Exam ACE DOWN THE HOLE A
hunter trainer has a wealthy client who keeps her horses at “home,” where the horses are cared for by grooms employed
directly by the client. The client ships her horses to the trainer’s farm for lessons and meets the trainer at the shows. At shows, the client “stables with” the trainer, but her horses remain in her care and under the immediate supervision of her employees. The trainer handles the client’s entries and his assistant signs for him as “Trainer.” After winning the under saddle class for her division, the client’s horse is selected for drug testing. Several months later, the client and the trainer both receive letters from the United States Equestrian Federation (USEF) notifying them that the horse tested positive for a forbidden substance, Acepromazine. The letter from the USEF invites them to provide an explanation for the violation or face possible penalties. Because of the nature of the substance, the trainer and the client face a term of suspension for the violation. The client assures the trainer that “this must be a mistake,” and “I’ll take care of it.” The client then writes a letter to the USEF in which she offers the following explanation: The decision to show the horse was made at the last minute, and he had only recently been body clipped. My groom gave the horse Acepromazine in order to clip him, and simply forgot to tell me that. As a result, my horse did get Acepromazine within five days of competing, but my trainer had
68 March/April 2013
by Attorney Krysia Nelson
Test your knowledge of equine law with a bona fide case study of equestrian litigation.
nothing to do with that because he only meets me at the ring and doesn’t play any role in the management of my horses.” Unfortunately for the client, the laboratory
results told a different story. A veterinary pharmacologist who reviewed the lab file opined that the horse had been given a small dose of Acepromazine within an hour of the sample being drawn. Because the trainer wanted to avoid a term of suspension for the violation, the matter went to hearing before the Hearing Committee. At the hearing, the
trainer testified about his arrangement with his client, and that he basically did little more than “coach” her and meet her at the ring. He disclaimed any knowledge of the administration of the Acepromazine, and he pointed out that neither he nor any of
his employees ever touched the horse. ☛ Turn the page for the outcome of the case.
About the author: Krysia Carmel Nelson is an attorney from Virginia who is a nationally- recognized expert in equine law. Attorney Nelson represents horse owners, trainers, riders, breeders, equestrian facilities, farms, clubs and associations across all nationally and internationally recognized disciplines. As a lifelong equestrian, she currently rides and competes her Hanoverian Affirmed on Appeal in the amateur hunters. She can be reached at
eqlaw@aol.com.
© The Book LLC 2011
Bar
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100