HAPPENING NOW: TOWN HALL MEETING: ACCOUNTABILTY FOR D&M VIOLATIONS

Today, at 10:30 a.m. the USEF will host a town hall meeting to discuss "Accountability for D&M Violations." Members are encouraged to submit questions here. I know there are some things I am hoping they will answer. Below is what I submitted.

 

1. Recently, members who have faced penalties for violations have expressed a feeling of "unfairness" when they face fines for violations of which they had no knowledge and no intent. For example, contaminated grain, or following the proposed withdrawal times. Yet, they still faced fines. It seems intent and knowledge are only a part of the process when determining what penalty should be imposed, and not whether an actual violation occurred. Would the USEF be willing to re-write the rules to include intent and knowledge as an element necessary when proving a violation occurred? Why or why not?

2. It seems that gathering credible and reliable evidence is a problem whenever the hearing committee considers a violation. What steps could the USEF encourage to help members be prepared if they are faced with a violation? For instance, a medication and feed log for each performance horse would serve as an accurate record of what each horse has ingested at what time. Shouldn't the USEF take greater steps to encourage ways for members to protect the welfare of their horses before simply imposing harsh penalties when prosecuting violations?

3. Most of the litigation surrounding USEF violations centers on the alleged "arbitrary and capricious" threshold levels used during drug testing. It seems that without more scientific research in these areas, these thresholds will not be considered reliable. What can the USEF and its members do to enable and increase reliable scientific research in these areas? Is funding an issue?

 

4. The recent rule change for accountability seems to be "reactive", created as a direct result of a violation that occurred in the last year. What can the USEF and its members do to be more proactive with it's rules and any proposed changes?

5. Many people not in Kentucky and not on the circuit are still affected by these rule changes. In fact, every USEF member at every level is affected by these changes. Yet, the feedback and influence the USEF receives seems to be from the same group of professionals. What can the USEF and it's members do to include and consider feedback from competitors at all levels?