THE USEF DOESN'T TRUST YOUR TEENAGER

On November 3, 2015 the USEF sent out to its members, for immediate release, a rule change to GR 404 effective December 1, 2015. The change widens the scope of “responsible parties” for rule violations, and includes junior exhibitors and “support personnel.”

At first this may seem like a leap in the right direction. Broadening the spectrum of those accountable for a rule violation means less loopholes available to avoid the consequences of violating the rules. Previously, trainers had the widest scope of responsibility for rule violations and a horse’s welfare, and others were less liable. To a certain degree, this made the trainer vulnerable to any unilateral action amounting to a rule violation by a staff member, exhibitor, or, you guessed it, “support personnel.” In this respect, the rule change almost makes sense. Should a trainer really be responsible for any substance that happened to make its way into the horses system, even if the trainer was not aware of its administration and certainly would never condone it?

I believe the answer is yes and no. The trainer is the person entrusted with the horse’s welfare. I would hate to think my trainer would allow untrustworthy people access to my giant fur babies so that some creep could administer illegal substances! (I’m talking to you mom, Moose better be safe!). But on the other hand, how much security and control should a trainer be expected to maintain? Some trainers operate a barn with hundreds of horses, and the staff needs to operate with a certain amount of autonomy for things to run smoothly. 

There is one thing for sure though: this rule change is clearly reactionary. It’s almost tailor made to address the most recent drug violation scandal. The USEF seems to be saying, if you were a trainerbut not acting as a trainer in this particular instance, but said you were thetrainer anyway, when really you are just the support “mom” and really you don’tknow anything…. Well no more! You won’t fool us again!  In my view, there is very little doubt that this rule change was not part of any proactive attempt to better the sport. Even so, the motivation behind enacting this change shouldn’t determine its effectiveness.  

But surprisingly the rule’s reactionary nature isn’t the biggest criticism I’ve gathered. The overwhelming concern is how vague the rule is. Who are support personnel? Groom? Braider? Shipper? Although it’s loosely defined in the rule, it appears to be a non-exhaustive list of those who could qualify. Possibly, this rule could apply to anyone evidence is gathered against. This leads to additional concerns. What about the diminishing species of working students and “barn rats”? What about the hard working teenage equitation rider trying to work off her bill assigned to setting grain and making sure each horse has their prescribed meds. Under this rule, that person could  be liable, absent “substantial evidence to the contrary”.

This brings me to another interesting and vague aspect of the rule change. There is no readily available definition for “substantial evidence” in this context and it’s not a term of art. Arguably, “substantial evidence” could be anything that the governing body finds “substantial”. We are all familiar with clearly defined burdens of proof in other circumstances: clear and convincing evidence, preponderance of the evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. Each one of these standards are quantifiable, easily definable, and proven. Yet, after some (very) quick research the only instance I found where “substantial evidence” is used as the standard is when the federal courts hear an appeal  from an Administrative Law Judge’s decision and must find it is based on “substantial evidence” in order to uphold the decision. In that respect, substantial evidence is defined as more than a mere scintilla of evidence and any relevant evidence a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Compared to other burdens, this is a very low one.

But what may be comforting is that as much as the rule exposes support personnel it also has the potential to protect them. There seems to be an implicit burden shift in that support personal will be responsible “absent substantial evidence to the contrary.”  This is interesting because (1) it identifies evidence needed to the contrary, to avoid being responsible, and (2) because it is such a seemingly low standard that any conceivable evidence to the contrary could protect support personnel from being responsible. Usually the evidence needed to prosecute someone is identified, not the standard of evidence needed to avoid being responsible. Maybe its just semantics, but it only reinforces the impression that this is a reactionary rule change written in haste.

What you may also want to know is that under the new rule a junior exhibitor may be considered a “person responsible” if there is “substantial evidence to support holding a junior accountable.” This is interesting because there is a notable distinction from the first paragraph of the rule that provides support personnel are responsible absent substantial evidence to the contrary. This suggests support personnel are off the hook if they can show any substantial evidence to the contrary, while junior exhibitors will be responsible if any substantial evidence is found against them. A minor distinction, but worth noting. Furthermore, substantial evidence is NOT a high burden for holding a junior exhibitor accountable. Generally, in the law minors are given more leeway for poor decision-making, are considered unable to appreciate certain circumstances, and are unable to consent to sexual conduct. In many cases minors avoid minimum sentences, are given the benefit of diversionary programs, and are given the chance to expunge their records. This is reflective of the general conception that children are a result of their environments and immediate circumstances, and that given the chance to improve they will make the right decisions and not harm society. Maybe I have too much faith in teenagers, but I believe that a junior exhibitor is not likely to obtain illegal substances (and pay for them), determine how best to administer them, and sneak past all others in succeeding to successfully do so. There are most certainly other influences at play, and those are probably the people that should be held responsible. Yet here, the USEF seems to have assigned the same standard against minors as they do others, and a rather low one at that. It is strange to me that the USEF takes a strikingly harsher approach to minors than other prosecutorial avenues in this country. 

But when you think about it, including junior exhibitors as responsible persons means very little unless we can fully understand the consequences a junior exhibitor will face. Not everyone convicted of a crime faces the same sentence. Previously, trainers have been dealt suspensions of varying lengths, fines, and of course the bad press and embarrassment that naturally flows from such accusations. I suspect a junior exhibitor may not face the same harsh consequences. Nevertheless, with this rule I think the USEF hoped to convey that a junior exhibitor with a successful career is not immune from accountability. But the only thing I think this rule change actually accomplished was creating a vague and inartful rule in reaction to what was a particularly infuriating circumstance. Perhaps the drafters should consider going back to the drawing board with a broader view of how this rule will effect all exhibitors, and not just the elite few it targeted.