• 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

  • WIHS: Who's signing as trainer?

    I was watching WIHS online and messing around on the WIHS site, and I figured out how to pull trainer's reports for the week. So I put in a couple numbers just for kicks and made some interesting discoveries.

    Peggy Gehman is listed as trainer for Scott Stewart's horses.

    Gerardo Escalara is listed as trainer for Heritage's entries.

    Louise Serio, Alex Jayne, Archie Cox, Winn Alden, Cookie Beck, Elizabeth Solter and Aaron Vale all sign their own. Carelton Brooks' wife signs for his horses and Tony Workman signs for Tom Brennan, as expected. Amanda Derbyshire signs for the Gochman horses, but I know she's part of the "home crew" for the Gochmans.

    It should be interesting to see who signs for other barns as we progress through the week.
    Life would be infinitely better if pinatas suddenly appeared throughout the day.

  • #2
    Interesting. It's nice to see some people being "upfront". Too bad some others aren't..

    Comment


    • #3
      Hmmm...veeery interesting
      Holy crap, how does Darwin keep missing you? ~Lauruffian

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Sing Mia Song View Post
        I was watching WIHS online and messing around on the WIHS site, and I figured out how to pull trainer's reports for the week. So I put in a couple numbers just for kicks and made some interesting discoveries.

        Peggy Gehman is listed as trainer for Scott Stewart's horses.

        Gerardo Escalara is listed as trainer for Heritage's entries.

        Louise Serio, Alex Jayne, Archie Cox, Winn Alden, Cookie Beck, Elizabeth Solter and Aaron Vale all sign their own. Carelton Brooks' wife signs for his horses and Tony Workman signs for Tom Brennan, as expected. Amanda Derbyshire signs for the Gochman horses, but I know she's part of the "home crew" for the Gochmans.

        It should be interesting to see who signs for other barns as we progress through the week.
        Not sure what your point is.
        The 'trainer' is the person responsible for care custody and control, not the rider. So unless you know who has care custody and control you can't read too much into who signs.

        Although one of the riders you mention had three medication violations within a few months so perhaps that individual doesn't want any more vacation time.

        Often a horse can be boarded at barn A and the rider comes from barn B. In that case someone from barn A ( or the owner ) should sign as trainer.

        Are you saying that you know the roles of all the individuals you mentioned or where all the horses as boarded?

        Comment


        • #5
          The person listed may be the barn manager or head groom. The trainer that stands at the in gate or rides the horse is probably not the one doing the feed and supplements (and medication), it is the grooms and/or manager and therefore whoever is in charge of that should also be signing off for the care of the horses.

          Comment


          • #6
            But, REALLY???

            I mean, I guess I understand the intention behind the distinction between trainer/coach- that makes sense when you have people meeting trainers at shows vs. boarding with trainers in barns. Obviously a trainer that has absolutely no involvement with the day to day care of a horse is not going to take the liability of signing the trainer line for a client that's meeting them at a horse show.

            But I really don't believe this distinction was intended to free up trainers from the responsibility of answering for drugs/meds violations simply because they aren't the ones physically feeding at the horse shows. They're the ones giving out the instructions. It's not like the groom or the wife is designing the medication program for the string.

            Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone at WIHS of anything shady.
            Here today, gone tomorrow...

            Comment


            • #7
              As it's intended to be the person responsible that signs as trainer, why don't they change it to actually say that?
              Go Ahead: This is a dare, not permission. Don't Do It!

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by FrenchFrytheEqHorse View Post
                But, REALLY???

                I mean, I guess I understand the intention behind the distinction between trainer/coach- that makes sense when you have people meeting trainers at shows vs. boarding with trainers in barns. Obviously a trainer that has absolutely no involvement with the day to day care of a horse is not going to take the liability of signing the trainer line for a client that's meeting them at a horse show.

                But I really don't believe this distinction was intended to free up trainers from the responsibility of answering for drugs/meds violations simply because they aren't the ones physically feeding at the horse shows. They're the ones giving out the instructions. It's not like the groom or the wife is designing the medication program for the string.

                Just to be clear, I'm not accusing anyone at WIHS of anything shady.
                I agree wholeheartedly.
                Holy crap, how does Darwin keep missing you? ~Lauruffian

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by iEquitate View Post
                  The person listed may be the barn manager or head groom. The trainer that stands at the in gate or rides the horse is probably not the one doing the feed and supplements (and medication), it is the grooms and/or manager and therefore whoever is in charge of that should also be signing off for the care of the horses.
                  Who is in charge of designing and overseeing the feeding/supplements/medication program in your barn?

                  Is it your groom/barn manager? Or is it your trainer in tandem with your vet?

                  When your horse feels a little stiff (let's assume this is age related, not an injury) and you think a supplement or medication might help, do you ask your groom or barn manager about it? Or do you ask your trainer?
                  Here today, gone tomorrow...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by FrenchFrytheEqHorse View Post
                    Who is in charge of designing and overseeing the feeding/supplements/medication program in your barn?

                    Is it your groom/barn manager? Or is it your trainer in tandem with your vet?

                    When your horse feels a little stiff (let's assume this is age related, not an injury) and you think a supplement or medication might help, do you ask your groom or barn manager about it? Or do you ask your trainer?
                    Exactly.

                    While, yes, a groom may be administering supplements or medication, the trainer is dictating who gets what and when—and thus should bear responsibility.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      The entry asks for "trainer." Not barn manager, groom or babysitter. None of the aforementioned positions have anything to do with "training." They don't physically train, ride/show or instruct. They may be completing the entry for the trainer, but it's the trainer's responsibility to sign off on it.

                      If anyone involved with a particular barn can sign the entry as "trainer," then what's the point of asking anyone to sign at all?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Go Fish View Post
                        The entry asks for "trainer." Not barn manager, groom or babysitter. None of the aforementioned positions have anything to do with "training." They don't physically train, ride/show or instruct. They may be completing the entry for the trainer, but it's the trainer's responsibility to sign off on it.

                        If anyone involved with a particular barn can sign the entry as "trainer," then what's the point of asking anyone to sign at all?

                        Again, per the USEF rules, the signature of the "trainer" on an entry from is to denote the person with PRIMARY responsibility for the horse at the show. I sign as my own trainer at every show, even though I train with somebody.

                        A trainer is the one who will take the blame if a violation of the rules is discovered.

                        Your definition of a trainer is the coach.

                        The rule:

                        GR147:
                        1) Any adult who has the responsibility for the care, training custody, or performance of a horse.
                        2) Said person must sign the entry blank of any Licensed Competition whether said person is owner, rider, agent and/or coach as well as trainer.
                        3) Parent or guardian of minors will take on role of trainer. (paraphrase here)
                        4) Name of trainer must be designated on said entry blank. See also GR404.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by RAyers View Post

                          The rule:

                          GR147:
                          1) Any adult who has the responsibility for the care, training custody, or performance of a horse.
                          2) Said person must sign the entry blank of any Licensed Competition whether said person is owner, rider, agent and/or coach as well as trainer.
                          3) Parent or guardian of minors will take on role of trainer. (paraphrase here)
                          4) Name of trainer must be designated on said entry blank. See also GR404.
                          So the grooms and barn managers have limited responsibility for the care of many horses in certain set ups and environments. Fair enough. But the training custody and performance?

                          I still have a hard time believing it was the intention of the USEF to see this rule used in such a manner when they created it. To have entire medication programs designed by one person and then signed off on by another seems somewhat backward to me. Particularly when it's the trainer (non-signatory) doing the hiring of the Trainer (signatory) in most cases.
                          Here today, gone tomorrow...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Mental note: If I ever lose my moral compass, start cheating, and get caught and suspended, I just need to have someone else in my barn who takes orders from me sign as trainer, so I can keep doing the same stuff, just under someone's name.

                            Got it. Reason #1Million to love a good loop hole.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Go Fish View Post
                              The entry asks for "trainer." Not barn manager, groom or babysitter. None of the aforementioned positions have anything to do with "training." They don't physically train, ride/show or instruct. They may be completing the entry for the trainer, but it's the trainer's responsibility to sign off on it.

                              If anyone involved with a particular barn can sign the entry as "trainer," then what's the point of asking anyone to sign at all?
                              I tend to agree with this!

                              FWIW, I usually always see Andre listed as trainer for his students, so its a bit odd to see a different name listed. He has apparently never been bothered before by having his name listed as "trainer". So maybe this time he was ill, away, lazy () or there is something afoot that only those in the know know about!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by FrenchFrytheEqHorse View Post
                                So the grooms and barn managers have limited responsibility for the care of many horses in certain set ups and environments. Fair enough. But the training custody and performance?
                                First off, there is a comma between "training" and "custody". Secondly, ther is an "or", not an "and".
                                It is
                                1) Any adult who has the responsibility for the care, training, custody, or performance of a horse.
                                If different people are involved in "care", "training", "custody", "performance", you get to pick which one will sign as "Trainer".

                                Whoever signed as trainer is, prima facie, the "person responsible" if a drug test comes back positive.

                                But the Hearing Committe CAN use common sense, and I HAVE seen cases where someone who did not sign as "Trainer" has been hit with the penalty for the drug result.
                                Janet

                                chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Go Fish View Post
                                  The entry asks for "trainer." Not barn manager, groom or babysitter. None of the aforementioned positions have anything to do with "training." They don't physically train, ride/show or instruct.
                                  The USEF definition of "Trainer" is different from the way it is commonly used.

                                  ..responsibility for the care, training, custody, or performance of a horse
                                  includes barn managers, grooms, riders, OR coaches.

                                  USEF has a separate definition for "coach".
                                  Janet

                                  chief feeder and mucker for Music, Spy, Belle and Tiara. Someone else is now feeding and mucking for Chief and Brain (both foxhunting now).

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Janet View Post
                                    First off, there is a comma between "training" and "custody". Secondly, ther is an "or", not an "and".
                                    It is


                                    If different people are involved in "care", "training", "custody", "performance", you get to pick which one will sign as "Trainer".

                                    Whoever signed as trainer is, prima facie, the "person responsible" if a drug test comes back positive.

                                    But the Hearing Committe CAN use common sense, and I HAVE seen cases where someone who did not sign as "Trainer" has been hit with the penalty for the drug result.
                                    I grasp the foundation of this argument. As a junior, I showed with an ammy whose horses met us at shows, and spent a couple weeks at the barn here and there with my trainer. The owner still signed the entries as trainer, despite being in full training on occasion with my actual trainer. These horses had any number of disconnected people involved in their day-to-day/week-to-week care, and the owner took on the responsibility/liability of signing as trainer (for good reason).

                                    That being said, "placement of commas" really shouldn't allow John Smith to take the blame for those with more at stake in any circumstance. Janet, you would certainly know better than me if the Hearing Committee *regularly* (operative word) exercises common sense in cases where Trainer (signatory) signs in place of trainer (non-signatory).
                                    Here today, gone tomorrow...

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by FrenchFrytheEqHorse View Post
                                      I grasp the foundation of this argument. As a junior, I showed with an ammy whose horses met us at shows, and spent a couple weeks at the barn here and there with my trainer. The owner still signed the entries as trainer, despite being in full training on occasion with my actual trainer. These horses had any number of disconnected people involved in their day-to-day/week-to-week care, and the owner took on the responsibility/liability of signing as trainer (for good reason).
                                      Having the horse's owner sign as Trainer seems a whole 'nother ball of wax from having a random groom/BM/assistant/whatever sign as Trainer. The owner at least is ultimately the responsible party for the training, riding, care, custody, and control, because they've chosen who to pay to do those things for them/their horse. I don't have an issue with that at all, and I sign as Trainer for mine, because they're ultimately my responsibility.

                                      I do find it rather interesting, and honestly, I would be somewhere between "unhappy" and "suspicious" if my horse were one of those whose Trainer was someone other than the trainer. Which is probably why mine isn't in any of those programs

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by FrenchFrytheEqHorse View Post
                                        That being said, "placement of commas" really shouldn't allow John Smith to take the blame for those with more at stake in any circumstance. Janet, you would certainly know better than me if the Hearing Committee *regularly* (operative word) exercises common sense in cases where Trainer (signatory) signs in place of trainer (non-signatory).
                                        Sorry but placement of punctuation has a great deal to do with the meaning of a phrase.
                                        And the USEF Hearing Committee placing blame on a non signer is a very rare situation.

                                        Once more, the person riding the horse may not be the person who has responsibility for the horse under USEF rules.
                                        Simply riding the horse at a show means nothing as far as liability for drug infractions. Do not confuse the USEF rule with the FEI rule where the rider is the 'person responsible'.
                                        Many horses do not board with the person who is riding them.

                                        Signing as Coach prevents that person from taking any responsibility under the drug/medication rules. It simply means they are acting in some way as a trainer of the horse or rider but do not have any physical control over the horse.

                                        USEF definition of coach:

                                        "GR108 Coach .
                                        For purposes of these rules, a coach is defined as any adult or adults who receives remuneration for having or sharing the responsibility for instructing, teaching, schooling, or advising a rider, driver, handler or vaulter in equestrian skills."

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X