Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 15, 2017 16:48:50 GMT
Ok.....cards on the table I did phone a showing society and gave my name and asked what I do if I have reason to believe that a certain animal is shown doped, details were taken and I was told to leave it with them. Now I am not for one moment saying that nothing will be done, it may well be in the fullness of time as it is a very much more difficult situation than an overheight pony. However what I am saying is that there appeared to be no procedure ( I believe that I have mentioned this already ) I was not asked to put down money or to write in, I was not in a position to make it official. Now I ask again should there be a way of, or is there already a way to officially put money down in this type of case?
|
|
|
Post by kateanne0 on Sept 15, 2017 19:23:29 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. If the societies/associations are already doing random testing, then surely the results should be posted somewhere? Regarding data protection, when the schedules are printed, or at point of entry if online, the societies/associations could say that it is a condition of entry that exhibitors/owners/producers accept the fact that random testing will take place. The class numbers don't need to be published because it is 'random' testing. Therefore, by entering the class the exhibitors/owners/producers accept that points 1and 2 will be actioned. 1. That random testing will take place 2. That test results will be published on the relevant society/associations web site Anyone's thoughts on this appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 15, 2017 19:23:42 GMT
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 I am sure you realise reading posts on this forum, especially those by guests; that unless you had to put down a deposit there would be a lot of complaints, and in fairness if you are proved to be correct you will get your money back.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Sept 15, 2017 21:53:32 GMT
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 I am sure you realise reading posts on this forum, especially those by guests; that unless you had to put down a deposit there would be a lot of complaints, and in fairness if you are proved to be correct you will get your money back. Sorry gillwales, as I stated in my answer which you quoted, you do not have to lodge by money when making a complaint to a society. This thread is about making a complaint re the belief that an animal may have been administered an illegal substance. This does not require money to be lodged. Included in many individual show schedules there is often a deposit taken for a competitor to lodge a complaint about an occurrence at that individual show.. The individual show would be unable to deal with this type of complaint & would refer the competitor to the governing society.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Sept 15, 2017 21:58:56 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. If the societies/associations are already doing random testing, then surely the results should be posted somewhere? Regarding data protection, when the schedules are printed, or at point of entry if online, the societies/associations could say that it is a condition of entry that exhibitors/owners/producers accept the fact that random testing will take place. The class numbers don't need to be published because it is 'random' testing. Therefore, by entering the class the exhibitors/owners/producers accept that points 1and 2 will be actioned. 1. That random testing will take place 2. That test results will be published on the relevant society/associations web site Anyone's thoughts on this appreciated. Kateanne, the societies are doing random testing & the results are published. There is a new result posted this week on the BSPS website. The schedules already state that competitors are agreeing to abide by the society rules when they complete the entry form & all societies have dope testing procedures, so in my belief what you are suggesting already takes place. However, as with all rules this does not mean that the unscrupulous will not break them
|
|
|
Post by kateanne0 on Sept 15, 2017 22:11:19 GMT
If the societies/associations are already doing random testing, then surely the results should be posted somewhere? Regarding data protection, when the schedules are printed, or at point of entry if online, the societies/associations could say that it is a condition of entry that exhibitors/owners/producers accept the fact that random testing will take place. The class numbers don't need to be published because it is 'random' testing. Therefore, by entering the class the exhibitors/owners/producers accept that points 1and 2 will be actioned. 1. That random testing will take place 2. That test results will be published on the relevant society/associations web site Anyone's thoughts on this appreciated. Kateanne, the societies are doing random testing & the results are published. There is a new result posted this week on the BSPS website. The schedules already state that competitors are agreeing to abide by the society rules when they complete the entry form & all societies have dope testing procedures, so in my belief what you are suggesting already takes place. However, as with all rules this does not mean that the unscrupulous will not break them Thank you for the information Janet. I don't think Ive ever seen that on any schedules, specific to dope testing. Do the rules state that random testing may take place at any time, without prior notice? I will have a look through a couple of Societies rule book for more information. We haven't shown or joined any societies this year as we are taking a break.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Sept 16, 2017 3:55:52 GMT
Yes the rules in the society rule books give several pages regarding dope testing. Schedules affiliated to any society state the catch all / global phrase similar to "all exhibititors agree to abide by the rules of........ Whether members of ....... Or not" This type of wording is not new. It's been included for as long as I have been involved in showing & is added to prevent show secretaries needing to reproduce pages of rules from each society in their schedules. This covers everything from dope testing, tack, ages etc etc. Obviously unaffiliated shows often include a similar type of phrase on their schedules/entry forms but do not have a comprehensive list of rules for competitors to access. These sometimes state a covering rule such as "while not affiliated to ......the rules of this society are followed with the exception of......(if necessary)
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 16, 2017 6:40:46 GMT
I know that the BSPS requires 2 independent letters to proceed with a complaint.. well they did last time I looked and I doubt that would have changed. The point I was making regarding complaints is that unless some safeguards are in place there will be a pile of spiteful complaints put in, this does nothing to help showing or the atmosphere that now seems prevalent around it.
Regarding shows being able to test for doping, it depends on the size of the show. County shows that have Vets on site or call can proceed if a complaint is lodged; it depends on the show and whether the Secretary is prepared proceed with the matter if a complaint is lodged.
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 16, 2017 7:35:17 GMT
Do those 2 complaints have to be to the main office or can they be to your area committee do you know?
|
|
|
Post by Well said on Sept 16, 2017 9:09:49 GMT
I think Caroline Nelson and Janet Bushell have clearly outlined the current show and society procedures and certainly at all major shows on their schedules I believe when you sign the entry form you are agreeing to the shows right to randomly drug test and to abide by this procedure no matter what society you belong to or show under. For smaller shows I really don't see how random drug testing could work. Most do not have the facilities or vet in attendance to do this. Many small shows run at a loss or just about break even as it is with health & safety and insurance costs ever increasing and I just do not think it is feasible to expect small area shows to conduct drug testing. The other key question as I understand it from Objection Procedure who started this thread is what can be done if as a fellow competitor you believe an animal is drugged. Whilst there is random testing done said animal may never be selected - it is random and chances are probably like winning the lottery! I don't know how this is or could be dealt with, I think it is being suggested to contact the society the animal is shown under or registered with and raise concerns. What then happens? Would they then 'select' said animal at next available opportunity? I don't see the point in informing the owner/producer as obviously they would then ensure it wasn't drugged at the next few shows. I also feel this needs to be handled very carefully and confidentially as people can be wrong, we also know there are some very nasty people out there who like to point fingers and spread rumours, I am not for one minute saying that Objection Procedure is one of those but we all know they exist. Many many years ago we had a top class show pony was placed 5th in a HOYS qualifier at a major county show, everyone around the ring and us thought we would win as pony had gone so well and certainly was good enough to win and several others had been very naughty on go round and in show. Anyway when pony was presented in conformation the judge told the rider that she was placing him down as she thought he must be drugged as he had not taken off on the go round like the others! The other judge was mortified and very embarrassed when giving out rosettes as were we as pony was most definately not drugged! My point is assumptions can be wrong, we had no come back to this judge but damage had been done. I am not sure what evidence could be used to support a complaint or belief an animal is regularly drugged, I am sure it does go on but societies will need to handle these accusations very carefully.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 16, 2017 12:02:29 GMT
Thank you "Well Said" - thank you.
One of main aspects of this depth of understanding is that, the likes of Janet Bushell & I (along with many others) - are, and have been, involved with Societies/Associations and Show Organisation for many, many years. Additionally, we are daft enough to offer our (voluntary) services as Judges and Stewards. As such, we simply HAVE to know the rules in the Rule Books. All of them. Are advised to carry the relevant Rule Book whilst judging, altho' good shows will also put one in the rosette box, as many stewards generously allow themselves to be roped in to help on the day, but may not be as closely attached to the showing scene.
When initially assessed for a judges panel, potential judges are grilled on the Rules & Regulations. Attendance at Judges' Conferences is compulsory as CPD every usually 3, occasionally 4 years, depending on the Society/Association's ruling. This helps keep Judges up to speed with any changes / additions; offers 'networking' opportunities and allows genuine discussion. Lack of attendance in the time-scale renders the person removed from the relevant Judges' list until they have been re-assessed.
All exhibitors and interested parties can, these days, access all the Rules from the relevant website/s - or can ask for a Rule Book to be sent to them by post.
With respect, it is very easy for 'ring-side & 'collecting ring' judges' to point the finger at animals / exhibitors which they 'purport' to be doped/too big/ineligible to compete as an amateur/home produced/novice/wear an armband for a specific rosette/go under that Judge/ etc. Use Mr Google, look at the relevant ruling and go to the relevant authorities if you are in a position to do so and feel you really have a case.
To formally object, the objector has to have an animal in direct competition with the possible perpetrator of the 'crime'. Now, I don't wish to belittle any such 'crimes' as some are, sadly, very real.
It is a total misnomer to 'assume' that it is always the 'professional' who is the rule-breaker. Not so.
I'm so pleased that I grew up when I did, competed as a child when I did, moved on to produce professionally when I did. Almost 40 years worth, in fact. Because the last decade has seen a huge increase in sniping, bickering and backbiting. This is not confined to showing; it seems almost the norm amongst the populous as can be seen by the horrendous atrocities which happen worldwide - and pall acquisition of a rosette or the 'Big Q' into total insignificance.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Sept 16, 2017 22:29:01 GMT
I know that the BSPS requires 2 independent letters to proceed with a complaint.. well they did last time I looked and I doubt that would have changed. The point I was making regarding complaints is that unless some safeguards are in place there will be a pile of spiteful complaints put in, this does nothing to help showing or the atmosphere that now seems prevalent around it. Regarding shows being able to test for doping, it depends on the size of the show. County shows that have Vets on site or call can proceed if a complaint is lodged; it depends on the show and whether the Secretary is prepared proceed with the matter if a complaint is lodged. Unfortunately just having a vet present at a show is not adequate for dope testing to necessarily take place. Having been both chosen for my pony to b dope tested (we had won a very large first ridden class in the afternoon having gone WHP champion earlier in the day - we were negative) and being the senior ring steward at a championship show when dope testing was carried out on an animal in my ring, I know there are very stringent procedures to be followed ( a form of "chain of evidence" if you like) which must begin when the animal is in the ring, in order for the samples etc to be without dispute etc. & it does require a set procedure to be followed to the letter.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 17, 2017 3:16:09 GMT
I know that the BSPS requires 2 independent letters to proceed with a complaint.. well they did last time I looked and I doubt that would have changed. The point I was making regarding complaints is that unless some safeguards are in place there will be a pile of spiteful complaints put in, this does nothing to help showing or the atmosphere that now seems prevalent around it. Regarding shows being able to test for doping, it depends on the size of the show. County shows that have Vets on site or call can proceed if a complaint is lodged; it depends on the show and whether the Secretary is prepared proceed with the matter if a complaint is lodged. Unfortunately just having a vet present at a show is not adequate for dope testing to necessarily take place. Having been both chosen for my pony to b dope tested (we had won a very large first ridden class in the afternoon having gone WHP champion earlier in the day - we were negative) and being the senior ring steward at a championship show when dope testing was carried out on an animal in my ring, I know there are very stringent procedures to be followed ( a form of "chain of evidence" if you like) which must begin when the animal is in the ring, in order for the samples etc to be without dispute etc. & it does require a set procedure to be followed to the letter. I and a friend actually witnessed a pony being doped, we saw it being injected in it's lorry with a yellow serum, which was identical to the injection used by my Vet to sedate a mare going to be scanned. We went to the secretary and informed him of what we had seen, this was at a county show, and they would only proceed if we put it in writing and put, what was quite a considerable sum down in cash, which I did not have, so that was that. So I assume that they would have instructed a Vet in the matter. However you may well be right, but this is why I have written the previous post. I should add that this was an in hand pony, so no child was put in danger on that day. Needless to say the pony won. What I did do was speak to our mutual Vet in case he had left some sedative with her so that would not occur again. Before anyone gets up in arms over the last sentence, we both ran studs and in those days sometimes there was the need to use sedatives for safety reasons. This was many years ago and regulations now mean this doesn't happen.
|
|
|
Post by janetbushell on Sept 17, 2017 4:57:17 GMT
Yes no doubt bloods taken would have indicated that the pony may have been doped. Very sad state of affairs as I presume in this case you are suggesting that the animal had been interfered with by a third party. To me this thread is about owners/exhibititors doping their own animal & being caught & punished in some way which is why there are stringent procedures.
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 17, 2017 6:05:14 GMT
No by the owner/ breeder
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 17, 2017 7:08:58 GMT
Janet is very accurate here. The AHS, for instance, is hot on testing and has very stringent rules. Sampling both ways; for 'uppers' (in in-hand animals) too. And, on the European/International circuit, for the likes of topically used eye -drops such as belladonna to enhance the 'eye' and respiratory stimulants to increase lung use thus accentuating nostril width (which increases the 'dish' in the foreface). There was a bad patch in the 80's & early 90's when human uppers were in frequent use in in-hand show stock, mostly coming from across the Pond. . . . Nice, huh!
But the testing process is just as Janet has described. Over time (at Championship shows with on-site stabling and a box set aside for the purpose) a number of my ridden horses were tested (I got to take it as a complement as they were all very successful!) - the animal is 'selected' from the ringside and the 'Dope Testing Officer' speaks to the rider actually in the ring. Immediately upon lap of honour and leaving the ring the animal is accompanied by an official; it is never left until sampling is completed. Generally, initially a urine sample is taken but if the animal doesn't perform, a blood sample is taken. All is signed for. The sample is contained in two vials (sometimes three) with the second being retained, stored in the event of a dispute, and the owner/agent having the option of storing the 3rd.
So, there has been a strict procedure in place for many years. What I'm guessing is happening now is that many people are using - overusing - so-called "calmers" -quite possibly mixing the stuff - so more than one sort at the same time. Given that these are 'organically based', testing, very sadly, is almost a waste of time and effort.
You only have to glance at the muck-heaps/rubbish left around the stables after big shows to see the amount of 'over-the counter' syringes blatantly just thrown down after use. Unfortunately, the current trend / increased awareness and policing of animals being worked in for lengthy periods will probably only serve to fill the coffers of the 'calmers' industry. Which is considered worst by joe public?
|
|
sarahp
Happy to help
Posts: 9,510
|
Post by sarahp on Sept 17, 2017 7:21:00 GMT
Yes, I can vouch for the procedure, having been through it - but only on one occasion - and negative.
Illegal drugs are one thing, with testing available (that's if the labs can keep up with new ones), but I too have been wondering about calmers, and am unconvinced about their use - doesn't the need show a lack of either basic temperament or management/schooling? I'm no expert, but I do know that diet can affect behaviour, not just in the use of starch and sugar, but micronutrients - calmers may supply these when lacking in the diet - and possibly some hormones too. Any substance found naturally in the body is difficult if not impossible to legislate for.
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 17, 2017 9:52:49 GMT
. . . . and here's another one: The year was 1969, the show was the British Show Hack & Cob Association (now BSHA, the Riding Horse classification did not exist then!) - Spring show at Stoneleigh. Indoors, in the then excellent BHS indoor arena. Mostly Novices, obviously. I'm pleased to recall that my lovely Small Hack Miss McGredy won; her first time out under saddle.
Someone arrived with a large hack which, for all to see, was clearly under the influence. The show authorities were on the case immediately - whilst no testing could be done it was abundantly clear that the animal had been given a substance. When accosted, the owner, an amateur/home produced person, came up with a c0ck-n-bull story that it wouldn't load/travelled badly so they 'gave it something'.
Dispatched home with a flee in the ear, the owner was stripped of membership and debarred from showing for that season. So, there is another competitive Body which has been proactive in the use/abuse of drugs department for a great number of years - in this instance, approaching 50!
This episode sent out a clear message.
|
|
|
Post by Picked on Sept 17, 2017 16:04:54 GMT
Random dope testing is the only way and this is how it is done overseas. It avoids confrontation as it's a fair process. Selecting animals/placing always causes controversy and bad feeling and can also be politically motivated. All numbers for each day need to be put in a bag and then the vet pulls the required number. If an animal is tested several times via this method then so be it and it is after all for the good of showing. What is wrong is when committees who have members producing, competing and judging selecting what to test and which classes to test. The whole process must be moved away from this and any possible self interest be it individual or by an organisation. There are always stories of procedural mishaps and some being let off if they know the ways and means to do so. If Dope testing is to take place then everyone should be treated the same way and if they can't then don't do it at all.
|
|
sarahp
Happy to help
Posts: 9,510
|
Post by sarahp on Sept 17, 2017 16:14:40 GMT
I had no problem with having my mare tested - done after winning and/or qualifying for something or other at NPS, and assumed I was selected because of the result. Why should I have any bad feeling if totally innocent? Just reassuring to know that it did actually get done sometimes!
|
|
|
Post by CarolineNelson on Sept 17, 2017 16:39:39 GMT
Random dope testing is the only way and this is how it is done overseas. It avoids confrontation as it's a fair process. Selecting animals/placing always causes controversy and bad feeling and can also be politically motivated. All numbers for each day need to be put in a bag and then the vet pulls the required number. If an animal is tested several times via this method then so be it and it is after all for the good of showing. What is wrong is when committees who have members producing, competing and judging selecting what to test and which classes to test. The whole process must be moved away from this and any possible self interest be it individual or by an organisation. There are always stories of procedural mishaps and some being let off if they know the ways and means to do so. If Dope testing is to take place then everyone should be treated the same way and if they can't then don't do it at all. Most Societies/Associations make the selection so totally at random that Exhibitor's ('back') numbers are put into a (proverbial) "HAT" and genuine members of the public - ringside by-standers - are asked to select a 'number'. Now, what can be fairer than that??
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 17, 2017 17:33:45 GMT
Unfortunately this brings us full circle, what can you do if you have very good reason to believe an animal is regularly shown doped? It would appear, sadly, very little.
|
|
|
Post by Picked on Sept 17, 2017 17:38:14 GMT
Perhaps they used to? In truth we all need to question why exhibitors are encouraging shows to place animals under so much pressure to perform in false and cruel situations such as evening performances, rave music, flashing lights purely for the self gratification of being handed a rosette. RIHS is the sole one show where there is no excuse to dope an animal in order to help it cope. The cork is off the bottle and many more than people will admit to are using legal and illegal sedation as a short cut to sound preparation. If you have a horse produced you are in that producer's hands and take the risk. You have every confidence in your animal passing when you do it from home but if you pass it to another you can never be sure. It's purely down to trust.
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 17, 2017 17:44:40 GMT
I totally agree the the rise in the use of legal/illegal substances is a direct result of modern showing, you can not ask the vast majority of these flight animals to ignore their natural instincts and behave in a highly alien environment, such a sad situation
|
|
|
Post by gillwales on Sept 17, 2017 18:33:14 GMT
I totally agree the the rise in the use of legal/illegal substances is a direct result of modern showing, you can not ask the vast majority of these flight animals to ignore their natural instincts and behave in a highly alien environment, such a sad situation Quite frankly I am not certain of what you are hoping to achieve with this thread. You have had the complaint procedure explained to you, however if you are a member of any society you could of accessed this information directly from the society. You have been advised of how the dope testing takes place. You have heard from members who have had their animals tested. People have told you of their experiences. So what do you think are the solutions? Other than a glorified witch hunt.
|
|
Objection procedure
Guest
|
Post by Objection procedure on Sept 17, 2017 18:36:55 GMT
WOW! goodbye horsegossip!
|
|
|
Post by Picked on Sept 18, 2017 5:58:34 GMT
GillWales perhaps you have missed the point that show organisers are guilty of putting animals under too much pressure and encouraging doping. Surely this is the basis of the argument in most cases?
|
|
|
Post by It takes time on Sept 18, 2017 6:15:02 GMT
Surely this is not the shows fault?
If people allowed horses time to learn and develop they would cope without doping.
Top SJ horses cope as they are educated, police horses aren't doped, they are taught how to manage and eventers go against many of their natural instincts.
But it does take time and people don't give show horses and ponies time. They want everything by 5.
I have been lucky enough to go to all major shows and be in many evening performances and my horses have always behaved without any calmer or sedative because they are trained at home and out with music, clapping, crowds etc.
They are our precious animals, so let's spend time training them and getting them to trust us rather than wanting a quick fix and blaming shows who are supporting the sport and trying to raise the public profile.
|
|
|
Post by Well said on Sept 18, 2017 8:10:16 GMT
Slightly off topic but I fully agree that we do often place ponies in extreme situations and young jockeys which I am sure has seen the rise in increase in so called calmers. Show horses/ponies are not police horses and of course do not go through the lengthy, intense training a police horse does and remember many fail to make the grade as a police horse as just not suited. So as HOYS approaches to all those who appear to be concerned about welfare a plea - THINK PLEASE before you start hooping and hollering when numbers are called forward; THINK PLEASE before you scream and shout and clap at the end of your childs/friends show - is that really fair on the next one out? THINK PLEASE when moving about and banging seats. Of course we should applaud success but wait until the lap of honour as has been said these are flight animals and it is usually the noise so close behind when lined up that causes upset. Over the years I have seen children fall off in presentation due to inconsiderate audiences, then you wonder why people resort to calmers or worse.
|
|
sarahp
Happy to help
Posts: 9,510
|
Post by sarahp on Sept 18, 2017 9:24:33 GMT
Even show animals aren't placed in the extreme conditions that police horses are, facing riots and football crowds and the like. We can do lots at home to get them used to normal show stuff and some of us do (or did, in my case). Two of my homebreds, one older and done lots but the other a relatively inexperienced 5yo D, went to the Horseman's Service up in London last Sunday and stood like rocks through the service with no special preparation.
Putting tin hat on here - perhaps with the easy availability of calmers and the desire to breed animals that will show off in the IH ring, there is not the same amount of care taken to breed them with good, unflappable temperaments as there used to be?
|
|