What punishment would there be?

[Crabtree Farm]

What punishment would there be if a trainer openly admitted that they drugged a horse for competition?

 

[Jill]

I bet it would depend on who heard the admission and who the trainer is!

 

[Sandee]

The proof would be the biggest problem because while he/she might say it in a private conversation, they would be really dumb to admit it to anyone in authority. This is one of those things that "it happens" and you just avoid that person and "get over it". If you get really vocal and mad, YOU end up getting the dirty end of the stick more often than the person in question.

 

[OhHorsePee]

I bet it would depend on who heard the admission and who the trainer is!

I agree with Jill 100%

 

[txminipinto]

The problem would be burden of proof. You'd need more than just a bottle or needle but an actual blood or urine test. It, unfortunately, happens more than most realize which is why in the majority of the big horse show pens almost all shows have mandatory random drug testing. It doesn't stop some though.

 

[kaykay]

If we would just implement drug testing it would help a lot

Kay

 

[Minimor]

I'm thinking there wouldn't be much of anything for punishment. Without a drug test and a specific drug there is no proof...and in any case it would depend on the particular drug. Therapeutic drugs are allowed, I believe (don't have the current rule book handy at the moment) as long as they are reported...so is it possible that this trainer was simply "reporting" use of a therapeutic drug? Depressants and stimulants and performance enhancing drugs are not allowed

 

[~Lisa~]

I am not sure why the registry has taken so long to implement drug testing however it is more then just a simple test, it is not just about the drugs that are legal or not but also the levels of that drug- the standard levels allowed (of illegal or legal drugs) are of course made for large horses so we would have to come up with a different level for both a 46 inch pony and a 28 inch mini.

Yes it is in our rule book but since there is no provision for protesting a horse in that instance there can really be no punishment?

 

[Crabtree Farm]

The proof would be the biggest problem because while he/she might say it in a private conversation, they would be really dumb to admit it to anyone in authority. This is one of those things that "it happens" and you just avoid that person and "get over it". If you get really vocal and mad, YOU end up getting the dirty end of the stick more often than the person in question.

But lets say "hypotetically" they did tell an official. Wouldn't that official have to react upon the information?

 

[txminipinto]

I don't know why anyone would drug a horse and then go off and talk about it to begin with, much less tell an official. Unless there were witness' to the conversation to back the official, it could turn into a he say she say arguement. And it would depend on the drug. Are we talking banamine? Sedatives? Shoot, I've had to sedate horses at shows to finish clipping them. Or are we talking a more control substance such as mood modificators?

 

[OhHorsePee]

I am not sure why the registry has taken so long to implement drug testing however it is more then just a simple test, it is not just about the drugs that are legal or not but also the levels of that drug- the standard levels allowed (of illegal or legal drugs) are of course made for large horses so we would have to come up with a different level for both a 46 inch pony and a 28 inch mini.
Yes it is in our rule book but since there is no provision for protesting a horse in that instance there can really be no punishment?

Lisa, it was voted on in Feb 2009 at the BOD meeting against drug testing. It is in the meeting minutes. Here is the link.

FEB 2009 Meeting

17. Motion by Belinda Bagby that the Board of Directors not consider drug testing at the AMHR

Nationals at this time. Second by Lea Dill.

For:

Lea Dill

Tom Stephenson

Jeanne Bragagnini

Dolores Williams

Bruce Becker

Belinda Bagby

Dennis O’Keefe

Lewella Tembruell

Jim Curry

Julie Mabie

Erica Carlson

Laurie Villalpando

Abstain:

Steve Henderson

Mary Wahl

Motion passed

 

[Lewella]

I really wish the minutes included the discussion. We had a pile of literature in front of us for that vote and were specifically talking about doing testing at the 2009 Nationals.

Some of the the issues we run into when considering drug testing are:

1. Cost? Drug testing isn't cheap and the cost would have to be passed on to exhibitors. The more drugs/substances you test for, the higher the cost. What is an acceptable cost? What would exhibitors be willing to pay?

2. Just what drugs DO you test for? Has anyone looked at the USEF's list of testable drugs? We had this brochure in front of us and all I can says is WOW! Just how do we decide from that long list what we should be testing for?

3. What are the acceptable levels for small ponies and minis of certain drugs? We all know ponies and minis metabolize differently than big horses. There aren't any real studies done on minis and small ponies to determine how quickly or slowly they metabolize different drugs. So what would our baseline be?

4. How often do horses really test postive? How many postives has AMHA found in its years of drug testing? How about the Hackney assn? If the numbers are miniscule then is it really cost effective for us to drug test?

These are all questions that need to be answered before we can reasonably consider a drug testing program and many of these questions don't have a straight forward answer....

 

[~Lisa~]

4. How often do horses really test postive? How many postives has AMHA found in its years of drug testing? How about the Hackney assn? If the numbers are miniscule then is it really cost effective for us to drug test?

Well I can tell you this.. there would be a lot less horses being drugged if there was random drug testing and not just at Nationals. I know for the AQHA you never know when and if drug testers will show up to a local show and once you see them you do not know if they will be there the entire show or just one day so yes the presence of drug testers on the show grounds does make a difference I know this as I was a person who did collections for drug testing in the AQHA for a couple of years.

As far as cost most shows and associations have it down to a 5-10 dollar drug testing fee so that precident is already set. I had heard discussion there was no vet to do the testing in OK when I was in the BOD meeting in I think it was NY but maybe MO I had to chuckle to myself. If they have AQHA shows they have people who can do drug testing.

I do realize there are some things that need to be ironed out but surely it is not a near impossible feat

 

[Minimor]

Other breeds charge $5-$10 per horse for each & every show, even though the drug testers don't show up at every show--so then the total fees do cover the testing at those shows where it is done. I question if our membership as a whole is willing to pay an extra $5 or $10 per horse at every show they attend just to pay for drug testing at Nationals and Congress? I also wonder if overall this would cover the full cost of the program...are there enough horses being shown at the local level that fees would be enough to pay for the program? For sure that $5 to $10 per horse per show isn't enough to cover the cost if the drug testers were to show up at that particular show.

Speaking for myself--while I'm in favor of drug testing in a perfect world, the reality is I cannot afford to subsidize the program to any great extent. I'm planning to show 8 or 9 horses at our two local shows this year. If I had to pay an extra $10 per horse (or even $5) at each of those shows, I can say for sure that some of those horses would be staying at home. I have a set budget for showing, and higher fees would mean I can show fewer horses. If every show has one or two or more people like me, that ends up being bad for the local shows, because the more horses that stay home the less money the shows take in.

I can see that it's not something for our BOD to just jump on--Lewella did present some very good points.