The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69
  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jun. 17, 2001
    Location
    down the road from bar.ka
    Posts
    31,864

    Default

    Exactly, right now its a minimum fine and the old "wrong bucket, new employee, honest mistake or "they said it wouldn't test"" excuses from the trainer whether s/he signed as trainer or had a groom or van driver do it.

    Slap a bigger fine and longer suspension on the owner of record who signs the checks...or fine and suspend the LLC, partnership or syndicate who likewise provide the funding for dishonest trainers to continue cheating.
    When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

    The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midge View Post
    I think the owner is an excellent choice. Not having care, custody or control should not absolve one from being the ultimate person responsible for the well being of their own horse. The owner decides who is going to train their horse. The trainer also has a good bit of incentive. At the very least a set down owner, and their horses, can't show. At the worst, the trainer has lost a customer and everyone will know why.
    I'm surprised so many of you want to give the trainer a free pass to violate the rules. Maybe a lot of the posters ARE trainers. LOL.

    Losing one client isn't going to hurt a trainer but a trainer being suspended for 6 months or so puts a dent in their pocketbook. At least for showing fees.

    If you suspend an owner for somethig they have no control over it's going to make a bunch of great court cases against USEF. Leaving the trainer out of the equation means no more notices on USEF's website. I fnd those notices handy to avoid dealing with trainers with a drug or medication violation history.

    Owners if suspended will simply transfer ownership of their horses to another individual and life goes on.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug. 1, 2007
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,231

    Default

    Suspend them all. The owner, the trainer, the rider (excluding Juniors, because they don't really get to have a say in the matter). All of them.

    Shoot, slap a suspension on the HORSE while you're at it, too! Take a horse out of commission for a month, and see how that turns out for the trainer/owner/guilty party who doped it. Suspended horse = horse not showing = horse decreases in value = trainer's stock declines = ........
    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


    9 members found this post helpful.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Apr. 1, 2006
    Posts
    995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    I'm surprised so many of you want to give the trainer a free pass to violate the rules. Maybe a lot of the posters ARE trainers. LOL.

    Losing one client isn't going to hurt a trainer but a trainer being suspended for 6 months or so puts a dent in their pocketbook. At least for showing fees.

    If you suspend an owner for somethig they have no control over it's going to make a bunch of great court cases against USEF. Leaving the trainer out of the equation means no more notices on USEF's website. I fnd those notices handy to avoid dealing with trainers with a drug or medication violation history.

    Owners if suspended will simply transfer ownership of their horses to another individual and life goes on.
    I think the idea is that penalizing the owner allows the whole "who is signing for trainer" on entry blanks issue go away.

    And it will penalize them, indirectly. Owner's aren't going to play with trainers who drug. Too much risk. They'll move to a different barn (hopefully) and the trainer will lose a significant part of their program unless they clean it up.

    In some cases, it's not black and white that the trainer should be responsible, particularly with the USEF definition of trainer that says it's the person responsible for the care of the horse that is held responsible.

    That's what's tricky....it's not always the same person at fault. One could make a case for the Trainer, the barn manager, the owner, the rider, and the groom being responsible, and depending on the situation, any of them could be!

    At the end of the day, though, it's the owner's responsibility to have the horse in the care of a professional that plays by the rules. Obviously, the owner may be unaware of what is going on initially, but how many owners have left the big barns that are drugging? Not enough! Clearly the owners out there don't care or aren't knowledgeable or involved enough to make sure this isn't happening.

    I think it makes sense to penalize the owner or suspend the horse, or both. Owners need to become engaged and responsible and stop playing the ignorant card to avoid making hard decisions! It's the Owner's ultimate responsibility to make sure their horse is being cared for and is playing by the rules, and that means patronizing ethical trainers. Which are hard to find. I know for a fact that one of the biggest and successful barns in the country uses Mag as a matter of course. This is a change that has to be influential enough to change everything, everywhere.

    The horse doesn't get hurt from not showing for a few months, and neither the trainer or the owner want a horse to be benched, so maybe that's a good direction to go.
    It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. (Aristotle)


    3 members found this post helpful.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ybiaw View Post
    Shoot, slap a suspension on the HORSE while you're at it, too! Take a horse out of commission for a month, and see how that turns out for the trainer/owner/guilty party who doped it. Suspended horse = horse not showing = horse decreases in value = trainer's stock declines = ........
    'trainer's stock declines'?
    Why would you think that would happen.
    Look at current events.
    Trainer can get 3 over the limit med violations within a year and still grace the cover of the USHJA magazine.

    And no, horses who have been involved in drug or med violations do not decrease in value. If their show record is good that's all that matters.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Location
    12th floor of the Acme building in a city that knows how to keep it's secrets.
    Posts
    4,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post

    Owners if suspended will simply transfer ownership of their horses to another individual and life goes on.
    Quote Originally Posted by Midge
    At the very least a set down owner, and their horses,
    If the horses can't show, no one will want them. I have no problem suspending the trainer, too. But, if you want to make a difference, hit the owner. How many owners will have to get suspended before it hits the trainer's bottom line? I bet two, and all the other customers will be looking around for trainers with no suspended customers.

    If the USEF would be more pro-horse and less pro-horse show, owners would also have an easy time of determining who's a good guy and who's not.
    *****
    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mac123 View Post
    .

    And it will penalize them, indirectly. Owner's aren't going to play with trainers who drug. Too much risk. They'll move to a different barn (hopefully) and the trainer will lose a significant part of their program unless they clean it up.

    In some cases, it's not black and white that the trainer should be responsible, particularly with the USEF definition of trainer that says it's the person responsible for the care of the horse that is held responsible.
    .
    /B] It's the Owner's ultimate responsibility to make sure their horse is being cared for and is playing by the rules, and that means patronizing ethical trainers. Which are hard to find. I know for a fact that one of the biggest and successful barns in the country uses Mag as a matter of course. This is a change that has to be influential enough to change everything, everywhere.

    The horse doesn't get hurt from not showing for a few months, and neither the trainer or the owner want a horse to be benched, so maybe that's a good direction to go.
    If you think owners will avoid trainers who drug I'm sure there are several people who will be glad to sell you a bridge or two. It's all about who is winning. Owners aren't avoiding those trainers now because they win regardless of drug/med history.

    Under USEF rules it is black and white. Whoever signs as trainer takes the fall. How is that not clear?

    Mag is not illegal. What's your point?

    The trainer could care less if the horse is benched. There is always another client just around the corner.

    Under your suggestions this would be a great time to be a trainer. Drug, over medicate whatever and have no responsibility. I'm sure a lot of trainers would vote for this approach too !!



  8. #28
    Join Date
    Jun. 17, 2001
    Location
    down the road from bar.ka
    Posts
    31,864

    Default

    When I suggest going after the owner with something more then a wrist slap? I don't mean instead of the trainer, I mean along WITH the trainer.

    It's the only way to get the cheating trainers out of business- ethical owners will no longer fall for the "everybody does it" or various excuses or allow the trainer to intimidate them into allowing it or defy owner instructions and use it anyway if it stings the owner enough. They will not stay in that barn despite trainer BS.
    When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

    The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Mar. 5, 2007
    Posts
    1,704

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Midge View Post
    If the horses can't show, no one will want them. I have no problem suspending the trainer, too. But, if you want to make a difference, hit the owner. How many owners will have to get suspended before it hits the trainer's bottom line? I bet two, and all the other customers will be looking around for trainers with no suspended customers.

    If the USEF would be more pro-horse and less pro-horse show, owners would also have an easy time of determining who's a good guy and who's not.
    Many BNT's have upwards of 25 customers. Dump two. Makes no difference, they just acquire two more off their waiting list.



  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jul. 10, 2001
    Location
    12th floor of the Acme building in a city that knows how to keep it's secrets.
    Posts
    4,914

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    Many BNT's have upwards of 25 customers. Dump two. Makes no difference, they just acquire two more off their waiting list.
    Many with 25 owners? No.
    *****
    You will not rise to the occasion, you will default to your level of training.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    Many BNT's have upwards of 25 customers. Dump two. Makes no difference, they just acquire two more off their waiting list.
    If the owner AND the trainer are both suspended for months (plural) on end, the trainer's waiting list might shrink a bit. There is not much point switching to a new trainer who can't go to shows for months if you're looking for a successful show trainer in the first place.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  12. #32
    Join Date
    Aug. 1, 2007
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post
    'trainer's stock declines'?
    Why would you think that would happen.
    Look at current events.
    Trainer can get 3 over the limit med violations within a year and still grace the cover of the USHJA magazine.

    And no, horses who have been involved in drug or med violations do not decrease in value. If their show record is good that's all that matters.
    I think my point was that if you put the horse out of commission, it affects all parties in one fell swoop. A horse that's suspended can't show, thus can't compile a show record and/or may miss important events. Right? Pisses the owners off if their horse can't compete, which affects the trainer's reputation...

    I'm excited to go to the Town Hall meeting on the 27th. I think it'll be really interesting to hear what people have to say for themselves and what they propose to change.
    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  13. #33
    Join Date
    Aug. 22, 2009
    Posts
    1,016

    Default

    I was able to sign and I"m not a USEF member - I signed with my FB account.



  14. #34
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ybiaw View Post

    I'm excited to go to the Town Hall meeting on the 27th. I think it'll be really interesting to hear what people have to say for themselves and what they propose to change.
    I really hope the Chronicle covers these meetings extensively. I am also interested to hear what people have to say, or if they say anything.

    I believe there is a large contingent of big name trainers and owners who do not want any change at all.
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy: http://tinyurl.com/kj7x53c
    Stash: http://tinyurl.com/mmm3p4e


    1 members found this post helpful.

  15. #35
    Join Date
    Jun. 26, 2012
    Posts
    673

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by S A McKee View Post


    Mag is not illegal. What's your point?
    GR410 1. a.
    "Any stimulant, depressant, tranquilizer, local anesthetic, psychotropic (mood
    and/or behavior altering) substance, or drug which might affect the performance
    of a horse and/or pony (stimulants and/or depressants are defined as substances
    which stimulate or depress the cardiovascular, respiratory or central nervous
    systems), or any metabolite and/or analogue of any such substance or drug, except
    as expressly permitted by this rule."


    I believe that would make ANYTHING, naturally occurring in the body or not, illegal if used with intent to alter the horse.



  16. #36
    Join Date
    Aug. 1, 2007
    Location
    West Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    4,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bayboys View Post
    I really hope the Chronicle covers these meetings extensively. I am also interested to hear what people have to say, or if they say anything.

    I believe there is a large contingent of big name trainers and owners who do not want any change at all.
    Well I'll be there taking notes (may even record it if I am permitted to do so), and will try to either post something here about it or blog somewhere about it and share the link.
    Yeah, well, you know, that's just, like, your opinion, man.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Jan. 9, 2003
    Posts
    1,317

    Default

    The important point that no one is taking into consideration is that, despite all the testing that happens, very few people get set down. The drugs that are the real problem are the ones for which there is NO TEST. Consequently, no matter how harsh the punishments might become, nothing will change until the actual tests that are available can detect the latest and greatest drug(s) that is out there being used by "everyone".

    There is a huge gap between the drug testing capabilities of today and the drugs that are currently being used. Until this gap is closed, harsher penalties aren't going to have much, if any, impact.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  18. #38
    Join Date
    Nov. 14, 2011
    Location
    racetrack
    Posts
    1,606

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by findeight View Post
    What about kids, especially little ones? And then would you have a cut off where a 14 year old would be fined and suspended because "they should know" while a 13 year old would not? What about catch riders that do not have care custody and control or short term leasers? What about owners who pay for it whether they know it or it gets hidden in creative billing?

    The way to change exsisting policies is to initiate rule change proposals in the specific discipline...and no, they are not going to consider suggestions from non members who very rarely or never show at their shows. No sporting club or organization does that.

    USEF should be ashamed of itself for sure but members have to be the ones to communicate their feelings..after all, we pay for it.

    First, I'll say that most kids and all teens on the show circuit, KNOW what goes on. I say why not suspend or penalize them? They want to play with the big boys, they follow the rules an accept the consequences. However we obviously can't hold them to anything legally, so I doubt they could be fined, however for the kiddos I'm sure suspension would be sufficient.


    Catch riders, I repeat: pull your heads out of the sand. Enforce the rules and pretty soon nobody will ride for the drug-heads. It's high time someone steps up and takes a little initiative, and the current rule clearly does not promote that. Change it.

    "Pat the horse; kick yourself" - Carl Hester


    1 members found this post helpful.

  19. #39
    Join Date
    Oct. 28, 2007
    Location
    Pacific Northwest
    Posts
    633

    Default

    too bad we don't have yardarms anymore. Hang 'em
    Discipline is the Bridge between Dreams and Accomplishments


    1 members found this post helpful.

  20. #40
    Join Date
    Aug. 12, 2001
    Location
    Trailer Trash Ammy!
    Posts
    19,520

    Default

    I'm with Angelico - horse, owner, trainer and rider should get suspended even if rider is a junior or ammy.

    Wish I could sign, but honestly after what I saw at the Natl. Horse Show, hell will pretty much freeze over before I'll rejoin.

    Honestly, I'll be very surprised if the Town Halls are anything other than a Power Point presentation by the D&M Department to make sure we all rly, rly, RLY understand Da Roolz. Not sure if it's worth driving 8 hours for that.
    "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief



Similar Threads

  1. Sign the Horse Anti-Doping Petition to USEF
    By Rabbitman9 in forum Eventing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb. 26, 2012, 11:43 PM
  2. Sign the Horse Anti-Doping Petition to USEF
    By Rabbitman9 in forum Off Course
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: Feb. 26, 2012, 10:22 PM
  3. Sign the Horse Anti-Doping Petition to USEF
    By Rabbitman9 in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: Feb. 25, 2012, 12:05 PM
  4. Sign the Horse Anti-Doping Petition to USEF
    By Rabbitman9 in forum Dressage
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Feb. 25, 2012, 09:31 AM
  5. USEF - WHY ALL THE PENALTIES?
    By OAK in forum Hunter/Jumper
    Replies: 215
    Last Post: Aug. 16, 2005, 08:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

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