtney was 'in the right' and Isabel was 'in the wrong'. If they're furious watching the organizations struggle to get their arms around the new drug test technology, they will react to isabels situation differently.
If they have an old horse at home that can show with a little bute under USEF rules and the FEI drug no tolerance policy is something they just can't get onboard with, they can be predicted to come down with a less anti-isabel response, or even with a really furious, hot headed, defensive, angry reaction like some did here. If they've become distrustful of the top riders through what they've seen or heard, they may assume all the eggs at the top are rotten, everyone lies, no one can be trusted.
Well if I was her I would appreciate being able to spend a lot of time with the little one without having to explain herself and her show-schedule (or lack thereof) to an overzealous fanclub. Who knows maybe she set up this whole thing to get rid of some of the pressure. Becoming a mom changes life so drastically I could understand if she had a desire to kiss the top-competition good bye and elegant way for a while.
I wish her the best of deliveries and a happy 'young-mom's' time.
I don't feel the same as either the yay isabel's or the bad bad isabel groups
Typical misrepresentation of what has been posted. According to the essay you have written, though, you must be in the bad isabel group.
Despite what you say, I don't think very many people see it as a black and white issue. Having read the discussions, I'd say most people think a penalty is appropriate for breaking the rules regardless of intention and gain,etc. Those issues are irrelevant to the rule.
The only question is how severe should the penalty be. It 's not about yay isabel or bad bad isabel. Get a grip.
I agree with Kareen. If not resolved, the drug problem could definitely be the nail in the coffin for German equestrian sports. Even if it is more a matter of "public perception" of the sport--because, in the end, that is everything.
I am currently reading a new book called "Headless Horsemen" by Jim Squires which is about the drug culture in thoroughbred racing, the growing negative public perception of the sport and the moves toward reform. He quotes a well known Kentucky vet who talks about his concession to the demands of owners and trainers looking for a chemical advantage.
Regardless of what Isabel did or did not do, this type of thing happens in EVERY sport, so I would not be overly concerned about "having to defend my sport."
I disagree. There is the added element of the perception of "animal abuse and cruelty" in equestrian sports. Due to PETA and other animal rights activists, there is an increasing scrutiny and public outcry when it is perceived that animals are being mistreated or exploited.
This is much different than human sports in which the athletes are free to choose what they want to do to their own bodies. There is not much of an activist movement to save them from themselves--there is just the issue of fairness and good sportsmanship.
Furthermore, human sports like baseball and football are SO popular that they can withstand almost any negative publicity. This is not the case with equestrian sports that are not so popular and already criticized as elitist, etc.
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" ~Friedrich Schiller