10 REASONS TO THANK YOUR HORSE

11. Your Horse Hasn’t Killed You

Seriously, walk into the barn and kiss your horse on the face for not killing you every chance he gets. Horses are obviously several times larger than humans, weigh at least 10 times as much, and could easily smash any of our heads in at any moment. But they don’t. They let us saddle them and bridle them and climb onto their back and ask them to do all sorts of crazy things. Whether you are jumping over a hunter course, doing advanced dressage, or just going on a trail ride, your horse absolutely has the capacity to murder you, but they don’t. Even when humans are injured from horses, it’s very rarely intentional and often a product of our own mistakes.  Remind yourself of this when you put a humiliating Santa hat on your horse’s head this holiday season and give them a big kiss on the nose.

 

   2. Your Horse is Your Best Friend 

I know that if my Jack Russel, Rufus, read this he would be very upset because he’s certain he has a monopoly in this area. So operating off the assumption that you can have more than one “best friend,” your horse absolutely falls into this category. Think about it, they are literally always there whenever you want to hang out. They spend hours at time with you. They never betray you (except when they spook at the end of a perfect trip and you want to kill them), and they are constantly up for ear scratches or neck rubs. Your horse is never going to bail on you to go hang out with their boyfriend, or tell your secrets to anyone else. They are the perfect companions.

3. Your Horse is Your Therapist

Okay, at first I thought maybe I am stretching it here. Because therapists usually have several degrees and extensive training and are overall the correct person you should be consulting for mental health. But horses, as I think many would agree, are the next best thing.

Spending an afternoon at the barn has more positive effects on a human than you might think. The benefits are seemingly endless: being outdoors in a peaceful and calm environment, connecting with nature, silencing your mind, and quieting your anxiety. It gives you a break from the rest of the world and the rest of your life for however long you want.

There is science behind it too.  Horses are proven to have positive effects on people struggling with addiction, those who are incarcerated, those who are chronically ill, men between the ages of 21 and 35, sad people, stupid people, single people, students, doctors, lawyers … My point is horses have a therapeutic effect on all people. Next time you are feeling down, go give your horse a hug. I guarantee it will make you smile.  

4. Your Horse Teaches You

Sure, most horses play a big role in teaching you how to ride. But for kids (and adults) horses have the ability to teach them so much more than what they would grasp just by being told. For example, taking care of my pony after a long day before taking care of myself taught me responsibility. Riding five horses a day and taking care of each one taught me discipline, the value of hard work, and perseverance. Standing out in the cold to hold your horse for the vet or the farrier will teach you how to endure for the sake of another creature. Giving the grooms the day off and feeding the horses on Christmas morning before opening our presents, well that taught us patience, kindness and compassion. It also gave us perspective. Doing things the right way and winning results in confidence. Hundreds of riders learn to overcome their fears and achieve things they never thought possible. They owe it to their kind and patient horses.

Although, its true that horses are not always kind and gentle when teaching us. Every once in in a while (usually while watching the junior divisions) I’ll see a horse put his rider in her place. A common example is when the rider leans up the neck at a long distance and the horse stops short sending the kid flying. The kid gets furious, but you can see the trainer just smiling. That horse just taught the rider not to do the exact thing the trainer has been screaming about for the last three weeks.   

5. Your Horse Humbles You

Although similar to teaching you, this is more like when your horse reminds you. Remember that time you thought you were going to show off, leave out a stride and hold the counter lead to through the turn, and instead you ended up in the middle of an oxer with dirt stains on your breeches and bruised ass? Horses are great at reminding you of exactly what you are capable of and whenever you get a big head and you can be sure they will put you in your place. This is also one of the benefits of riding green horses.

My equitation horse was notorious for doing this. Although he embarrassed me quite a bit in front of the fancy “made” horses we competed against, he would not let me get away with anything. Oh, you think you are gonna cross your hand over my neck to get me to move over? I don’t think so, here’s a swap and swished tail. Oh, you are gonna go to your spur before your leg? Here’s a giant bucking spree across the end of the ring. Oh, you’re not gonna get straight before you ask me to jump? Well then I’m not jumping. Although it frustrated me at the time, I became a better rider for it. And I learned to stick within my capabilities and do things the right way before advancing.

6. Your Horse Makes You Look Good

For every time your horse has humbled you, they have also covered up for you. Don’t get me wrong (you may be a fantastic rider), but anytime you come out of the ring and your trainer says, “give that horse a bag of carrots and a hug” its because your trainer saw what could have happened, and then witnessed your horse save you. Some horses are better at this than others, and usually the more expensive ones are more likely to ignore your mistakes and bad habits. But I’m certain that all horses do this to some extent. They try and stay underneath you, they leave at a safe distance even when you suggest otherwise, they cover up bad distances, and they do lead changes even when you are off balance and leaning on the inside rein. You really should give them a bag of carrots and a hug.

 

7. Your Horse Doesn’t Judge You

Yea, remember that time you showed up in mismatched socks, slung your helmet on over your ponytail and kicked around bareback for a half hour because you were too lazy to tack up…. Your horse won’t judge you. Your trainer will, your barn friends will, and you can bet your competition will.  And that’s one of the hardest things to accept about this sport: it is so subjective and full of opinions from every angle. Are you wearing the right helmet? The trendiest breeches? The newest show coat? The fanciest boots?  Sometimes I think people need to be more like their horses: stop judging and just enjoy your time at the barn. In the meantime, its nice knowing at least your horse will look past your appearance and give you the same respect as always.

I was constantly reminded of this as a kid from my mother. Whenever I asked her for a pair of stretchy low rise breeches, or to indulge me with the newest helmet trend, she would say something like, “do you think Phantom cares what kind of pants your wearing?” or “It’s not going matter what helmet your wearing if you don’t make it over the jumps.” Thanks mom. Point taken.

8. Your Horse Makes You Fit

Anyone who has ever sat on a horse for more than 10 minutes can attest to the muscle required to ride effectively. But most of us who do it all the time forget it. It wasn’t until I worked in an office eight hours a day that I realized the exercise benefits of just going to the barn. Walking out to the paddock, moving jumps, grooming your horse, riding, unloading hay etc. I would be lying if I said I wasn’t sore the day after going to the barn.

9. Your Horse Makes You Aware

From the moment you start handling horses you become more aware of your surroundings. You get your foot stepped on one time, and now you are aware of where your feet are. You learn to be aware of where you stand, how you hold the lead, how loud your voice is… These are all things we become aware of when learning basic horsemanship.

But there are other aspects too. When you first sit on a horse, you start to become more aware of your physicality. The signals you send to your upper body have to be separate from your lower body. Then you learn to separate your left side from your right. As you progress you break your body up into parts: a strong upper leg, a flexible but tight lower leg, a relaxed foot. You separate your shoulders from your elbows and from your hands. Each has a different role, and each has to act independently.  This is not an average skill that applies to most sports (unless you are doing gymnastics or something similar). As a result, I’ve found that riders have greater body awareness than non-riders. Although it’s not always good (some say this results in body image problems for competitive teens), I think for the most part this has a positive result on the rest of your life. For instance, when I do an oral argument, it’s easy for me to be aware of my body language, my posture, where my hands are, how loud my voice is etc. I noticed this does not come easy to all people. This is an example of your horse constantly reminding you of what you are. And that’s something they deserved to be thanked for.

10. Your Horse Will Love You No Matter What

I think of this every time I see Moose after being gone for a week. I feel guilty that I can’t spend more time with him. I feel sad that no one has loved him like I do since the last time I saw him. Of course, my trainer says I’m crazy and nothing makes him happier than spending 12 hours a day in a giant grass filled paddock with his little pony buddy. But it makes me sad nonetheless.

Then, when I do go see him, he nickers at me as I walk down the aisle, he sticks his face into my lap when I open his stall door, and he acts like I never left. I know he is more cuddly than most seven year old 17 hand thoroughbreds, but pay attention to your horse the next time you don’t act like a good parent. My bet is that they love you all the same.  Take comfort in knowing that no matter how long you are gone when you come back they will still love you.

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]. 

        

DO WOMEN MAKE HARDER CHOICES?

       Earlier this week, a woman walked into my office and said, "I envy you." I thought I heard her wrong. I said, "Excuse me?"

        "I envy you." she repeated. "I wanted to grow up and practice corporate law but I became pregnant my sophomore year."

        I had no idea how to respond. I felt uncomfortable, I felt entitled, and worst of all I somehow felt guilty. By this simple interaction that took no more than 20 seconds and a few words, I knew I was speaking to someone who had felt forced to give up on a dream. And here I was, all of twenty-six years old, having (for the most part) accomplished mine. The wall of framed diplomas and awards proudly hanging right in this woman's face somehow felt like an arrogant gesture. I fidgeted and blurted, "I heard corporate law isn't that fun anyway."

        What a stupid thing to say, I thought. I had just shat on her dreams as not being that great anyway. I spent the next 30 minutes thinking of all the better things I could have said. I could have changed the subject and asked her what she did end up doing. I could have focused on the positives and asked her how old her child is and what was her name. (Without giving too many details away, I later learned she went on to have several more kids and worked in the health services industry.) I could have simply apologized that she had to make such a difficult decision. A decision I had never had to face.   

        When I went home that night, I wondered why I had felt so guilty and responsible for what had happened to this woman. Maybe, I felt bad because I knew there was nothing I could do to fix it for her. I knew that there were probably millions of other women out there who had to make the same decision, who had to choose between family and education, between their children and a career, between two equally important and cherished dreams. I began to feel angry, why couldn't she have both?

        I always assumed that I could have both. I never thought it would be easy, or that it would come naturally, but I also never planned for the unexpected. I look up to women like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who did manage to have both a lovely family and an extraordinarily successful career. But I never seriously contemplated any alternative.

        The fact that I am where I am is a testament to the positive change that has occurred. Law school enrollment is now higher for women then men. And the law makes it explicitly illegal to discriminate against someone based on their gender. But that change only happened because women took action and made the law makers and judges realize that the ways of the past needed to change.  Although, there is a not a week that goes by where I am not mistaken for a secretary or an assistant, I'm not insulted by it, I'm just perplexed. I know I am new and young and need to give people a chance to get to know me. But I can't help but notice that this is something that never happened to my male counterparts, and probably never will.

        The truth is that even after the last fifty or so years of headway in women's rights, women still face obstacles when it comes to education, the workplace, reproductive rights, and the intersection between all three.  In reality, money, time, and available support generally govern a woman's decision in all of these areas. There is a pay gap, child-care is expensive, and work hours (especially of a corporate attorney) are not flexible. It's not that I believe women are faced with harder choices, its that I don't think  many people appreciate how life-altering these choices can be. I know I didn't.

        For the critics out there, you are correct that I am relying on purely anecdotal evidence and my own experiences and perspective.  I am certainly not saying this happens to every woman, or that this woman made the wrong decision. The point is that, it was a decision that had to be made in the first place. And it's one that many (but not all) of our mothers and grandmothers had to make. History shows that it's a decision that a man would likely not have to make, or that would not change the course of his life to the same degree.  The overwhelming majority of legislators, politicians, and judges in this country are male. And if myself, as a twenty-six year old female professional didn't recognize how this type of choice could alter a woman's dreams, how could they?

        

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. 

THE REAL ABOUT ME

Born and raised in Colts Neck, New Jersey, I started riding before I could walk and I haven’t stopped since! Although I was never given fancy or expensive horses, I toughened up and learned everything I know by re-training off-the-track-thoroughbreds (OTTBs), green horses, and any challenging equine I was handed the reins to. I even fell in love with a few of these beasts, and owe most of my skill to them. A smooth sea doesn’t make a skilled sailor.

As a junior I rode in the Equitation, the Junior Hunters, and Junior Jumpers. Thanks to the wonderful people supporting me, I was occasionally offered an obedient animal and given a chance to excel. But it wasn’t long until I realized that the next chapter of my life should focus on education.

I went to Auburn University where received a full athletic scholarship and competed on the NCAA Women’s Equestrian Team in both the flat and over-fences. I graduated in 2011 with a B.A. in English and Political Science. I then attended Seton Hall University School of Law and graduated in 2014.  I completed a one-year judicial clerkship, and I currently practice law in the areas of medical malpractice, personal injury, and employment law.

Now, I’m just enjoying my life as an amateur and endlessly spoiling my giant and cuddly OTTB Moose, and my feisty and fresh yearling, Zoë. As a woman, a life-long equestrian, and a lawyer, I hope that this blog can serve as a platform for me to share my perspective in each of these areas with a focus on the ever evolving USEF rules and how they affect people like me. 

With special thanks to the best horsewoman I know, Andrea Sgro-Loprete, who dedicated most of her life to my success and to teaching me everything I know and love about horses.