OCTOBER 2022 THE RIDER /17 ^Between The Ears^


on $ vs sport. Kicking out members or shaming them, results in revenue loss so in- stead... it would appear that you are actually supporting this


sport to DRUG


HORSES in order to retain revenue. Allowing any amount of sedation is not acceptable! The


only


By Ellie Ross. My #1 rule has always


been to love the horse more than the sport. Something we should all live by, but sadly many don’t. This is even more prevalent now that the NRHA has made the decision to allow horses to be drugged in competition. This prompted many discus- sions and I realized that most are not even aware of all the effects and risks asso- ciated with this drug. I turned to Carlos


Javier Ponferrada Abris- queta PhD. DVM who pro- vided his personal opinions and information that per- haps do not reflect those of the professional affiliations he holds. He is a Professor of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics/Senior Lecturer/Head of Equine Behavioural Science at the Veterinary School Univer- sity of Córdoba and also serves as an FEI Vet, is the Equine Expert on the Com- mittee for Veterinary Drug Safety serving the Spanish Drug Agency and is also the general manager of the Cen- tre for Natural Horseman- ship in Spain.


“I wouldn’t ride a horse under this drug. This would be risking my life, my horse … it is very dan- gerous. Doping a horse for non-clinical use, is abuse. It is legal but it is abuse. If you want your horse to show well, then prepare it well. Expose it to different venues, take the time to train and give the expo- sure that it needs. There is a bigger picture here as years from now there would be mares and stal- lions bred that had suc- cessful show records but were dependent on drugs to achieve this. You are not a horsemen if you need to drug a horse to show. You don’t love the horse, you love the win, at any cost.”


Carlos Javier Ponferrada Abrisqueta The drug is not just a


sedative. The pharmacolog- ical effects of this drug are unknown to most who sup- port its use or remain silent about it. The effects of this drug can include some or all of the following; • The drug partially erases the horse’s learned condi- tioned response with risking uncontrolled responses • Lowers the blood pressure • Reduces gut motility in- creasing the risk of colic • Increases sensitivity in the distal hind limbs • Ataxia (Horse lacks mus- cle coordination) • It acts like adrenaline - produces


sedation and


whole body analgesia. For the NRHA to


claim they will only allow it in small doses is nothing more than another appease- ment. This drug leaves the body quickly and becomes very difficult to detect. The penalty chart is meaningless when historically there has been no enforcement and the fines


for getting


‘caught’, are ineffective when dealing with million dollar purses and horses val- ued at 6 figures. There is no faith in future enforcement. “We must stand up for the horse” says Dr. Carlos, quite passionately.


An Open Letter to the NRHA Membership and Executive Dear Rick Clark; I just read your open


letter to the NRHA member- ship. You wrote that you personally would not give permission for your own horses to be drugged but you remain the head, of the organization that is allowing it. What faith can be had, knowing that the NRHA has knowingly, allowed this to go on for a number of years? I will not apologize for


seeing things differently than your board members. I feel that the NRHA is run only like a business focused


amount should be Z E R O ! You get caught, you are out. Period. This is the only ac- ceptable resolution here. If that is hard for directors to agree to, then clearly we need to replace them. Per- haps it would be wise to provide the names of those who supported it, so that the members are aware of who supports what. An organization that


gives permission to drug horses, is an organization on a serious slippery slope that hurts all equestrian sports. It gives credence to the lay people (PETA types), to ban horse sports all together. By the NRHA’s own


admission, historically they have not penalized for this when it was banned, so ba- sically the written rule was nothing but an appeasement process with no intent to protect horse welfare. If the consequences were enforced and severe, it would easily become a deterrent but in- stead, NRHA has allowed it. If I were trying out a


horse to buy, and discovered it had been drugged, that would not be acceptable to anyone. The seller would be viewed as unscrupulous, un- ethical with an intent to de- ceive. So why is


it


acceptable to drug a horse to show? To claim that it is cost


prohibitive to increase drug testing is laughable at best. I would encourage folks to look at the publicly avail- able tax returns of your mul- timillion


dollar


organization. We owe it to all the


horses to do what is in THEIR best interest. If one must drug a horse to achieve show results, then there is a serious lack of prepared- ness, lack of proper selec- tion, lack of horsemanship and overall lack of integrity.


This is not sport, it is greed. This decision affects


breeding and the quality of future horses. Do you really want horses being repro- duced that needed to be drugged, in order to achieve success? Horsemanship should


not ever condone the use of sedatives in showing. Love the horse FIRST,


the sport second… —————


An Open Letter to the NRHA Membership In view of all the com-


ments on social media re- garding


the recently


approved updates to the NRHA Animal Welfare and Medications Policy, I felt that it is time for me, as NRHA President, to clear the air and give a factual ac- count of how this decision came to be and why. In May of 2021, the


NRHA Executive Commit- tee identified animal welfare and the need to update our Animal Welfare and Med- ications Policy as a top pri- ority for the Association following an increased num- ber of positive medications results at NRHA-owned events. Over


the past 14


months, there has been thoughtful conversation and deliberation coupled with diligent, thorough research and consultation, including with legal counsel and lead- ing industry experts. The executive commit-


tee worked alongside the NRHA Board of Directors and other advisory commit- tees to develop several drafts of the updated policy which went to a roll call vote last week. The current policy for


penalties, which took almost six years of work until it was approved in 2015, was essentially a policy that con- tained rules but no conse- quences for those who knowingly broke those rules. The only penalties were letters and fines, most of which were entirely in- significant. Even worse, after a year, the probation- ary phase reset, so every- one’s slate was wiped clean. Since then, there have


been zero updates to the pol- icy. Zero.


New Penalty Chart: Current Penalty Chart:


This was never the in-


tention. There was always supposed to be a transition to increased penalties and testing to align with our in- dustry peers. Instead, we had ex-


hibitors who repeatedly broke our rules because they could with no repercussions. If a horse tested positive, their name was never publi- cized, and they got to keep their title, purse money, and prizes. They essentially got away with a slap on the wrist, and no one would know.


Additionally, when


you do not raise the medica- tions testing fee for seven years despite rising inflation and a booming industry that has seen an explosion of en- tries and events, you cannot raise the funds needed to test properly. As our testing is funded today, the fees only provide enough fund- ing to test about 15–20 events in North America an- nually. I think we’d all agree we’d like to do more. The question now


faced by our leadership was “how do we get these drugs eliminated from our indus- try for the welfare of our horses and for the integrity and fairness of our competi- tions?” It was clear it was the


right thing to do to try to come up with stricter guide- lines. In the long run, that would be best for our indus- try.


It is also important to


understand that the industry was totally split on this from the beginning—from the ex- treme of those who wanted no medications policy at


all—to those who wanted zero tolerance. I’m not


trying to


change minds here. Every- one has their own opinions and views. I am trying to get the membership to under- stand that this was not a simple decision and not a matter of a simple vote. Any change required a 67% su- permajority approval. Like the industry, the


board was split between the people who wanted the pol- icy and those that were against it. We did not have the


support to go to no al- lowance for Romifidine (Se- divet) at this time. It is as simple as that. We were faced with some unfortunate but very likely scenarios if we did not get the support we needed to enact some changes. One being that no


changes would be approved. Again. If we did not get any


changes approved, the Asso- ciation would be taking sig- nificant steps backward, and we would be right back at square one. Let me make this clear:


the goal of the Association is to eventually get to an an- imal welfare and medica- tions policy that has no allowance for sedatives or tranquilizers. But, sometimes you


have to take little steps to get to the big steps. Some- times, those first steps are the hardest. In order to get any


changes approved, we had to compromise. That com- promise came in the form of allowing a small dosage of


Romifidine. Personally, I own a lot


of horses and currently have over 30 in training with eight different NRHA Pro- fessionals. I will not be sign- ing permission for the use of the drug on any of my horses. The decision to use it will be between the ex- hibitor, owner, and veteri- narian, all of whom are required to sign off on its use.


Going forward, the


Animal Welfare and Med- ications Policy will be re- viewed annually so we hopefully never find our- selves in such a dire situa- tion again. We will also see a huge uptick in testing at our owned events, NAAC, and AA Events. We know this process will take time, but we know we are on the right path to an appropriate policy. As you can clearly see,


there are significant im- provements made to the penalty portion of the policy when you compare the “old” policy to the “new” policy. I encourage every member to study this closely and educate themselves on the charts. I just cannot stress


enough the importance of understanding that this deci- sion was not easy, but we truly feel it is best for the in- dustry to start holding peo- ple accountable for their actions.


Sincerely yours, Rick Clark


NRHA President


Searchable, Shareable, Connected


Visit: www.theridermarketplace.com


For Ad Placement: 905-387-1900 barry@therider.com


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