The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 75
  1. #41
    Join Date
    Oct. 29, 2000
    Location
    Southern Pines, N.C.
    Posts
    11,334

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK View Post
    And maybe there is a problem with the system and John Madden (and Jane Clark) have genuine reason to be angry/frustrated, but if that was the case, I would hope Jane Clark would use her impressive resources to subpoena all the associated records, make them publicly available so the USEF membership could then have an open and fully informed discussion about improving the process.
    Totally agree with this. John Madden is not the person to go into details; it is not his horse or his case. The people directly involved, though can come public with the details and IMO they should. For Jane Clark ro resign as director of the USEF, after decades of service, indicates to me that something went horribly wrong with the process in this case. I trust her to be honest with the facts and ready to accept a warranted punishment. Her resignation spoke loudly about her feelings.
    Don't Worry About Hurting My Feelings Because I Guarantee You, Not One Bit Of My Self Esteem Is Tied Up In Your Acceptance.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    May. 9, 2001
    Posts
    2,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Polydor View Post

    Hope COTH sees that we want some in depth investigative articles on these types of issues! I would subscribe if they had those types of articles.
    Bolding mine - I'm already a print subscriber and I agree.

    My COTH magazine is currently a "feel good" read for me on the weekend; the annual grooming and horse care issues have good content, but most other articles (not the press release updates at the beginning of the magazine) are horse show overviews and human interest stories. I would love to see some investigative journalism from COTH.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #43
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by llsc View Post
    There are a lot of articles about very small amounts of cocaine being found in Racehorses.They test for a by product of cocaine and do not know if other substances the horses ingest or come in contact with produce this same by product.

    http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...em-lab-testin/

    http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0...704-9/abstract

    That's fairly interesting. 28 positives in 20K samples sounds insignificant but it's a healthy number. Even more interesting is that no horse got within even a 1/3 of the threshold.

    If yer doping for performance, yer doing it wrong.

    And if by some miracle, it was performance enhancing below the legal (in IL) 150ng/ml limit, I would think you would see more than 20 positives. Also if racing authorities deem it to not be performance enhancing (and I believe most states have allowed amounts) that lends some credibility to the idea that it really is not performance enhancing at that level. When you are dealing with the betting public, that sort of thing is taken seriously.

    As for lying down with dogs and getting up with fleas. It's a drug test, not a moral fiber or good judgement in hiring practices test. Just a positive drug test, and I'm OK with that - it comes with penalties. They may be of poor moral character or have poor hiring practices or pick lousy friends, but it's a bit simplistic to get any of that from a drug test result.

    From the outside looking in, my biggest issues with USEF seem to be the lack of transparency and consistency - it seems like that shows up in the types of penalties for repeat offenders or those that do get more stringent penalties. Maybe there is consistency in all this, but I don't think its explained well to the average member.
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    17,652

    Default

    Perhaps I'm reading things from the quote that are not there. But here's what I find peculiar if anti-doping is to be controlled. Madden blames the HEARING COMMITTEE for following what seem to be very clear rules, as if they have the duty to make exceptions to the rules for important people with years of service to horse sports.

    For rules to work and to appear fair, they have to be applied consistently across the board to BNs and LNs. Hearing officers and panels, especially volunteer ones, need to commended for sticking to the face of the rules instead of excoriated for not making exceptions that are not provided for in the rules. If the next level of authority is willing to make exceptions for whatever reason--equity or Big Enough Name--, that's where praise or blame should fall. But don't blame the Hearing Committee for doing its job.

    As to the comment that he is not the person to divulge details, he might not be. But certainly the USEF IS. FEI transparency when cases come before its hearing panels means that the records are posted on its website. The USEF posted the hearing panel decision, but nothing to explain why the suspension was lifted. Perhaps they just didn't want the world to know why or even if. Perhaps they leave the panel decision up to make the public and their members believe that the USEF is being tough on dopers.

    Behind the scenes maneuvering to protect Big Names just looks dirty, even if it isn't, and should be explained.

    DMK nailed it in her last paragraph.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  5. #45
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    While I'm sure there is cocaine on some percent of currency the amount needed to produce a human positive drug test is below levels to produce positive drug tests.
    All the tellers that worked at the bank I was employed at were drug tested on a regular basis. Never had a teller fail a drug test as a result of paper money contamination.

    I think one of the issues in this case is the severity of the penalty and which set of rules it was ( or wasn't) applied under.

    If the penalty was given under FEI rules the responsible person is the rider, not the trainer. And it seems that the selection trial was run under FEI sanction?

    If it was a USEF National level jumper class then the trainer is the person responsible.

    Looking back as far as 2008 the time of suspension, 24 months, is the longest I've seen for a drug or medication suspension.
    In June of 2009 there was a fine and suspension of 1 month and
    $3000 for a similar drug violation.
    In June of 2007 two trainers were fined 2 months and $2000 for 'metabolites of cocaine'.
    It seems the applied penalties are inconsistent.

    Not saying there isn't a guility party in this story and I do resent the 'trust me' comments in the article,just saying the application of the process seems to have been incorrect regarding who was suspended and the penalty is way beyond anything that was previously given for a similar violation.
    Fan of Sea Accounts



  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jul. 21, 2011
    Location
    Co
    Posts
    3,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lord Helpus View Post
    Totally agree with this. John Madden is not the person to go into details; it is not his horse or his case. The people directly involved, though can come public with the details and IMO they should. For Jane Clark ro resign as director of the USEF, after decades of service, indicates to me that something went horribly wrong with the process in this case. I trust her to be honest with the facts and ready to accept a warranted punishment. Her resignation spoke loudly about her feelings.
    IMO USEF should be the party that shares it's procces with it's membership. They do so in other cases, in the rules and regulation and hearing committee section of their website ,but they did not do so in this case.

    Apparently some members (John Madden) know what happened. The rest of the membership, I suppose, will not have the information provided to them and that is really too bad.



  7. #47
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skydy View Post
    IMO USEF should be the party that shares it's procces with it's membership. They do so in other cases, in the rules and regulation and hearing committee section of their website ,but they did not do so in this case.

    Apparently some members (John Madden) know what happened. The rest of the membership, I suppose, will not have the information provided to them and that is really too bad.
    USEF did follow their usual practice. They noted the suspension on the website just as they do for any negative outcome of a Hearing or Administrative penalty.
    Over the years there have been reversals of suspensions. Rarely, but it does happen. I have never seen USEF publish details in the Rules/Suspensions sections regarding ANY reversal of fine/penalty.
    Fan of Sea Accounts



  8. #48
    Join Date
    May. 20, 1999
    Posts
    512

    Default

    To those expressing an interest in the Chronicle getting more in-depth in its pursuit of controversial topics, just know that we hear you.


    16 members found this post helpful.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul. 21, 2011
    Location
    Co
    Posts
    3,998

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PINE TREE FARM SC View Post
    USEF did follow their usual practice. They noted the suspension on the website just as they do for any negative outcome of a Hearing or Administrative penalty.
    Over the years there have been reversals of suspensions. Rarely, but it does happen. I have never seen USEF publish details in the Rules/Suspensions sections regarding ANY reversal of fine/penalty.
    That is too bad.

    The FEI is (IMO) in need of some big changes, but at least they do have transparency to their credit.
    If they were serious about stopping the drugging of horses ,USEF would follow the FEI lead and at least try to have meaningful suspensions and penalties and have transparency, rather than the closed door method they seem to be using.

    Then again, noting the reponse from USEF to the NYT article ,and their "let's give trainers a rulebook quiz" idea, in response to ponies dropping dead at the end of a needle at USEF sanctioned shows, I don't believe USEF is at all serious about dealing with the problem.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    17,652

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PINE TREE FARM SC View Post
    USEF did follow their usual practice. They noted the suspension on the website just as they do for any negative outcome of a Hearing or Administrative penalty.
    Over the years there have been reversals of suspensions. Rarely, but it does happen. I have never seen USEF publish details in the Rules/Suspensions sections regarding ANY reversal of fine/penalty.
    Which is why no one knows what the rules really are. Lack of transparency is rift throughout the USEF. Alan Balch was addressing that when he was president of AHSA and USAEq. When he left, the organization went back to muddy.

    Problem with using previous US proceedings as precedent in this case is that the Rules Changed in December 2011. The FEI required all National Federations to run their FEI discipline competitions under FEI drug rules as far as sanctions, procedures, and drugs and their levels were concerned. They do not seem to have required the NFs to adopt their Person Responsible rule. The USEF did not, so in USEF national competitions in FEI disciplines, the trainer is still responsible, but the sanctions and procedures are supposed to be those in the FEI drug rules. That should mean that previous penalties are still precedents for everything but jumpers, eventers, dressagers, vaulters, reiners, drivers, and Para-dressagers.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire



  11. #51
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vineyridge View Post
    Which is why no one knows what the rules really are. Lack of transparency is rift throughout the USEF. Alan Balch was addressing that when he was president of AHSA and USAEq. When he left, the organization went back to muddy.

    Problem with using previous US proceedings as precedent in this case is that the Rules Changed in December 2011. The FEI required all National Federations to run their FEI discipline competitions under FEI drug rules as far as sanctions, procedures, and drugs and their levels were concerned. They do not seem to have required the NFs to adopt their Person Responsible rule. The USEF did not, so in USEF national competitions in FEI disciplines, the trainer is still responsible, but the sanctions and procedures are supposed to be those in the FEI drug rules. That should mean that previous penalties are still precedents for everything but jumpers, eventers, dressagers, vaulters, reiners, drivers, and Para-dressagers.
    But since Dec 2011 this case is the ONLY one that resulted in this severe a penalty. I doubt that FEI drug/medication penalties are being applied in all jumper dvisions. In fact, I'm quite sure of that looking at recent fines/suspensions.
    Fan of Sea Accounts



  12. #52
    Join Date
    Aug. 14, 2000
    Location
    Clarksdale, MS--the golden buckle on the cotton belt
    Posts
    17,652

    Default

    Yes, but remember that the USEF negotiated an exception some time last year with the FEI for some part of the FEI Rules per the USEF vet at the USHJA convention. Molly66 says it was for sanctions. Both the USEF and the FEI ought to be asked about this.

    Can't have stiff sanctions in the US for doping. They might actually work.
    "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
    Thread killer Extraordinaire


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #53
    Join Date
    Jun. 17, 2001
    Location
    down the road from bar.ka
    Posts
    30,699

    Default

    Bad COTH form to not read everything but I don't have time so will just jump in with a quick observation...

    I my job of the last 25 years, working front line for an airline, I handle many personal items belong to members of the traveling public, bags coats, assist devices, electronic devices, trash, dirty food service items, used the bathroom right after them, sat in still warm seats after they left. Thats everybody from Juan and Manuel to Betty Braider to vets, farriers and quite a few leading riders as well as pro atheletes from a variety of other major sports. Even handled cash and credit cards from them.

    About once a year I pee in a cup with NO advance notice at any time before, after or during my work day and it is a very specifically targeted and increasingly sensitive test for drug use. ANY presence in ANY amount results in immediate dismissal and possible charges up to the federal level.

    I am still working.

    Sooo...that incidental transferrence never washed with me.
    When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

    The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    14,651

    Default

    To clarify, when I said "lie down with dogs" I wasn't intending to make a moral judgment on drug use. At all. Just saying, if the people who handle your horses have drugs all over their hands, are sloppy (peeing on the hay? washing hands in water buckets), or are using drugs around the horses, then it's an expected consequence that your horses are going to be exposed to that residue. If you have employees who don't use drugs or keep them away from the barn then you don't have that exposure. I don't really care what the people who handle my horses do in their spare time-- but I don't want them exposing my horses to cocaine!
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/



  15. #55
    Join Date
    Dec. 26, 2000
    Posts
    3,638

    Default

    Well John Madden's murky statement certainly did not advance the cause of "the good of the sport."

    If anything, it dealt it a huge setback.

    Maybe the NY Times will get to the bottom of it.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    May. 17, 2000
    Location
    Where am I and what am I doing in this handbasket?
    Posts
    23,340

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PINE TREE FARM SC View Post
    USEF did follow their usual practice. They noted the suspension on the website just as they do for any negative outcome of a Hearing or Administrative penalty.
    Over the years there have been reversals of suspensions. Rarely, but it does happen. I have never seen USEF publish details in the Rules/Suspensions sections regarding ANY reversal of fine/penalty.
    Yes, and to be fair, I don't think they need to release the transcripts of hearings and the "sausage making" - but I think if the affected parties want to release that information, it should be within their right. For all I know they may have that right, but somehow I suspect they do not have access to any of that information without seeking legal recourse.


    *************************

    If you think just because you have never been informed of a positive test that means you never tested positive for cocaine, you might want to think again.
    Quest publishes their standard guideline for testing and accepted cut off levels. There is a notable lack of "0's" on this list.

    http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home.../urine-testing

    And Quest is about as big as it gets (globally) for lab testing, it's a fair bet that even if they have not done the testing, they either set or use the default standard for employee drug testing. You don't hear about anything that falls below the cutoff line, I suspect the testing lab doesn't even pass that information on, just information like "Fail/cocaine/metabolites of cocaine" due to privacy issues.
    Definition of "Horse": a 4 legged mammal looking for an inconvenient place and expensive way to die. Any day they choose not to execute the Master Plan is just more time to perfect it. Be Very Afraid.



  17. #57
    Join Date
    May. 2, 2012
    Location
    AIKEN SC
    Posts
    243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DMK View Post
    Yes, and to be fair, I don't think they need to release the transcripts of hearings and the "sausage making" - but I think if the affected parties want to release that information, it should be within their right. For all I know they may have that right, but somehow I suspect they do not have access to any of that information without seeking legal recourse.


    *************************

    If you think just because you have never been informed of a positive test that means you never tested positive for cocaine, you might want to think again.
    Quest publishes their standard guideline for testing and accepted cut off levels. There is a notable lack of "0's" on this list.

    http://www.questdiagnostics.com/home.../urine-testing

    And Quest is about as big as it gets (globally) for lab testing, it's a fair bet that even if they have not done the testing, they either set or use the default standard for employee drug testing. You don't hear about anything that falls below the cutoff line, I suspect the testing lab doesn't even pass that information on, just information like "Fail/cocaine/metabolites of cocaine" due to privacy issues.
    I suspect that it would be a legal nightmare to release details of a a reversed penalty for both USEF and the owner/trainer/rider.

    USEF rules do mention 12 months for a max drug penalty.

    "subject to whatever penalty is assessed by the Hearing Committee, except for administrative penalties issued by the Chairman of the Equine Drugs and Medications Committee and accepted, as provided by GR412. Said trainer may be fined and may be suspended from all participation in Licensed Competitions for a period of one year for the first offense, and for a longer period for a second or later offense, said suspension to be served at any time at the discretion of the Hearing Committee".

    Of course the rule does seem to make a distinction between Admin penalties and Hearing Committee penalties. Not seeing anything now or in prior rule books that indicate jumpers are liable for FEI testing rules at the National level.
    In the case of the person being discussed I can't find any prior cases but I've only searched as far back as 2007.

    As far as test results for a 'human' for metabolites of coke there is indeed a threshold. But if tellers who handle bills all day are below the level it's hard to believe that a 1000 ( or more ) horse would test positive for a secondary contamination from a person who is feeding and may have handled money prior to feeding. That's why I don't buy that defense.

    Don't see anything in the rules that says that jumpers are subject to FEI rules at the non FEI level. If that was the case many older chldrens/adult jumpers get a little bute and they would be 'illegal' under FEI rules. Not seeing any penalties for that situation.

    Stacking penalties, yes but not FEI type penalties for no meds allowed.
    Fan of Sea Accounts


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2003
    Posts
    1,224

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by vxf111 View Post
    Just saying, if the people who handle your horses have drugs all over their hands,
    I've said this before and I'll say it again: people who use cocaine (or any other drug) do not walk around with it all over their hands. They do everything possible to ensure that it ends up IN their bodies, not ON their bodies. They're not likely to share it for free with their drug-using friends, let alone spread it around carelessly to every unsuspecting person/horse/inanimate object that they touch.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Oct. 6, 2002
    Location
    Philadelphia PA
    Posts
    14,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ynl063w View Post
    I've said this before and I'll say it again: people who use cocaine (or any other drug) do not walk around with it all over their hands. They do everything possible to ensure that it ends up IN their bodies, not ON their bodies. They're not likely to share it for free with their drug-using friends, let alone spread it around carelessly to every unsuspecting person/horse/inanimate object that they touch.

    I agree and find the idea of contamination coming from traces on the hands to be a little farfetched. But assuming for the sake of argument... no I do not think people who handle living creatures should be so sloppy so as to have cocaine all over their hands and/or be using it close in proximity to when they handle the animals and/or have it on their person when handling animals such that it might contaminate the animals.
    ~Veronica
    "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
    http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/



  20. #60
    Join Date
    Oct. 26, 2000
    Location
    Tempe, AZ
    Posts
    1,765

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ynl063w View Post
    I've said this before and I'll say it again: people who use cocaine (or any other drug) do not walk around with it all over their hands. They do everything possible to ensure that it ends up IN their bodies, not ON their bodies. They're not likely to share it for free with their drug-using friends, let alone spread it around carelessly to every unsuspecting person/horse/inanimate object that they touch.
    Unlike blowing some pot smoke in the dog's nose for a college "hoot," I cannot imagine anyone sharing their pricey blow with a horse for kicks.

    They'd lick it off their own darn hands before it got rubbed on the horse's gums.

    Well...maybe after doing a couple huge rails, they sneezed the coke into Pookie's bran mash & decided it wasn't worth trying to hoover back up, but otherwise? I don't buy "accidental" exposure claims.
    ~ Horse Box Lovers Clique ~


    2 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. COTH American Horses in Sport Issue
    By vineyridge in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: Feb. 5, 2013, 01:32 PM
  2. Odd Question--John Madden
    By vineyridge in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Jun. 9, 2012, 09:21 PM
  3. COTH American Horses In Sport issue lacking hunter bloodlines
    By Deepinmanure in forum Sport Horse Breeding
    Replies: 94
    Last Post: May. 3, 2011, 06:23 PM
  4. John Madden Fundamentals DVD
    By Gry2Yng in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Jul. 8, 2010, 09:06 PM
  5. Beezie and John Madden
    By Maryanne Nicpon in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Aug. 8, 2009, 08:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
randomness