Three arbitrators from the American Arbitration Association issued their ruling yesterday, August 31, 2000, in a matter involving trainers Linda Shahinian and Nicole Shahinian-Simpson, and owner El Campeon Farms vs. the American Horse Shows Association, Inc. (AHSA). The case involved AHSA charges against the parties originally filed under the AHSA's Drugs and Medications rules. Shahinian, Shahinian-Simpson, and El Campeon Farms had sought arbitration of the charges because Mrs. Simpson was a candidate for the Olympic Games jumping squad for the USA. As a result, the case was not decided by the AHSA Hearing Committee.

In a decision dated August 28, 2000, the arbitrators ruled that the charges against trainers Linda Shahinian and Nicole Shahinian-Simpson are dismissed, since the AHSA was found to have "failed to sustain the burden of proof" in the charges against them. The ruling also directed, however, that the owner of the horse REVEAL, El Campeon Farms, forfeit "all trophies, ribbons, and points won" by that horse on the day in question, and return the awards for redistribution in all classes in which REVEAL competed on June 12, 1999 at Showpark in San Diego, California. REVEAL was found by the arbitrators to have had a forbidden substance (cocaine) in its system during the competition.

The arbitrators stated their approval and support of the AHSA's trainer responsibility rule, and support for the enforcement by the AHSA of a zero tolerance for the presence of the drug cocaine in competition horses. They expressly rejected the argument advanced during the hearings that laboratory thresholds be established for cocaine, and stated their support for the AHSA's ability to enforce the drug rules for the levels of the drug detected by the laboratory in this case.

In directing that all awards won by the affected horse on the day in question be redistributed, the arbitrators' decision upheld the AHSA's interest in maintaining a fair and level playing field. However, in dismissing the charges against the trainers, they ruled that the trainers had met their burden of proof, by "substantial evidence" as required by the AHSA rules, that they were not responsible for the condition of the horse tested in this case, based on the unique combination of circumstances present in this particular event.

The unique circumstances cited by the arbitrators in this case included the "rather striking coincidence" that another horse tested that day at the same show also tested positive for cocaine, despite the fact that in the last five years the AHSA had only recorded positives for 11 horses for this drug in over 15,000 urine tests. The arbitrators described this circumstance as "extraordinary" and stated, "While the reason for this phenomenon was never discovered, the coincidence tends to the conclusion that some third agent might have been at work that day to account for the two cocaine positives," especially since the two horses "had nothing in common," "i.e., they were stabled in different locations . . . and came into contact with different trainers, veterinarians, grooms, braiders and riders."

In commenting on the decision, the administrator of the AHSA's Drugs and Medications Program, Dr. John G. Lengel, said, "We are pleased that the arbitrators stated their approval and support of the Association's trainer responsibility rule, and for the enforcement by the AHSA of a zero tolerance for the presence of the drug cocaine in competition horses." Dr. Lengel also said that he was pleased that the arbitrators rejected the notion that the AHSA should establish laboratory thresholds for cocaine and not call positives for low concentrations of the drug found in the horse. "The arbitrators did not buy the argument that the Association should adopt rules for higher threshold nanogram levels such as those that govern airline pilots."

AHSA president Alan F. Balch commented, "Once again, the AHSA's drug rules have been tested and have been upheld. Our rules protect the rights of all competitors. In this case, awards are being redistributed as they should be, in the interest of fair competition, since the horse in question was determined to have a forbidden substance in its system. The charges against that horse's trainers are dismissed, owing to the protections provided them through AHSA rules - including arbitration in certain cases - which gave them the opportunity to provide evidence, as required by the rule, that they were not responsible for this horse's condition, in this particular case, and under the unusual circumstances they demonstrated. There have been other such cases in the AHSA in the past, decided by the AHSA Hearing Committee. This entire process has once again vindicated the correctness and independence of the AHSA's regulatory system and rules, and protected the rights of everyone involved."

Related Links
ahsa.org
Trainers and Owners in case repond to descision