Sport Horse Spotlight

calucci_cf_sq

Real Estate Spotlight

JR-1

Sale Spotlight

  • 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
No announcement yet.

Doping Takes Center Stage At USEF Convention

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

  • #81
    Originally posted by AllOverFarm View Post
    Quick question:
    Since Usef is not to concerned with making med changes....Would individual shows have that right?
    Say...if HITS made their own rules...if a horse dies at their show mandatory necropsy. If your horse is drug tested and it comes back positive....baned from hits shows for 6 months. Could they ban certain drugs? Dex for example?
    If I knew that a show had high standards to keep things honest, and the horses best interest at heart, I would think it would be a good selling point.
    In California, there are some different rules imposed via the state that are independent of USEF recognition. The state and USEF work together, though.
    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


    • #82
      Originally posted by poltroon View Post
      But they don't need it the same day they're competing.
      No, but if they're on the very common once-a-week schedule for those medications such as Adequan and Legend, the horses still need to get it if they're away from home for more than a week. So the meds and needles and syringes need to travel with them.

      Comment


      • #83
        I have a question about the Ted Stevens Act and how it relates to the USEF ability to impose temporary suspensions.

        The intent is to keep an NGB from keeping an athlete out of elite, olympic-selection competition, without due process.

        However, the person who is citing it is *not* an athlete. She is an owner and a trainer. I believe the Ted Stevens Act provision applies only to riders. If I am correct, the USEF rules can be adapted somewhat to show this distinction.
        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


        • #84
          Originally posted by MHM View Post
          No, but if they're on the very common once-a-week schedule for those medications such as Adequan and Legend, the horses still need to get it if they're away from home for more than a week. So the meds and needles and syringes need to travel with them.
          Are you guys competing these horses 7 days a week? What happened to Mondays?
          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

          • Original Poster

            #85
            Monday is a fine day to schedule those once a week injections. Yep.

            Comment


            • #86
              ACTH is a natural hormone that tells the adrenals to release corticosteroids. I would imagine its effect, like Dex, would depend on how much was given, and how often.

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                Are you guys competing these horses 7 days a week? What happened to Mondays?
                Mondays they might get hand walked, or turned out if there are paddocks available, or whatever. But if you're at a show like WEF or Hits or Kentucky for multiple weeks, you don't ship your horses hundreds of miles home on Sunday and drag them back to the show the next day. You keep them on the showgrounds, which means you need to have their weekly medications like Adequan or Legend on the showgrounds as well. Which you might give on a Monday.

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by Moderator 3 View Post
                  I will remind everyone to desist from personal attacks back and forth and concentrate on the original topic at hand, or the thread will be closed pronto.

                  Mod 3
                  Is COTH guaranteeing its users anonymity? I was merely stating a fact not attacking, if you consider that attacking then please remove the threads concerning criminal liability by a governmental employee who works in the attorney general's office which are utterly false.

                  To make things perfectly clear, their was no criminal wrongdoing even though I was falsely accused by individuals of doing so and there is no open criminal investigation into the death of Humble as has been falsely reported.

                  Humble was brought up by your [COTHs] article and I have a first amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

                  Please let the record stand that this is the second attorney COTH has given immunity to on its forum.
                  Elizabeth Mandarino
                  www.amberhillponies.com
                  cell 908.397.0977

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                    I have a question about the Ted Stevens Act and how it relates to the USEF ability to impose temporary suspensions.

                    The intent is to keep an NGB from keeping an athlete out of elite, olympic-selection competition, without due process.

                    However, the person who is citing it is *not* an athlete. She is an owner and a trainer. I believe the Ted Stevens Act provision applies only to riders. If I am correct, the USEF rules can be adapted somewhat to show this distinction.
                    No you are not correct. Please read http://amberhillponies.com/Amber_Hil...Directors.html
                    Elizabeth Mandarino
                    www.amberhillponies.com
                    cell 908.397.0977

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by poltroon View Post
                      I have a question about the Ted Stevens Act and how it relates to the USEF ability to impose temporary suspensions.

                      The intent is to keep an NGB from keeping an athlete out of elite, olympic-selection competition, without due process.

                      However, the person who is citing it is *not* an athlete. She is an owner and a trainer. I believe the Ted Stevens Act provision applies only to riders. If I am correct, the USEF rules can be adapted somewhat to show this distinction.
                      The Act applies to coaches and trainers as well as athletes. However, it is worth noting that the Act primarily outlines the role and responsibilities of an NGB, which are fairly extensive. The USEF's mission statement details those roles and responsibilities, which include protecting the welfare of the horses involved in the sport, as well as developing and enforcing the rules that govern it.

                      http://www.usef.org/_IFrames/AboutUs...t/Default.aspx
                      **********
                      We move pretty fast for some rabid garden snails.
                      -PaulaEdwina

                      Comment


                      • #91
                        Originally posted by Moderator 3 View Post
                        I will remind everyone to desist from personal attacks back and forth and concentrate on the original topic at hand, or the thread will be closed pronto.

                        Mod 3
                        Why not simply ban posters who cannot follow forum rules?

                        Comment


                        • #92
                          It is clear to me USEF could not care less about the drugging problem (other than the fact that it has been brought to light in the mainstream media).

                          Quizzes about the rules? A voluntary medication log book? Really??

                          No mention of increasing the penalties for D/M violations? That would be a (glaringly obvious) place to start. Having read that article I have no faith whatsoever that this situation will be addressed in any meaningful manner.

                          Great, make necropsy mandatory for the dead ponies and horses.

                          How about enacting rules that will keep them from dying in the first place?

                          Comment


                          • #93
                            Originally posted by amberhill View Post
                            Is COTH guaranteeing its users anonymity? I was merely stating a fact not attacking, if you consider that attacking then please remove the threads concerning criminal liability by a governmental employee who works in the attorney general's office which are utterly false.

                            To make things perfectly clear, their was no criminal wrongdoing even though I was falsely accused by individuals of doing so and there is no open criminal investigation into the death of Humble as has been falsely reported.

                            Humble was brought up by your [COTHs] article and I have a first amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

                            Please let the record stand that this is the second attorney COTH has given immunity to on its forum.

                            Comment


                            • #94
                              Excellent, and with a snow storm moving in!
                              <><

                              Comment


                              • #95
                                As a non-attorney, is it illegal for someone who works in law to give their legal opinion publicly? Just not sure why its a big deal whether 1) a poster is a lawyer 2) how that is relevant to whether they can post their own legal opinions (or advice).

                                But maybe once you enter law, you are held to a higher standard? On a related note- could a vet post proposed treatment and get sued if it killed the horse? I don't wish to derail the (already-derailed) thread, just trying to understand.

                                Comment


                                • #96
                                  Originally posted by amberhill View Post
                                  Is COTH guaranteeing its users anonymity? I was merely stating a fact not attacking, if you consider that attacking then please remove the threads concerning criminal liability by a governmental employee who works in the attorney general's office which are utterly false.

                                  Humble was brought up by your [COTHs] article and I have a first amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

                                  Please let the record stand that this is the second attorney COTH has given immunity to on its forum.
                                  Freedom of speech does not apply here, you are not allowed to use profanity and your topics must be related to the forum's parameters. Freedom of speech means that you could state publicly that COTH is full of hate mongering homosexuals with a horse agenda and not get arrested for it, but you could still get kicked off this board. (pardon my satirical license here)
                                  "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu
                                  Semantics

                                  Comment


                                  • #97
                                    and if an attorney retires from practice then do they no longer need "immunity" from coth
                                    Nothing says "I love you" like a tractor. (Clydejumper)

                                    The reports states, “Elizabeth reported that she accidently put down this pony, ........, at the show.”

                                    Comment

                                    • Original Poster

                                      #98
                                      COTH doesn't have to "guarantee its users' anonymity". COTH doesn't KNOW its users' identities. If you choose to let everyone know who you are, great. But it isn't up to you to decide for another user.

                                      Originally posted by amberhill View Post
                                      Is COTH guaranteeing its users anonymity? I was merely stating a fact not attacking, if you consider that attacking then please remove the threads concerning criminal liability by a governmental employee who works in the attorney general's office which are utterly false.

                                      To make things perfectly clear, their was no criminal wrongdoing even though I was falsely accused by individuals of doing so and there is no open criminal investigation into the death of Humble as has been falsely reported.

                                      Humble was brought up by your [COTHs] article and I have a first amendment right of Freedom of Speech.

                                      Please let the record stand that this is the second attorney COTH has given immunity to on its forum.

                                      Comment


                                      • #99
                                        Originally posted by Eventer13 View Post
                                        As a non-attorney, is it illegal for someone who works in law to give their legal opinion publicly? Just not sure why its a big deal whether 1) a poster is a lawyer 2) how that is relevant to whether they can post their own legal opinions (or advice).

                                        But maybe once you enter law, you are held to a higher standard? On a related note- could a vet post proposed treatment and get sued if it killed the horse? I don't wish to derail the (already-derailed) thread, just trying to understand.
                                        An attorney can say whatever they please on this forum as long as they aren't giving legal advice which is specific.
                                        An attorney has just as much right to a personal opinion as anyone else.

                                        From what I've seen, the attorneys who post on COTH are not dummies and are well aware of where the boundaries lie.

                                        Ms. mandarino? Not so much.

                                        Comment


                                        • Originally posted by DMK View Post
                                          Dex is bad when used to the legal limits on an ongoing basis.
                                          ACTH is bad
                                          Dex+ACTH is really really really bad.

                                          Guess which one is less likely to get abused in Canada?
                                          Agreed. I am just not sure I like the trade off of increased use of something else we can't limit or test for. ACTH use became so widespread in Canada I have to assume as a direct result of the Dex ban. I don't think it's nearly as common here, either alone or (dangerously) with Dex. Dex we can control to some extent. I'm not certain which rule has the widest benefit of safer practices for more horses.

                                          Comment

                                          Working...
                                          X