An American Breeder
Jul 7 2003, 05:49 PM
The ECAHO has announced on its website its decision on Al Aadeeb from the positive drug tests after the Worlds at Paris, December, 2002.
I applaud their courage.
Jul 7 2003, 07:02 PM
I believed, due to the length of time this decision was taking, that Al Aadeed's title was safe and that the ECAHO was going to make the decision that a majority of people were hoping for.
American Breeder, this is really hard. I can't applaud anything. I find it difficult to find happiness or even satisfaction with this decision. Al Aadeed is a spectacular show horse and his breeder spent a fortune to bring this horse to Europe, so the rest of the world could see him and enjoy him. There was much effort and sacrifice invested by many people in getting Al Aadeed ready for Europe. The generosity of Sheikh Hamad overwhelms me, when I consider that he sent this extremely valuable horse to Europe, with all the risks involved.
There are not many Arabian stallions that come along of the proportions of Al Aadeed. For me, he came at a time in my life when I had too many questions and the only answer could be found in a "superstar horse" to remind me why I love the Arabian Horse so much. He is the embodiment for many different peoples of what an Arabian Horse should look like. If there is one thing that Al Aadeed does, is that he unifies many people over his qualities, he brings us together in aggreement. It is hard to unify so many different people on anything these days! I find it miraculous over what a very beautiful horse can accomplish. I recognize that the decision has nothing to do with Al Aadeed's quality and the significance that he is already making, as we see photos of his progeny like Amira Al Shaqab. No one can take that away and he doesn't need a ribbon to underscore that fact in anyone's mind.
I don't envy the ECAHO, they had a very tough job. A job that would not bring them any popularity, no matter what the decision. And like many have said on the ECAHO forum, "rules are rules that apply to everyone." I understand and recognize this fact. However, it does not make accepting this decision any easier. For me, Al Aadeed is the standard, against which all horses will be measured.
Jul 7 2003, 07:05 PM
Dear American breeder,
no reason for applause. They just did what was necessary.
No one who knows the heads of ECAHO had any doubts that they would come to a solution.
But again, no reason for applause. A great horse had to suffer because of a human failure.
A sad story has come to an end.
Jul 7 2003, 07:08 PM
You took the words right out of my mouth.
Jul 7 2003, 07:56 PM
It says on the ECAHO site that Al Aadeed is suspended from all shows for six months, the suspension ends on the 4th of December...one day before the World Championships start. If you ask me the ECAHO is giving Al Aadeed another chance to win the title, and I'm sure Qatar will make use of the chance, perhaps a crumb of comfort to the Aadeed fans.
An American Breeder
Jul 7 2003, 08:03 PM
I really don't see this: "A great horse had to suffer because of a human failure. "
The horse is happy at home, probably in a great environment, munching on his hay, enjoying life. Losing the title means NOTHING to this horse, only to the humans involved. The horse is still the horse, with all his beauty and quality. The horse has had NO HARM done to him. And anyone who would change their mind about breeding to that stallion or buying one of his foals over the loss of this title is too much of an idiot to have such a fine foal from that horse.
Yes, the ECAHO did what they had to do. Had they not taken that action, their would be no integrity or reason for the rules of their organization. But that STILL takes courage and conviction in your beliefs. The loss of that title may indeed help other others down the line in other shows from being drugged. Because it will be a reminder that anyone will be disciplined.
Jul 7 2003, 08:32 PM
For me he remains the true World Champion Stallion. I saw him win and no horse could rival his beauty and presence in the ring.
Jul 7 2003, 08:56 PM
My comments removed, they are not necessary, as per Alia's statements.
Jul 7 2003, 09:12 PM
"Because it will be a reminder that anyone will be disciplined."
Dear American Breeder,
don't know what is common in the US but in Europe rules are made for everyone. We need no reminder for this because we already know it and we had many cases before where ECAHO showed their objectivity regardless how powerful or rich or influential people involved were. So there really is no reason to be surprsied and certainly no reason for applause. They did their job, no more no less. And they did a good job, as always in the past.
Jul 7 2003, 09:12 PM
Sorry, forgot to enter my name.
An American Breeder
Jul 7 2003, 09:45 PM
"But that STILL takes courage and conviction in your beliefs. "
Surely anyone taking the time to read my post would know that is what I applauded.
Wilbur,friend to Mr Ed
Jul 7 2003, 10:35 PM
Absolutely right, there are many varied and valid reasons why people compete in all sorts of competitions and in life, to be what you want and can be.
But animals have a slightly different view or approach, some are naturally competitive, race horses I am locally informed like to see which one can go faster, what ever the contribution of the jockeys. Maybe not all but some. But they dont actually set out themselves looking for race meetings, sure they might race in the fields with pals but its not the same as being asked to compete by a human.
I imagine that as far as Al Adeed is personally concerned , he did his bit had a good day out, everyone showed him love and affection he had a lot of nice fuss and attention and has a good memory of getting a prize and being called the World Champion.. That I imagine wont have changed, he will still be getting lots of love and attention and people will remember what thay want what ever changed after that moment.
I dont imagine unless someone has told him and he had his prizes in his stall which have now suddenly gone that he gives a hoot, what people have done or said on the internet.
He may not bother reading and is unlikely to be on line in his stall.
In the future humans, people who walk on two legs will drop this subject.
Don't get too upset about what is already history. Remember the great day the horse had in december and makes sure no one ever tells him.
Jul 7 2003, 10:54 PM
I have been trying not to get involved in any of the repartee on this subject for months now, but I REALLY FEEL THAT THERE ARE SOME COMMENTS THAT MUST BE MADE. First and foremost I repeat what I have said to all those who tried to get a quote from me over the past few months: gaining a title by default is not my idea of a happy situation nor I am sure is it most peoples`. However, I must say that things are getting out of all proportion in these arguments. The horse is I am sure as was pointed out above much happier at home than on the show circuit where he was distressed in travelling and let`s face it also on the showgrounds. He has been applauded and appreciated by masses and has every possibilty to return to Paris this year,anmd aas the decisions have taken so long he also already entered and won the Qatari International Show this spring. So much for that. As for the dangers of travel and the generosity of Sheikh Hamad, I would like to stress that as any of us who have horses know, the dangers and risks are there for everyone who goes to shows, and the costs of entering are evaluated as worthwhile or not by those who send their horses. OF course I was happy for the Qataris to do well,and have expressed frequently my pride in Middle Eastern countries sending horses they have bred to Europe and regaining credibility as breeders of the ARAB horse! They have entered from the Usa and Australia too in the past... Olympic athletes HAVE frequently been banned and lost their titles for exactly such `technicalities`. I realise that I sound unsympathetic and in fact that is not the case. I have done everything in my power to encourage shows and all Arab horse events in the Middle East and AAdeed won his first International Title at the Show in Jordan. I am sentimental about such things, and I know very well what goes into breeding and loving a horse, not to mention all the joys and woes of showing. I just think that everyone needs to be a little more objective ,and get things in proportion. It is a sad situation,it became extremely ugly and unfair for a while when inaccuracies and accusations started flying around on this very site,from third parties moreover! While everyone feels with Sheikh Hamad , he is not in need of apologists, and the Emir of Qatar is the first to uphold rules as he demonstrated at one of their early shows when the Championship was removed will his full concurrence. Sheikh Hamad himself proudly told us of the Emir`s belief in clarrity, transparency and conforming to the rules.He just saidthat if there were findings of forbidden substances then that was that ,and withdrew his horse from the title himself. we have to also acknowledge that ECAHO has had a difficult time over this, There simply cannot be different sets NOR different applications of rules, To misquote,Shakespeare and begging his pardon, `That way madness lies`.
Good evening Princess Alia
I totally agree with you. I feel that ECAHO did what they preached. I also feel that any of the renowned breeding farms owners, going through the same thing, would feel honored to withdraw. they simply dont want anything which is against the rules.they also dont wont sympathy or
rules are rules, they are there for all. And this removal from first place can not possibly alter the horse. we all know this. an honest mistake occured, and a hefty price was paid. But this will also give a serious warning to those who dont make "honest mistakes", and I feel there are some out there.
I am very happy that ECAHO inforced rules and
send out a warning singnal to all. their crediabitlity was at stake, and it now stands unblemished.
that does not mean that I am not deeply sorry this incident happened, due to a human error or neglect. I fully understand the issue.
Jul 8 2003, 08:57 AM
It is a sad situation,it became extremely ugly and unfair for a while when inaccuracies and accusations started flying around on this very site,from third parties moreover!
Just a short correction. On THIS site nothing "extremely ugly" was published.
No accusations, no harm. This was solely on the ECAHO website.
Here some serious discussion about drugs and abuse of show horses was to read -
and of course several different opinions about how the ECAHO should deal with this
situation. But it was far away from being "unfair".
Jul 8 2003, 08:32 PM
Dear Oliver, I was not refering to your good self, nor did I mean to cast a slur ON the site, I feel that you do try to keep the tone civilised,and well done! However, if you recall, there were indeed at the very least`leading statements`, the one I remember most was my friend Michael Byatt who started ascribing blame hither and thither in a surprising manner. I am not rehashing it all,but just wanted to point out that I was not making irresponsible statements. Hansi, Good evening to you too, and I couldn`t agree more. human errors are usually behind these things...that is, I don`t imagine we can ever blame the HORSES for administering whatever, abusing themselves, filling out wrong forms, etc.....and beleve me I know how very hard it is sometimes to enforce rules when there is patently a genuine mistake,no more nor less...it happens much more often than non-organisers ever appreciate I am sure, but when people see that the same goes for everyone they are , understandably,far more willing to comply with the letter of the law. Once again, Oloiver, we all appreciate your website and no criticism was aimed at it. Sincerely, Alia
Jul 8 2003, 09:26 PM
Why was the horse drugged and which class was it shown in were the results were found? I am not current on this story. However, not too long ago I was going to breed to a Western Pleasure stallion whom I thought was nice, and quiet, and would produce a good western baby. However, it turned out that in order to win at the National level it had to be drugged. As a small breeder, I was appalled, because I simply cannot take the chance with my money that my foal would be 'hot'. I called that a case of misrepresentation on the stallion owner's part. False advertising even. I did not believe the owner's were ignorant of the drugging. I have had my horses with big name trainers. We owners always know, some just choose to look the other way.
Jul 8 2003, 09:49 PM
Above anything in this world I hold true Justice to be by fare the number one block in the foundations of a Democracy. I also believe that history is history, you can read about it, talk about it, but you can never change it. One can plan for today and also shape the future.
In this matter the jury have deliberated and made a decision, (Its history) The owner of this Fantastic horse also by his words believes in the Justice and accepted it, I for one applaude him, for he knows he cannot change the passed, but he can shape the future by making sure this fine horse will be seen by all to be free of any further criticism.
We can all help by letting this rest.
Jul 8 2003, 09:49 PM
I have to disagree with you. I remember Michael's statements and he was not ascribing blame anywhere. I believe that he stated that this was not an issue that required "black and white justice". He was asking for a fair decision, considering the extenuating circumstances, for which the safety of the horse, was the primary consideration, in administering the drug.
But again...what does all of this matter? The decision has been made and talking about it will not change anything, other than a "he said, she said" contest, for which there are never winners or happy peoples.
Jul 8 2003, 10:23 PM
I seem to remember too though, that Mr. Byatt at least partly fixed the blame on another certain well-known trainer.
Jul 9 2003, 08:38 AM
My memory of the thread is the same as Princess Alia's. Frankly when NOTHING should have been said-this is strictly a Monday-Morning-Quarterback observation- Mr. Byatt named names. To me he was doing two things-deflecting the whispers that he was the one who had drugged the horse and showing WHY the horse was drugged by the other well known trainer cum horse chauffeur. It is a very hard call and in his shoes which one of us whose reputation was on the line, might not have done the same?
Also, I do recall some 'ugly' remarks or that is how I interpreted them too. It is often difficult to distinguish, considering the numbers of different languages spoken here and then reinterpreted to English/Americanese (often very different to the Proper English Mother tongue or as it is spoken in the UK, So. Africa, Australia, Canada, etc), what is hurtful, kidding or an innocent observation made, blissfully unaware of how others are interpreting the remark(s). Goodness knows what is considered freedom of speech in one country is considered blesphemy in another and vice versa!
My sincerest hope is that there is one 'good' to come out of this: All concerned are remembered well, sympathetically and most of all the memory of these extremely beautiful horses will never dim.
Jul 9 2003, 04:28 PM
Hallo again. To respond to Ralph, I really do agree that this should not turn into `who said what`, and the ladies above have largely answered for me . My (Ihope final) point to add is that of course the horses` well being and safety should always be above any other considerations, and if sedation was needed then it was important that it be given, regardless of whether or not it would affect a title. Michael was probably reacting without thinking it through very clearly . AS the sedative showed up, the fact that it was given was not in doubt ; as the apparent reason for giving it was the horse`s distress during transport, (but it stayed in his system longer than normal), it would seem to me that the fact that a third party`s witnessing and testifying to the fact that it was indeed given under those circumstances would be more a thing to THANK them for than otherwise .However, as Gari said, we never know how we will react under given circumstances, `There but for The Grace of God go I`, is always a healthy attitude and I am not being judgemental, just trying to clear the air and wipe the slate clean. Best wishes to you all, Alia
Jul 9 2003, 06:11 PM
I am absolutely surprised at the tone that my comments were labeled, especialy by those that labeled them. I did nothing except relay ALL the facts as each party, whose name I mentioned were on record as stating them. In every case their letters were read to me in advance of me posting anything. As I was not present, nor was Sh Hamad, it was my intent to put forth the FACTS not inuendo, conjecture, or supposition. If indeed the facts were not EXACTLY as they were presented by me I think the parties involved should have stated so. And in doing that we could have made all their signed correspondence about the issues at hand a matter of public record. Loyalty is one thing but complete mischaracteization of my public statement is unfair.
Jul 9 2003, 07:07 PM
We agree Michael.
And we close this topic now.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here