SCANDALOUS SUSPENSION: THINGS YOU DIDN'T KNOW

         One of the most recent and controversial USEF suspensions was upheld recently by the New York Supreme Court (which is the lowest level court in state court in New York) and then again upheld by the New York Appeals Division.  This story has been extensively covered in the horse world because it involved a self-described "prodigy", and involved an issue that has long plagued the sport. The bad news is the reports I've read barely scraped the surface of all the fun stuff I learned from the court papers. The good news is, I somewhat sorted through it.

          You may know the basics and heavily covered details. Brigid Colvin's suspension was upheld. A suspension that she earned as the "trainer" responsible for the higher than naturally occurring levels of GABA found in Inclusive's blood after winning a hunter derby and a ton of money (that had to be returned). Below is all the fun facts you may not know, and that may make you think twice about your previously formed opinion, whatever that may be. 

I.  What You Didn't Know About The Facts of this Case

        1.  Even those of us not "in the know" knew that Colvin previously rode with (who I like to think of as hunter idols, seriously they win everything) Mr. Stewart and Mr. Berkely, and that they quit Colvin due to certain intrusiveness when it came to horse care. For lack of better of a better word, they were not inclusive of Colvin's mother. This may seem minor at first, but as the daughter of a trainer I can attest to the fact that quitting a lucrative client is not a quick or easy decision, even by the hunter idols themselves. The fact that they quit just 10 days before the hunter derby that resulted in a positive drug test; now that is intuition. 

         2.  If you think the hunter idols had intuition, wait until you read what their successor did. Inclusive and other Colvin mounts were transferred to Mr. Rivetts' care. However the arrangement, according to his lawyer, was that Rivetts was responsible for the horses' care only while at the barn, and once in the competition areas Mrs. Colvin was the responsible trainer. Nevertheless, the entry form for Inclusive was filled out with Rivetts listed as trainer. Now here is where it gets fun: at some point during the show Rivetts went to the show office and asked to have his name removed! It's unclear what the exact timing of this move was, but it appears he alleges it was before the drug test. If that is true, Rivetts has some killer intuition! One could argue he may have seen this positive test coming. In any event, no one actually removed his name from the entry blank, they only made a note to do so. Oh so close! 

           

3. This made me wonder, how bad must the situation have been? At this point there are at least three trainers that did not want to be responsible for Colvin's rides on show grounds. And even after placing the horses in Rivetts' care the limitation was allegedly in place that Mrs. Colvin not have any hands on participation with the feeding, grooming or other care of the horses. This made me think the situation was probably very bad. When the veterinarian conducted the drug test on Inclusive, it was noted that both jugular veins were compromised from previous injections and the blood needed to be taken from elsewhere. As you probably know, this could mean that the horse has been injected so commonly that access to those veins is difficult. Could this be a sign of extensive drugging in the past? At the very least, it's a sign of prior drug testing. 

4. The lower court cited actual testimony wherein it was argued the accused was unable to inject horses with GABA because "her hands shake"rather than denying that she would never do it under any circumstances.  As someone that can't actually make myself inject animals, I wanted to believe her :( However, as the court noted, this testimony was inconsistent with an admission that she had previously injected a horse with benamine. Oops. 

III. What You Didn't Know About the Court's Ruling

       

      1. The Opinion issued by the trial court noted that during the course of the hearing the USEF had acted within it's discretion in weighing Mrs. Colvin's credibility. The Court noted, "[i]t was reasonable for the Hearing Committee to so evaluate the testimony, and within its province, and not this court, to assess Petitioner's credibility."  If I had to guess I think this means that whatever Mrs. Colvin said, the USEF probably didn't believe it, and had good reason not to, but still found her testimony to be probative. It was a determination supported by the available evidence, and thus upheld.  

         2. The court must judge the rationality of the hearing committee and not the rationality of the underlying actors. What does this mean? It doesn't matter how stupid it seems that someone would inject a horse with GABA and then tell the drug tester she is the trainer. It only matters in court that the USEF acted rationally and with the support of substantial evidence in finding that she did in fact do that.  

           

            "[H]er lapse in judgment under the circumstances does not   

  refute substantial evidence that she undertook the responsibility of the Trainer."

        3. The parties actually agreed on a lot of things in this case. And by doing so, the Court didn't question them. For one, the notion that a horse can have more than one responsible trainer at a time was non-chalantly mentioned. I'm pretty sure the Court may not have known this was an issue in the past. Second, the parties agreed a trainer is strictly liable for the horse's care and wellbeing. This was not challenged. Third, the parties agreed the gravamen of the case was whether the accused was acting as a trainer and thus responsible. This makes the ruling essentially limited to only this issue,  creating the perfect gateway for the USEF to reactively expand the scope of responsible persons i.e. my previous article. 

II. What You Didn't Know About the USEF

1. Now this is a thing I was not, and am not, 100% sure about. The USEF is not technically an administrative body. In fact, the USEF is a non-profit corporation incorporated in New York State. What does that mean? It means that in the eyes of the law the USEF is treated more like the governing force of a corporation, and less like a governmental body. In other words, the USEF is a non-governmental agency, essentially a private entity.  Therefore it is governed by New York's laws for businesses and corporations (CPLR).  And what does that mean?? That means that the USEF's decisions are appealed to a trial court and upheld unless a petitioner can show the decision was arbitrary and capricious, or outside of the body's discretion. If you think that sounds like a high burden, you are right because it is! So much so that in most cases when the USEF follows proper procedure and acts reasonably based on substantial evidence they will likely be upheld. Kind of like in this case. 

2. Hearsay evidence is allowed during the USEF hearing. If you've ever watched a legal movie, you've probably heard an objection for hearsay. Although it can get pretty complicated, hearsay is basically a statement made by someone not in court to defend it. Although there are exceptions, it is generally not permitted as reliable evidence in court. However, during a USEF hearing hearsay evidence is allowed. Although its not given the same weight as non-hearsay evidence, this is still critical because it allows those proceeding over the hearing to consider evidence that would otherwise not be admitted in court. You can bet there was hearsay evidence considered in this case, and it likely affected the outcome. 

So after learning all that, what do you think? 

                                                                                                                                         

                                                                                                                                           [Hey! None of this is legal advice. Obviously. Please do not take it as such].