• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

WIHS: Who's signing as trainer?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by ynl063w View Post
    See, I think the buck stops with a different person depending on the individual situation as it pertains to each individual barn. Is there really ever one single person who is responsible? Isn't it up to each barn to decide who the ONE SINGLE person who will be listed on the entry as "trainer" (or maybe they could list more than one person)?

    I am far, far from the BNT examples given in this thread, but I will use myself as an example anyway. I, as owner of my horse, have very little knowledge most of the time as to what's going on with my horse. This is not because I don't care; it's because I am busy and I am lucky enough to have complete trust in those who ARE in control of his care. <SNIP>

    I am the kind of owner that most on this board believe shouldn't own a horse. I sometimes wonder why I BOUGHT this horse to begin with, but the fact is he's mine and I know he is happy and healthy. I don't feel bad about not seeing him, because I know he doesn't care about not seeing me. He is happy and I have complete trust in the people who are caring for him.

    Honestly, my horse doesn't give a crap who is taking care of him. <SNIP>

    This discussion really comes down to nothing more than a difference in the perceived meaning of the word "trainer". USEF would likely have been wise come up with a different word to describe the person with "care, custody, and control" of the horse. <SNIP>
    I appreciate your response -- and BTW I do not think that you are a "bad" owner or that you should not have a horse. You have opted to place your horse elsewhere in a situation that provides responsible care. There is nothing wrong with that decision and it is certainly better than keeping him and providing inadequate or marginal care. You made sure your horse was in a good situation and I agree that it probably does not matter to your horse who is providing his care.

    I also agree that there are a number of people involved in the care of a horse -- and that all of them should be responsible. However, - and this is where we may disagree - there has to be one person who has overall responsibility or oversight for the horse. Otherwise there is the potential for each of the parties providing pieces of the care to make decisions that are inconsistent with one another or worse contradict each other. The person with that overall responsibility is to my reading (and I am a lawyer) the person who in the truest sense has "care, custody, and control".

    My point is that training in the truest sense requires involvement in and responsibility for (not the physical doing of tasks) in all aspects of the horses program. I am not sure we want a world in which trainers do the training ride and teach the client and know nothing else of the preparation or treatment of the horse (or are not responsible for decisions in that area). True horsemanship requires more than that - and so should responsibility.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by Flash44 View Post
      Anyone other than me see a really big problem with trainers having this much say in the medical treatment of a horse? In the human world, athletes have "trainers" who are educated and work closely with doctors in the diagnosis and treatment of sports related conditions and injuries. They usually have college or higher level credentials to back them up. Show horse trainers are self proclaimed and there are NO educational or professional credentials that they need to maintain in order to run a barn full of equine athletes. IMHO, they have NO BUSINESS diagnosing medical conditions and administering medication to horses without consulting a licensed vet. I wonder why they are not charged with practicing veterinary medicine without a license when the medication administered was prescription only? It's about time that someone puts some teeth into the rules and makes trainers think twice about hauling their precious medication trunks around with them to shows.
      Interesting perspective -- but in the human athlete world, it is ultimately the athlete or their parents who accept and take the supplements that are offered or suggested for them. And often those offering supplements (as seen in the baseball world) are neither highly trained, highly educated, or ethical.

      The horse world is not so different on this dimension than other athletic sports. The key difference in other athletic sports is that we hold the athlete responsible because ultimately they make the decision to take or have treatment.

      Since it is impossible to hold the horse responsible (having said that perhaps we could simply make the horse the responsible party and prohibit the horse from competing), then the appropriate party is the one who has overall responsibility for the horses' program and in most cases these days that is the trainer.

      Comment


      • #83
        ynl063w, FWIW I don't think you're a bad owner AT ALL. But I do think that if you're the only one AT the show with knowledge of what meds your horse got and when-- you should probably be signing as "trainer" and letting your actual trainer just sign as "coach." Because by signing as trainer, she's putting her neck on the line if your barn manager screwed up the meds. It sounds like your trainer isn't affiliated with your banr/barn manager and you just meet the trainer at shows. Under those circumstances, she really is taking on more liability than she ought to be agreeing to sign as trainer.
        ~Veronica
        "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
        http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by ynl063w View Post
          Edited to add: Holy crap DMK, did you get the wrong impression of my first post here (please see above!) The BARN MANAGER is the one who carries out care per the VET when there are issues that require a vet; for minor issues that don't require a call to the vet, the BARN MANAGER is the one who makes the decisions. I get a phone call when needed, but that is simply to keep me in the loop. I am certainly not making care decisions regarding my horse's health and well being. I am NOT qualified to make those decisions, an as I said, I'm grateful to know that he is in the care of people who I trust to make those decisions.
          With all due respect, ynl, showing is a voluntary art form. You don't have to do it, but if you DO choose to do it, you agree to abide by the rules and accept responsibility for the consequences of violating those rules. Not saying that you are a nefarious thumber of noses to rules but my feeling is that you, as owner, made a decision to cede the decisions to the BM and you are paying him/her (well, I hope) to manage this work for you. Your reasons for doing this just aren't relevant to the discussion (in other words, I could care less that you have your horse on full board ) but it doesn't release you from the responsibility.

          In a situation involving anyone on full board, they should make sure the BM (and by extension, the vet and anyone mixing feed/medications) know that you are showing in an organization with certain rules for medications, what the rules for medications are and what your show schedule is, so they have the tools to manage this on your behalf. That is your responsibility and you (in my opinion) should be held accountable.

          Sure, in the real world, accidents happen, and ideally punishment is meted out with consideration for the real world we live in (my horse is not on full board, I am fully aware of the rules and if you don't think I've accidentally dumped a gram of bute in the show horse's feed bucket instead of the retiree's, you be wrong) but that still doesn't mean you get to skip even being considered for responsibility. Because from my perspective, that gives all the people who are looking for a way to gain that unfair advantage, an easy out.

          I think that relationship should hold true for trainers. The USEF has accepted an idea where a trainer holds more directive power to manage a horse than the traditional barn manager. Again, if those people with direct responsibility for medication are being hired and directed (vets) or directly employed (managers, grooms, riders. assistants) by that trainer, than I think that the trainer is ultimately accountable.

          But the FEI is on to something with the rider. I'm not sure I am quite at that place yet, but I think the owner probably needs to assume more responsibility than they currently do in situations where the trainer is managing the program, because owners like trainers who win, and that is its own pressure.
          Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

          Comment


          • #85
            The USEF trainer rules seems to have inherited from the race track, where the trainer is the person responsible, not the jockey, not the grooms, and it seems that feed buckets don't get mixed up as often.

            The FEI rule of rider is proving rather effective, I think, and is appropriate for riders at that level. At the USEF level, it would have interesting repercussions on the regular use of catch riders. I am not certain if it would be good or bad... but it would definitely be Interesting.

            I remain, however, with my conviction that the person who gets credit when the results are brilliant is the person who should get blame when the lab finds a problem. You can't say the 'trainer' is only responsible when things go right.
            If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

            Comment


            • #86
              If the owner isn't medicating, then whoever wants to see their name in the mag after testing should be signing. Maybe the "trainer" and "rider" should be signing, the more names that have to answer for what they are doing the better for a innocent owner.

              Comment


              • #87
                I have been watching this thread since the beginning and would like for someone to explain to me why this is anybody's business other then the people whose names are on the entry blanks.
                www.canterburyfarmchicago.com

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by Canterbury View Post
                  I have been watching this thread since the beginning and would like for someone to explain to me why this is anybody's business other then the people whose names are on the entry blanks.
                  I don't particularly care who signs for who on other people's entries but I think discussing the rule is a matter of interest/concern for anyone who shows USEF shows.
                  ~Veronica
                  "The Son Dee Times" "Sustained" "Somerset" "Franklin Square"
                  http://photobucket.com/albums/y192/vxf111/

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by Canterbury View Post
                    I have been watching this thread since the beginning and would like for someone to explain to me why this is anybody's business other then the people whose names are on the entry blanks.
                    While I'm sure some people would be much more comfortable if no one had noticed the (relatively new) practice of trainers shifting accountability for positive medication violatations to barn managers and grooms, many of us are not comfortable with it.
                    I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the rule and the attempt to avoid taking responsibility by those who choose to do this.

                    I really don't understand why you don't think this is a legitimate concern. It really is all about keeping the business above board and the horses protected against misuse of medications and banned substances.
                    Last edited by skydy; Nov. 2, 2012, 09:03 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by Canterbury View Post
                      I have been watching this thread since the beginning and would like for someone to explain to me why this is anybody's business other then the people whose names are on the entry blanks.
                      If it's become industry standard practice like so many other shady acts, it's everybody's business whether they know it or like it or not.
                      Thus do we growl that our big toes have, at this moment, been thrown up from below!

                      Comment


                      • #91
                        Originally posted by skydy View Post
                        While I'm sure some people would be much more comfortable if no one had noticed the (relatively new) practice of trainers shifting accountability for positive medication violatations to barn managers and grooms, many of us are not comfortable with it.
                        I think it is perfectly reasonable to discuss the rule and the attempt to avoid taking responsibility by those who choose to do this.

                        I really don't understand why you don't think this is a legitimate concern. It really is all about keeping the business above board and the horses protected against misuse of medications and banned substances.
                        This is how I see it...I guess it's true that you can fool some of the people all of the time.

                        I would have a difficult time giving my business to a trainer that skirted responsibility for a positive drug test by having an employee who is not a trainer sign the entry. The policy may be legal according to the rule, but I find it suspicious that any trainer wouldn't put their signature on the bottom line if they are in fact, running a clean business.
                        Surgeon General warns: "drinking every time Trump lies during the debate could result in acute alcohol poisoning."

                        Comment


                        • #92
                          I think, in conjunction with the discussion about Humble, that this thread illustrates another part of the problem with medications, that some trainers are electing to have relatively low ranking staff sign entry blanks as a regular policy decision.... for a reason that strongly appears to be "just in case."

                          I think USEF needs to address this as part of their look at rules reform.
                          If you are allergic to a thing, it is best not to put that thing in your mouth, particularly if the thing is cats. - Lemony Snicket

                          Comment


                          • #93
                            Originally posted by Canterbury View Post
                            I have been watching this thread since the beginning and would like for someone to explain to me why this is anybody's business other then the people whose names are on the entry blanks.
                            Maybe because a whole heck of a lot of us are getting awfully, AWFULLY tired of watching riders/trainers SKATE while the culpability gets dumped on a hapless hardworking underpaid GROOM??
                            "The standard you walk by is the standard you accept."--Lt. Gen. David Morrison, Austalian Army Chief

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X