|
Post by PUK's lead on Sept 12, 2017 18:11:57 GMT
Years ago, If I remember correctly, PUK used to stipulate random measuring and closer to the event, actually specified the class numbers. I remember one time, there were something like 30 horses entered in the class and maybe 11 came forward. The 'no shows' were allowed to carry on competing at the show, with no recriminations. I always felt that if you didn't show up for the class, you should have been penalised - unless you had a watertight reason and there should have been some consequences for those involved. It might not have been an ideal scenario - and please don't vilify me for even suggesting it - but it seemed to work as a deterrent = albeit for that particular class but it did send the message out that your horse was, most likely over height. It was the closest thing to naming and shaming.
I guess. With the doping - I understand that there are some very basic tests and the showing world hasn't got to grips with other methods that people are resorting to. What is obvious is the distress and characteristics that many horses are exhibiting and this is across professionals and amateurs. I can't even begin to recount how many I have seen during the season, I have seen the same thing - over and over again - heads down, mouths as if they have been forced open, frothing. It is so evident - it is just disgusting. Stumbling into evening performances - barely able to move. The message at the moment 'loud and clear' is that this is acceptable and as long as this continues it will become more sophisticated and more abused. There is so much work to do - who takes responsibility for this - who takes the ownership of this huge problem?
I don't necessarily buy the 'poor society'. They have no problems taking your subscriptions. They are meant to be providing the platform - a competitive environment that is fair to all..................For starters, at every evening performance, I would have a vet standing there, watching exhibitors and pulling out every animal that was felt to be affected. I believe the societies need to get behind this very, very disturbing problem. Apathy could lead people to ask the question - if not, why not. But that is perhaps for another day!
|
|
|
Post by honeypot on Sept 12, 2017 19:48:46 GMT
There are a comprehensive list of drugs that seem to be banned or controlled by the BEF, FEI, prohibitedsubstancesdatabase.feicleansport.org/search-results/There is even an app.http://inside.fei.org/fei/cleansport/horses/mobile-apps For me its not only a horse welfare issue, is a H&S issue. I can not understand why anyone would put a child on a pony that is liable to fall over or stumble and then they end up with 350-500kg laid on top of them. I think all the legal calmers should be banned, if they work they should not be used, if they do not they are an expensive waste of money.
|
|
|
Post by Carrots&Mints on Sept 13, 2017 11:37:02 GMT
Drug testing does not always have to be done via a blood test, it can be done vis a hair test, any drugs taken within the previous 6 months would leave a marker in the hair strand,; therefore it would be possible to test all entries for HOYS , the cost could be included in the entry fee, therefore to actually gain entrance for your pony prior to the show it would have to be proven to be drug free, once banned this should be a lifetime ban. With Vets having to write what medications have been given to ponies/ horses in their passports this would be a sure fired system. I agree with Caroline that this could be overseen by a central monitoring board along with the JMS. in fact the remit of the JMS could be enlarged to cover this and therefore save on administrating costs. Gillwales - Whilst I don't condone doping or any other drug abuse, would a life time ban on the pony be fair to the pony? Surely it should be the person in charge of pony, be it owner/producer that gets the ban/hefty fine/limitations. You also have a very good point regarding hair strand testing, if everyone who has qualified for HOYS/RIHS sent off a sample of hair immediately after qualifying - witnessed by someone of authority, and only after that sample came back negative for substances then they would be able to enter HOYS/RIHS? The amount of levys that both shows receive, surely they could subsidise the fees? And if it came back positive, owner has to pay fees/fine and face a ban? Food for thought. I don't know what the obsession is with HOYS and I find it awful that there is people on the circuit that are happy to abuse an animal all for the sake of a piece ribbon.
|
|
|
Post by Carrots&Mints on Sept 13, 2017 11:59:07 GMT
|
|
|
Post by last year on Sept 13, 2017 12:20:01 GMT
That was last year owner/jockey went on to win and be champ WHP at hoys last year go figure that banned by one society but can carry on competing under another
perfect example of why there needs to be some sort of umbrella society for showing, no other sport do you fail a dope test and carry on competing because you can be part of a different society to do so
|
|
|
Post by Carrots&Mints on Sept 13, 2017 12:27:14 GMT
Well that is a bit of a joke then isn't it! Its a shame that the societies aren't working together to stamp out this disgraceful behaviour.
|
|
|
Post by the showing register on Sept 13, 2017 12:37:15 GMT
I quite agree it is almost impossible to unravel the myriad different rules and of course the more rules you have the more people can find a legal way to circumvent them. It seems impossible to get any sort of agreement as if say one societies rules are broken another one says oh they did not break ours / it was not at one of our affilliated shows etc etc competitors are very quick to recourse to legal means if they see a loop hole.
In my own personal view and not a quote from TSR the time is fast approaching when one set of rules will have to be for everyone as the situation as it is now is untenable and leading to lots of problems with doping, judging , competitor behaviour etc. If you attend a HOYS Q their rules supercede all societies rules and if you attend a RIHS Q you might have to read 5 rule books all varying its a nightmare scenario
GC
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 13, 2017 13:43:44 GMT
Drug testing does not always have to be done via a blood test, it can be done vis a hair test, any drugs taken within the previous 6 months would leave a marker in the hair strand,; therefore it would be possible to test all entries for HOYS , the cost could be included in the entry fee, therefore to actually gain entrance for your pony prior to the show it would have to be proven to be drug free, once banned this should be a lifetime ban. With Vets having to write what medications have been given to ponies/ horses in their passports this would be a sure fired system. I agree with Caroline that this could be overseen by a central monitoring board along with the JMS. in fact the remit of the JMS could be enlarged to cover this and therefore save on administrating costs. Gillwales - Whilst I don't condone doping or any other drug abuse, would a life time ban on the pony be fair to the pony? Surely it should be the person in charge of pony, be it owner/producer that gets the ban/hefty fine/limitations. You also have a very good point regarding hair strand testing, if everyone who has qualified for HOYS/RIHS sent off a sample of hair immediately after qualifying - witnessed by someone of authority, and only after that sample came back negative for substances then they would be able to enter HOYS/RIHS? The amount of levys that both shows receive, surely they could subsidise the fees? And if it came back positive, owner has to pay fees/fine and face a ban? Food for thought. I don't know what the obsession is with HOYS and I find it awful that there is people on the circuit that are happy to abuse an animal all for the sake of a piece ribbon. What difference would it make to the pony? I would guess that if it needed to be doped it probably does not enjoy the showing scene, and if unsound, it should not be there. What a lifetime ban does do is to protect anyone unawares buying the pony for a job it is not suitable for and properly paying a large sum of money to boot. Personally I would like to see the end of HOYS and all big championship shows which I consider to be the root to this evil.
|
|
|
Post by honeypot on Sept 13, 2017 15:44:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 13, 2017 15:48:40 GMT
I can, and so would you if you saw the dental fees for having my teeth sorted!
|
|
|
Post by totally agree on Sept 13, 2017 16:00:40 GMT
the RI winner - why is it always 'meant for another horse?' It is a bit like why is there only ever one sock in the washing machine. How many times has that excuse been used - cross contamination? I don't think so. Totally agree with TSR. When you take into consideration how much money the showing industry is worth - any other industry would have a regulator. Look at the number of people that are employed either directly or indirectly. The profits from the sale of animals, the events, the sponsors, the prize money etc. It is big business, yet people continue to offer excuses for the many Societies that continue to turn a blind eye and reward clearly impaired animals top prizes. They have had their chance - take that power away from them and give it to 'one' regulator who is willing to tackle this and several other unpleasant issues head on.
Doping is grossly unfair, it rewards competitors by condoning blatant cheating and that is just for starters. This is a huge welfare issue - how many ponies have to drop dead for no reason? How many more have to come dribbling into the ring - foaming with their mouths almost jacked open. It is completely disgusting, immoral and obscene. Personally, I feel that TSR has got the temerity and strength of will to have a go.
|
|
|
Post by Carrots&Mints on Sept 13, 2017 19:18:15 GMT
Gillwales - Whilst I don't condone doping or any other drug abuse, would a life time ban on the pony be fair to the pony? Surely it should be the person in charge of pony, be it owner/producer that gets the ban/hefty fine/limitations. You also have a very good point regarding hair strand testing, if everyone who has qualified for HOYS/RIHS sent off a sample of hair immediately after qualifying - witnessed by someone of authority, and only after that sample came back negative for substances then they would be able to enter HOYS/RIHS? The amount of levys that both shows receive, surely they could subsidise the fees? And if it came back positive, owner has to pay fees/fine and face a ban? Food for thought. I don't know what the obsession is with HOYS and I find it awful that there is people on the circuit that are happy to abuse an animal all for the sake of a piece ribbon. What difference would it make to the pony? I would guess that if it needed to be doped it probably does not enjoy the showing scene, and if unsound, it should not be there. What a lifetime ban does do is to protect anyone unawares buying the pony for a job it is not suitable for and properly paying a large sum of money to boot. Personally I would like to see the end of HOYS and all big championship shows which I consider to be the root to this evil. Yes your right gillwales I do agree. Sorry I was at work and was just having a think about similar situations for dangerous dogs, we always say 'it's not the dog it's the owner' I was thinking For example people pushing 4/5 year olds that aren't mentally ready to been shown, an easy way to get around this would be to dope it rather than spend the time nurturing it. It would be unfair to ban the pony for life in that sort of situation. I suppose each case is different. Forgive me for not being in the know, this is my first season showing something undersaddle, but what is the position of 'The Showing Council'? From what it sounds from the name, this is the 'umbrella' of the societies, why aren't these people setting rule and dealing with said rule breakers?
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 13, 2017 19:47:31 GMT
No problem Unfortunally all of the Societies work independently, they all want membership fees, have their own little quirks. Showing and breeding would be so much better, and cheaper if all of the societies merged. It will never happen
|
|
|
Post by honeypot on Sept 13, 2017 20:04:44 GMT
I can, and so would you if you saw the dental fees for having my teeth sorted! I have my teeth done privately, I am a real coward and I think they are not that bad. Having just had gell nails put on for the second time, my daughter is getting married and I didn't want to have scrubber hands, £35 for half an hours work and no professional qualification with equipment that can be bought of e-bay makes the dentist seem a bargain. I am going to try and find out what is the proper going rate for the blood test. I can not believe the BHA pays £1200 for nearly 12,000 tests.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 13, 2017 20:24:30 GMT
My implants are going to be 12.K !
|
|
|
Post by doomed.......... on Sept 14, 2017 17:48:45 GMT
Good for you Objection procedure to start this debate but we are all doomed - nothing will change. I heard from some friends yesterday that they raised an objection against an exhibitor that had taken a 'special' award. She was armed with all of the evidence and was told by the organisers that they wouldn't do anything about it because - and this is as close as I remember - 'the people were nice' and they weren't the 'kind of people' they wanted to catch out.' So, they tell a lie and are rewarded for it and the rightful winner, also a deserving child, doesn't get her rightful award or recognition. There is also no inventive for the cheater to stop cheating either.
If societies and committees aren't prepared to do anything, even with the facts presented, that clearly demonstrate a breach, then what hope is there in catching an owner that has deliberately doped their animal - and for which there is nothing in place, at this point in time, to prove it.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 14, 2017 17:55:01 GMT
Good for you Objection procedure to start this debate but we are all doomed - nothing will change. I heard from some friends yesterday that they raised an objection against an exhibitor that had taken a 'special' award. She was armed with all of the evidence and was told by the organisers that they wouldn't do anything about it because - and this is as close as I remember - 'the people were nice' and they weren't the 'kind of people' they wanted to catch out.' So, they tell a lie and are rewarded for it and the rightful winner, also a deserving child, doesn't get her rightful award or recognition. There is also no inventive for the cheater to stop cheating either. If societies and committees aren't prepared to do anything, even with the facts presented, that clearly demonstrate a breach, then what hope is there in catching an owner that has deliberately doped their animal - and for which there is nothing in place, at this point in time, to prove it. Doomed - this is obviously hearsay. BUT - your' friend' needs to take this further, IF there is a case. Same old - Irrespective of the rights and wrongs, commenting on here will not progress the problem.
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 14, 2017 18:08:23 GMT
I think the point is being missed here, the is no procedure in place if one has good reason to believe an animal is doped, you can go to the society, give your name and state your concerns....but that is it, there is no way of putting your money down and ensuring your concern is followed up.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 14, 2017 19:14:46 GMT
That is not true, all shows have an objection procedure, you write down your complaint and put your money where your mouth is. If up-held you get your money returned to you; if not you forfeit the money.
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 14, 2017 19:49:16 GMT
That is not true, all shows have an objection procedure, you write down your complaint and put your money where your mouth is. If up-held you get your money returned to you; if not you forfeit the money. The societies do not have a procedure in place for a doping objection, I fully understand that you can put your money down regarding most rule breaking issues but to the best of my knowledge not when it comes to doping
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 14, 2017 19:49:49 GMT
That is not true, all shows have an objection procedure, you write down your complaint and put your money where your mouth is. If up-held you get your money returned to you; if not you forfeit the money. The societies do not have a procedure in place for a doping objection, I fully understand that you can put your money down regarding most rule breaking issues but to the best of my knowledge not when it comes to doping
|
|
|
Post by doomed on Sept 14, 2017 20:39:20 GMT
you have missed the point here - Caroline Nelson - You have completely misunderstood what I have said. In fact your are completely wrong - and it is an outrageous assertion to dismiss what I have said was hearsay.
What I said - and I repeat - was that at a recent show, an exhibitor broke an eligibility rule. She was not eligible to compete for a specific award in a class - the top amateur Award. To do so, you had to wear a white arm band. The competitor was not eligible to compete as an amateur because they are sponsored. This is against the rules of that specific society and a blatant breach.
The competitor won the award and my friend, knowing full well that she was not eligible to win the award, went to the office and said she wanted to make a formal complaint. Rightly so - her daughter should have won the award. She produced irrefutable evidence - posts on facebook bragging about sponsorship from a particular company - which is forbidden under the rules. She was told - as I have said above, that they would not take the complaint any further for reasons also explained above.
So - to make the point again -
My point ..............and please digest this, was - if you make a legitimate complaint or objection - and in this case, a fairly straight forward, clear breach of the rules and you are dismissed for the most incomprehensible reason - 'they are nice' - then what hope have we got in tackling really, really serious objections relating to doping and animal welfare, for which no comprehensive banned substance lists even exist?
That was my point. I can't make it any clearer. It seems that some on this forum make a habit of trying to intimidate and demean people - none of that is healthy - don't lower the tone of a discussion again by launching a person attack on me by saying that what I am saying is hearsay. People's energies should be put into continuing this discussion - stick to the bigger picture instead of trying to insult people,
|
|
|
Post by True on Sept 15, 2017 1:39:52 GMT
you have missed the point here - Caroline Nelson - You have completely misunderstood what I have said. In fact your are completely wrong - and it is an outrageous assertion to dismiss what I have said was hearsay. What I said - and I repeat - was that at a recent show, an exhibitor broke an eligibility rule. She was not eligible to compete for a specific award in a class - the top amateur Award. To do so, you had to wear a white arm band. The competitor was not eligible to compete as an amateur because they are sponsored. This is against the rules of that specific society and a blatant breach. The competitor won the award and my friend, knowing full well that she was not eligible to win the award, went to the office and said she wanted to make a formal complaint. Rightly so - her daughter should have won the award. She produced irrefutable evidence - posts on facebook bragging about sponsorship from a particular company - which is forbidden under the rules. She was told - as I have said above, that they would not take the complaint any further for reasons also explained above. So - to make the point again - My point ..............and please digest this, was - if you make a legitimate complaint or objection - and in this case, a fairly straight forward, clear breach of the rules and you are dismissed for the most incomprehensible reason - 'they are nice' - then what hope have we got in tackling really, really serious objections relating to doping and animal welfare, for which no comprehensive banned substance lists even exist? That was my point. I can't make it any clearer. It seems that some on this forum make a habit of trying to intimidate and demean people - none of that is healthy - don't lower the tone of a discussion again by launching a person attack on me by saying that what I am saying is hearsay. People's energies should be put into continuing this discussion - stick to the bigger picture instead of trying to insult people,
|
|
|
Post by True on Sept 15, 2017 1:54:58 GMT
you have missed the point here - Caroline Nelson - You have completely misunderstood what I have said. In fact your are completely wrong - and it is an outrageous assertion to dismiss what I have said was hearsay. What I said - and I repeat - was that at a recent show, an exhibitor broke an eligibility rule. She was not eligible to compete for a specific award in a class - the top amateur Award. To do so, you had to wear a white arm band. The competitor was not eligible to compete as an amateur because they are sponsored. This is against the rules of that specific society and a blatant breach. The competitor won the award and my friend, knowing full well that she was not eligible to win the award, went to the office and said she wanted to make a formal complaint. Rightly so - her daughter should have won the award. She produced irrefutable evidence - posts on facebook bragging about sponsorship from a particular company - which is forbidden under the rules. She was told - as I have said above, that they would not take the complaint any further for reasons also explained above. So - to make the point again - My point ..............and please digest this, was - if you make a legitimate complaint or objection - and in this case, a fairly straight forward, clear breach of the rules and you are dismissed for the most incomprehensible reason - 'they are nice' - then what hope have we got in tackling really, really serious objections relating to doping and animal welfare, for which no comprehensive banned substance lists even exist? That was my point. I can't make it any clearer. It seems that some on this forum make a habit of trying to intimidate and demean people - none of that is healthy - don't lower the tone of a discussion again by launching a person attack on me by saying that what I am saying is hearsay. People's energies should be put into continuing this discussion - stick to the bigger picture instead of trying to insult people, I too know that this is correct. This is not a hearsay thing. Rules are rules, you may not break them intentionally, but you have to suffer the consequences either way. Amateur rules differ from show to show. Just accept gracefully & move on. It's not about whether you are 'nice' it's just rules. The reality of life is sometimes you make mistakes, but nobody appears to be big enough these days to say fair enough. Showing now seems to be all about the drama. & Just to add, these people show under judges they're not eligible to do so. But I'm a guest so my point is pointless
|
|
|
Post by A Guest on Sept 15, 2017 8:39:35 GMT
Actually the Showing Societies are working towards a joint policy on sharing of information but as you can imagine these things do not happen overnight especially when the data protection regulations have to be taken into account.
It is also far far more than £70 to have a blood sample tested and if there is a substance found, to have the full work up to prove what the substance was and whether it was a breach of the FEI prohibited substances list. All the main showing societies then have a process for any penalties to be imposed and an appeal process, which all take time.
Random testing is the best method as that catches out people who may have mistakenly or purposely given a horse or pony a restricted/banned substance. Don't warn people you are going to test, just go out and do it. More societies are now doing this but it has to be done in a careful and systematic manner if you want penalties to be enforceable against anyone caught out.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 15, 2017 11:02:01 GMT
Doomed - I have thought a while before responding to your lengthy retort. However, in this, you did detail the problem which, to be fair, you only outlined in your initial post. So, the problem concerns the wearing of an armband to denote amateur status.
in neither post, did you state whether this was a local / or unaffiliated show, a show affiliated to the specific Society or Association concerned, or a Championship final. Only at the latter would staff from the actual governing body be likely to be present to take the complaint.
From a Judges and Stewards perspective in the ring at the time, one can only but take such a symbol (an armband worn for whatever purpose) on face value - and take the Exhibitor on trust. This factor becomes even more relevant if the show concerned takes 'entries on the day', with perhaps no, or only a partial catalogue and entries of such taken at the collecting ring on slips of paper.
Doomed, I did not "completely misunderstand" what you said in your first posting, as you said very little, which lay your post open to misinterpretation. You later fully explained the situation in your tirade.
Perhaps, if the 'eligible' rider's parent had politely approached the ring steward at the time, the error, if there was such, could have been dealt with then and there.
I stick my neck out and say 'if there was such' as we do not know the extent of the purported 'sponsorship'. Which could indeed range from large-scale financial assistance (most unlikely) - right down to a few freebie goods plus a beanie or a baseball cap - and, if lucky, maybe a jacket with logo. Sometimes, 'sponsorship' is in reality, the "Bank of Mum & Dad" which may even be the backing of a family business.
No offence was intended and I am quite shocked by your insinuation that I "launched a person attack" [quote!] or that I intended to be insulting. Far from it - my suggestion was - and remains, that your friend who's child did not receive the rosette, should, if they feel strongly, take the matter further through the proper channels [if this was an affiliated show].
True - likewise, if 'these people show under judges who they are not eligible to do so' [again quoted] then again - take the matter up with the registered body/ies.
To add, I've checked through a handful of Judges'/Rule books and found a Doping policy/procedure, an Objection procedure AND a Social Media & Internet policy in each.
By the by, hiding behind a guest name possibly wiggles a writer out of the latter.
However, the most recent poster - calling themselves "A guest" has spoken wisely.
|
|
|
Post by Carrots&Mints on Sept 15, 2017 12:43:38 GMT
That is not true, all shows have an objection procedure, you write down your complaint and put your money where your mouth is. If up-held you get your money returned to you; if not you forfeit the money. I have a question - Why, if you have a genuine complaint, should there be a need to send money? Us normal folk are scraping at the barrel to go showing in the first place, why is there a need to send money? If the societies are biased then perhaps people (normal folk) daren't put in a genuine complaint, incase they end up loosing their hard earned cash? Surely the societies should investigate every complaint and react in an unbiased manner. Just another thought?
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Sept 15, 2017 13:07:49 GMT
That is not true, all shows have an objection procedure, you write down your complaint and put your money where your mouth is. If up-held you get your money returned to you; if not you forfeit the money. I have a question - Why, if you have a genuine complaint, should there be a need to send money? Us normal folk are scraping at the barrel to go showing in the first place, why is there a need to send money? If the societies are biased then perhaps people (normal folk) daren't put in a genuine complaint, incase they end up loosing their hard earned cash? Surely the societies should investigate every complaint and react in an unbiased manner. Just another thought? A JMB objection does require money to be lodged (returned if the complaint upheld) which I presume is to prevent frivolous objections Other society complaints do not require money - simply that the correct procedure is followed
|
|
|
Post by maxandpaddy on Sept 15, 2017 13:17:13 GMT
Being careful here, but im going to ask it anyway - do people feel this problem is more prevalent with Producers ? Because if they do, thats another reason on top of cost why people wont report things or complain, its hard enough affording and competing against the professionals without peeing them all off especially when some of them judge
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 15, 2017 15:51:54 GMT
Don't laugh, but in my rapidly increasing 'old age' I've started competing (and doing really rather well :) !!) in the 'Industrial' section at our very local autumn shows. Photographs & foliage arrangements, mainly. Actually, I'm quite chuffed, as it serves well, my still highly charged [and very professional] competitive spirit.
To the point, even most of those shows have an objection procedure - with a £2.00! deposit. Presumably to ensure that old Tommy Bloggins grew his own leeks & cabbages rather than simply bought them from the supermarket! They even have the right to inspect the show'er/grower's garden/allotment, if 'foul play' is considered the case. Any such payments go towards the Show's funds.
Seriously, as Janet Bushell has sensibly explained, your deposit is refunded if a JMB objection is upheld and this is, I believe, to be the case with all objection 'fees'.
|
|