USEF WINS ANOTHER COURT BATTLE, BUT IS THE SPORT BETTER FOR IT?

On July 6, 2016 the USEF Network released a statement regarding their recent win in New York Supreme Court against Archibald Cox. Cox had challenged the five-month suspension and $5,000 fine imposed by the USEF after excessive levels of GABA were found in a horse's system. In a previous post I commented that Cox's challenge (parallel to a similar challenge by Meredith Mateo) could be a GOOD THING if successful, given the thrust of their argument was changing the testing standard to be based on  "scientifically repeatable, reliable, and accepted standards."   Cox didn't win, and the USEF didn't change the standard.

The following quotes were released by the USEF:

"Once again, the decisions of the Hearing Committee were upheld in court. In fact, the USEF has never lost a challenge in court related to its anti-doping program, which protects horse welfare," stated USEF General Counsel Sonja Keating. "The USEF works diligently to eradicate doping in equestrian sport. We take the issue of doping very seriously. Our anti-doping protocol and the Drugs and Medications program go to the core mission of the USEF - to provide access to and increase participation in equestrian sports at all levels by ensuring fairness, safety, and enjoyment."

“Doping cannot and will not be tolerated in our sport. From the grassroots through the Olympic level, competitors must be given an opportunity to compete on a level playing field,” said USEF CEO Bill Moroney. “The USEF will always enforce its horse welfare rules to the fullest extent possible. We will continue to defend those decisions of the Hearing Committee fervently in court, if necessary.”

Immediately apparent  is that most of Cox's argument seems to have been completely lost on the USEF, and instead in a subtly arrogant display of victory the organization seems to suggest that these challenges are laughable given that the USEF never loses. For context, here is a section of Cox's argument:

“The difficulty is, since the substance is naturally occurring (endogenous to horses and humans), USEF’s ban on the introduction of GABA in excess of ‘natural’ levels is fraught with scientific missteps,” the petition states. “Significantly, the natural or endogenous level of GABA in horses is not yet scientifically known, as described below and in the Affidavit Dr. Steven A. Barker filed herewith. The only peer-reviewed study of the topic to date concluded no such ‘normal’ level exists in horses. To make matters worse, the testing protocol USEF used here (and which forms the only evidence USEF has) is not scientifically valid or accepted in the relevant scientific community. The alleged violations are based solely on these test results.”  

It's clear that the USEF is framing this victory as a step toward accomplishing a "core mission". The USEF's general counsel used the words "anti-doping" and tried to move the focus toward "fairness, safety, and enjoyment." Although I think we can all agree that safety, fairness and enjoyment are priorities within the sport, I think this misrepresents the issue and plays toward the broader national issue of doping of athletes. Personally, I have not used nor have I heard the term "doping" used to describe the particular issue of GABA levels in performance horses. But based on both quotes released by the USEF, this language seems part of a coordinated effort to frame them as the "good guys" fighting doping, and avoid the image of an organization that does not hesitate to discipline a member based on what could be unreliable scientific information.... 

It's also worth noting that Cox's argument in part challenged the threshold levels used for testing GABA. The rules as they stand do not impose a "zero tolerance policy", but provide some very minor leeway for naturally occurring substances, or trace amounts with no effect. Yet, the USEF's CEO seems to allude to - at least generally - a zero tolerance attitude. 

I can't comment on the specific circumstances surrounding Cox's suspension, and its not my intention to do so. Rather, I'll note only that I find the attitude expressed from the USEF as interesting and ironic given Cox's argument, which I think would actually improve the system by raising the standards for expert testimony and the weight given to scientific evidence. However, its easy for the USEF to gain support for their take no prisoners approach when they throw around words like "anti-doping" and "fairness and safety". In my view its a bit hyperbolic, and translucent. There is no question that "doping" (or whatever you want to call it) should not be tolerated at any level. Yet, I would have liked to see some regard given to the nuance and details of the issue. Someone needs to acknowledge that there needs to be more research performed, more funds raised, and a better more reliable scientific method for testing and providing expert testimony. 

The USEF seems to express frustration that people keep challenging their suspensions only to lose in court. My point is simply that less people would have a viable path for challenging their suspensions if the process for imposing them was more reliable, and within scientifically accepted standards. I don't know if we can ever get there if the USEF refuses to acknowledge that a modernization of the process is needed, from the ground up. Not just with regard to drug testing and hearing procedures. For instance, stop allowing judges to reward slow and sleepy rounds, over a horse that shows a little spunk. To accomplish true fairness and safety, steps need to be taken to foster an environment where anyone can win a class, not just the horses that have been longed to death and given a cocktail of calming substances. I'm frustrated because the USEF's response to this proceeding seems to completely avoid the larger point: that systematic changes are necessary. 

Of course, no one can deny that in order to avoid disciplinary proceedings competitors should simply not violate the rules. One step toward getting a more level playing field is making sure competitors are not drugging their horses. I agree with Mr. Maroney on that, I only wish that the same attitude would extend to the way our classes are judged, to the behavior that is rewarded in the show ring, and the to standards that all competitors are held to both inside and outside the ring. It follows that the USEF should be held to similar standards when instituting displinary hearings.