FEEDBACK Nine Reasons Against Tranquilizers In The Show Ring
Having shown back in the late ’50s up through today—and not ever being one who uses tranquilizers in the show ring—I learned how to prepare my horses the “old-fashioned” way, with no tranquilizer. I was naïve to the fact that many professionals were using them. I could never understand how some professionals were able to ride forward with pace and drive their horses forward to the long spot, fence after fence, without their horses getting strong or playing. I had to learn to ride “conservatively.” Often, if I asked my horse to move forward for one long spot, I couldn’t get “a pull on the reins” the rest of the round! He’d be long gone! I’ve read both articles, for and against the use of tranquilizers (“Solve A Host Of Problems With Controlled Quieting Medications,” March 21 & 28, p. 88, and “Why Not Just Allow A ½ CC Of Ace?”, April 11 & 18, p. 70). There have been many good arguments for giving tranquilizer, but many more and far more important ones for not giving them! In response to some of the arguments for the use of tranquilizer, here are my responses: 1. It would result in less pounding on the horse physically. Response: Don’t show every week! Pick and choose a realistic number of shows that might allow your horse to last longer.
2. It would require less time to prep for the show ring. Response: Learning the individual horse’s needs for prep and comfort, physically and mentally, are a big part of horsemanship and training. The time invested to produce a good performance is all part of it. 3. It would quiet and desensitize horses so that they could take a much less accurate ride and accept more riding mistakes. Response: But quieting and desensitizing horses lowers our
26 The Chronicle of the Horse
standards of riding, training and horsemanship. Dealing with horses’ emotions is half the battle. Drugs and quieting agents are trying to make a horse like a car. We’re not dealing with metal with an engine that is the same under all circumstances. Learning to address your horse’s needs is what riding and training is all about. 4. It would eliminate use of illegal substances to quiet an animal, and the sport would only need to test for the amount of certain “prescribed” medications, so that would cut the cost of enforcement enormously. Response: Illegal substances to quiet an animal will not go away. It’s often people’s nature to think “more is better.” If they don’t get the exact response they want, they will add Other Things to the mix, especially if we are not testing for anything but a certain amount of the “prescribed” medications. Another concern is, with horses showing so much, they will be on tranquilizer more than they are off tranquilizer! And how many days in a row will they have tranquilizer administered to them? Does it become cumulative? What if you have a class early in the morning and again late in the afternoon? Are you going to tranquilize two times a day?! Talk about “welfare of the horse!” What about schooling at home? Are they going to be tranquilized there as well? 5. No exhibitor, trainer or rider would have the advantage of winning due to a quieter animal. Response: Wrong! It gives the advantage to the owner of the “hot or crazy” horse! It gives the advantage to the riders who don’t ride very well. When drug testing first started I had the advantage for a while, because I didn’t need to change my training program. 6. Longe line abuse would disappear. Response: There can be longe line abuse when horses are forced to run around wildly, but it doesn’t have to be that way. Proper longeing is a wonderful asset. It prepares horses physically and mentally while instilling balance, rhythm and discipline. Lack of the weight of the rider also helps to alleviate back soreness.
7. Lawsuits would disappear. Response: Using drugs that alter the horse’s mind, and in some instances his gait and balance, would only open us up to more lawsuits! With the varied responses different horses have when given any tranquilizer, one can’t be sure how the horse will react. Stumbling, tripping, falling— some horses even have the reverse reaction when given a tranquilizer and become more excited. This could be brought into question when there is a fall of horse and/or rider. Injuries will be scrutinized. Big lawsuits will follow. 8. Dangerous side effects of quieting medications would no longer be an issue. Response: Dangerous side effects will always be an issue, even with legalizing ace and supposedly educating people as to how and when to use it. There will always be uneducated people who are “needle happy” trying to “get the edge.” Being that “one size does not fit all,” and each horse can have a different reaction to the same amount of tranquilizer given, people will add other substances (often illegal) to try to perfect their horse’s performance. 9. The cost of testing will be much lower. Response: Not really. Testing will always be necessary as long as there are people trying to cheat the system. By opening up the door to tranquilizers, there will be far more use of them, which will require even more testing to be sure they are within the limits and that there are no added substances. We will always need a “policeman” to check for other illegal ingredients. The bottom line is we are already failing to develop any real horsemen. We’re dealing in an era of instant gratification. We have developed some wonderful riders, but how many of them have any idea what it takes to train a horse? If we choose to ride tranquilized horses, one doesn’t learn to deal with the horse’s emotions, which are such a key part to the successfulness of the training. PATTY HEUCKEROTH Southern Pines, N.C.
