Pollard's suspension

[roki143]

http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.php?cat=40511032791602&News_ID=1212707091121454

Just saw this on COTH homepage. Unfortunate...

[tx3dayeventer]

That is ridiculous!! It was 4 months prior to the show. If the drug can not be declared then why can they ban him because of it? That seems really contradictory! Oh wait that is pretty synonymous with FEI.

Stupid FEI!

[ohhthatgirl]

That really sucks, especially since he was doing it for the horse's health, not as a performance enhancement. Not that that horse needs an enhancement... he just rocks anyways :) I hope that they'll somehow pull through!

[Coppers mom]

Poor guy, this is all just a bit over the top. If it's clear that the drug was given months in advance because of only trace amounts, or the amount is so small (such as when a groom touches the horse) that it clearly has no effect on performance, the rider and horse shouldn't be punished for it.

[MMEventing]

Wow, it makes me not want to compete at the FEI level at all. I believe everything is just getting way over the top and something needs to be done!

[denny]

When you have highly enhanced testing procedures, coupled with a zero tolerance drug rule, then the inevitable result will be lots of completely innocent people getting caught in the web.

Which is what we are seeing, again, and again.

I`ve never had much respect for the FEI, and less now, if that`s possible.

[SevenDogs]

I have zero patience for zero tolerance! To me, zero tolerance is a sign of an organization that isn't smart enough to evaluate each situation on its own merits that usually results in ridiculous outcomes and poor results.

Here is a situation where the rider (under veterinary guidance) put the horse first and is getting nailed for it. That's a great message to send FEI. Yup... way to go! :no:

[SevenDogs]

The argument of litigation being possible if the FEI did anything other than zero tolerance has been raised, but there has to be a better way than this!

What it probably means is time and money to show what level it takes for these substances to actually produce performance enhancing effects. I haven't seen anything to show that the FEI is even considering such research. Perhaps National Federations could be permitted to fund such studies for the specific substances their riders are being penalized for (under the direction of the FEI so that the findings are legit) with the penalties being stayed until the results are complete. Or, have all fines go directly to research until it is complete rather than the general fund. Imperfect? Yes... but there should be an answer here somewhere.

Settling for zero tolerance is just that.... settling, and in my opinion, settling is not good enough.

anymore!

[BEEBER]

How is it possible that a drug that is supposed to be out of the horses system in 45 days be found in the horses system after 110 days? Where does the 45 day assumption come from?

[SevenDogs]

How is it possible that a drug that is supposed to be out of the horses system in 45 days be found in the horses system after 110 days? Where does the 45 day assumption come from?

No vet expert here, but we are talking about tests that pick up trace amounts so small that other horses have had substances detected just from being in the same room as the substance.

I would also guess that the drug being out of the horse's system is in regards to "therapeutic levels"? Also, every horse metabolizes things differently.

[Blugal]

As has been mentioned before, you will get a suspension and a fine if trace amounts of a drug given legitimately within a legitimate time-frame is found in your horse's system.

If you have two rotational falls in a year, or have a horse die under you, the FEI doesn't even take notice.

Yet the FEI is supposed to be looking out for the horses' welfare???

[bornfreenowexpensive]

How is it possible that a drug that is supposed to be out of the horses system in 45 days be found in the horses system after 110 days? Where does the 45 day assumption come from?


It comes from the amount of time that an average horse's system metabolizes the substances....but every horse is different. This is true for just about anything you give a horse.....and unless you test that individual horse, you don't really know how quickly anything clears their system....and the tests now a days are extremely sensitive.

[Gry2Yng]

Also, every horse metabolizes things differently.

In the past, I knew of competitors who actually tested their horses to see how quickly certain drugs metabolize to the point of a negative test. I would guess MP thought double the average and I should be safe. SUCKS!

[flutie1]

I would think that if the governing bodies were really concerned with the safety of the horse, they'd start testing for magnesium.

[eventer4eva]

Ok look.

Here's the way I see it. This is ridiculous. Pollard put the welfare of his horse first, and is getting smacked in the face for it.

So what can we do about it?

1. Be really mad, angry, and upset at the FEI for this this situation.
2. Feel really bad for Michael
3. CONTACT THE FEI AND TELL THEM THINGS NEED TO CHANGE!

I also add option 4. Boycott FEI competitions... however, I know that is totally unrealistic, as an effective boycott could only come from competitors, and it's not as if professionals can just stop competing.

which again reiterates option 3.

Here's a weblink to contact the FEI.
http://www.fei.org/Search_Centre/Pages/Contact.aspx

They don't have individual emails listed... SHOCKER!! So unless a super sleuth can uncover some way to directly contact them...

Do it now!!!!

[Gry2Yng]

I would think that if the governing bodies were really concerned with the safety of the horse, they'd start testing for magnesium.

OMG! You just said a mouthful!

[vineyridge]

Given that Princess Haya's husband and step son were both busted for drugs and that the whole German team is in turmoil because of them and that the Olympics were a farce thanks to drug testing, it would seem that perhaps the FEI is waiting for critical mass to be achieved before it implodes on the issue.

Is it possible that the FEI has to coordinate its drug protocols with the rest of Olympic sport? How is drug testing for humans treated internationally?

[vineyridge]

OMG! You just said a mouthful!

I'm ignorant. Explain, please, about magnesium in the context of competition.

[Gry2Yng]

You can read some here...near the end of the article. Or search the boards, most of the info will come up in the h/j board. Not sure how much of a problem it is with event horses.

http://www.ushja.org/documents/horsewelfare/EquineMedsaug08.pdf

[HiJumpGrrl]

Um, that's the stupidest thing I've read in a long time. I just don't understand the particularity of these rules. Maybe I'm still expecting to much.

[CookiePony]

Poor Michael-- this is just awful.

[Dr. Doolittle]

:no:

:rolleyes:

It's just beyond belief...

[Shrapnel]

Gah, Screw the FEI!

[LKF]

He loves his horses. They get nothing but the very best care around. I hope there is something that can be done.

[foxhavenfarm]

FEI = RIDICULOUS! :mad:

[ponyjumper4]

I don't understand how many cases like this need to happen before the FEI's lightbulb turns on. Is there any rider organization (kind of like a rider's union, similar to what the Player unions that the NFL, NBA, etc all have) that can sue the FEI for loss of income or something like that for these ridiculous suspensions?

[SevenDogs]

I don't understand how many cases like this need to happen before the FEI's lightbulb turns on. Is there any rider organization (kind of like a rider's union, similar to what the Player unions that the NFL, NBA, etc all have) that can sue the FEI for loss of income or something like that for these ridiculous suspensions?

That is actually not a bad idea. To penalize so heavily without proof that the amounts of the substances they are finding are actually "performance enhancing" seems unreasonable. If you are going to have penalties, you should be required to have done the homework ahead of time and have the data to back it up, including amounts needed to actually affect the way the horse competes.

[NMK]

They need to form a union of disciplines in order to address this with the FEI, and they need to do it NOW. Too many good horsepeople are getting trapped in the FEI net--Courtney, Isabell, now Michael, and more. This should be addressed before the WEG. I am afraid that the 2010 games will be boycotted if this issue is not resolved.

[broodmare]

Michael Pollard is a great guy and reportedly takes really good care of his horses. No arguement there.
BUT
Anabolic steroids are tricky for withdrawal. Many racing jurisdictions say 45 days but even the USEF Drugs and Medications booklet says 90 days and a sensitive test can pick them up longer, as we saw here. The tests for anabolics are getting more and more sensitive because of the pressures from racing.

One can disagree with the FEI rule, but at the moment it is the one we have.
I believe there is a mechanism to pretest a horse if a rider/owner is concerned, and this would be just the kind of situation where that might help. of course hindsight is 20/20.

[ponyjumper4]

Maybe, but how can you punish them for testing for it when there is no way to declare it?

[SevenDogs]

Michael Pollard is a great guy and reportedly takes really good care of his horses. No arguement there.
BUT
Anabolic steroids are tricky for withdrawal. Many racing jurisdictions say 45 days but even the USEF Drugs and Medications booklet says 90 days and a sensitive test can pick them up longer, as we saw here. The tests for anabolics are getting more and more sensitive because of the pressures from racing.

One can disagree with the FEI rule, but at the moment it is the one we have.
I believe there is a mechanism to pretest a horse if a rider/owner is concerned, and this would be just the kind of situation where that might help. of course hindsight is 20/20.

Broodmare:

You make some valid points and we all want to keep the horses safe and the competitions fair. However, we want it all to pass the "reasonable" test and I don't think current testing methods/policies are doing that. In fact, simply taking a "zero tolerance" approach may put horse welfare in jeopardy if Riders are asked to choose between appropriate vet recommended care and being absolutely sure nothing tests.

Just because it is the only rule we have at the moment does not make it acceptable. I think we should expect better and not just "accept it". If the FEI is going to state that horse welfare is one of its primary objectives, they need to back it up. Encouraging (or requiring) owner/riders to forego appropriate vet care, is not doing that.

Having research that shows at what levels these substances become "performance enhancing" should be required BEFORE penalties are put into place. If the levels found are "performance enhancing" or otherwise detrimental as backed by evidence, than penalties are fully warranted, even if the substance was used for therapeutic purposes. However, if they are not, then it is completely inappropriate to penalize.

[subk]

There are a couple of things I'm unclear about (that the FEI is generally screwed up isn't one of them.) The FEI says it was anabolic steroid, but do they confirm anywhere that it was trace amounts or that their findings are consistent with Michael's story? I mean, I hate to be fair, but do we really have all the information yet to determine that the FEI totally screwed this one? I hope the Chronicle does a better follow up. A story that only interviews MP and not his vet or even a vet much less the FEI is a pretty weak.

And just because I'm wondering, in the article he said, "I wish there was some way we could have declared it." If MP had declared the use at the event would it change anything? Does it make any sense now that FEI competitors should declare any use of any substance for the last year at every event? (For anyone that doesn't know, when you compete at an FEI event you are required to officially declare to the FEI vets everything you give or do to a horse that is considered therapy.)

Obviously zero tolerance 20 years ago is not at all the same thing a zero tolerance today with current improvements on the testing front. It would certainly be nice if the FEI realized they needed to join the same century as the rest of us.

[RAyers]

I would think that if the governing bodies were really concerned with the safety of the horse, they'd start testing for magnesium.

And it really is not that hard to do using Inductively Coupled Plasma Mass Spectrsocopy (ICP-MS). I use it in cell culture work to see if the cells are secreting certain minerals.

Pollard's suspension is an example of why I said I was done competing FEI. Their rules are archaic and contradictory to the welfare of the horse.

FEI = F#$%ingly Exceptional Idiots.

Reed

[broodmare]

Annex IV FEI Vet Regs (available on line) lays out how a treating vet can pretest for up to four drugs. I have never done it so I can't say how well or cumbersome the process is, but it is available.
I'm sure that MP thought he had no problem, based on thinking 45 days was enough.

SubK- I thought MP said it was Winstrol, and the FEI said it was Winstrol, so I didn't think they disagreed about that. Did I understand that wrong? I thought this was just about the horse not having cleared the drug.

Sevendogs- The FEI knows they have a problem, and the whole concept of taking the best possible care of your horse, and level playing field and all the rest is accepted even by the most traditional FEI. It just seems like it is hard for even well meaning rule writers/designers to get there.
BUT I wouldn't go to the mat for a competitor's right to use an anabolic for the health and welfare of their horse. Lots of other drugs, sure...but anabolics, not so much.
I wouldn't go to the mat for fluphenazine (Isabel Werth) either.

Certainly MP is a great guy and it appears like they were trying very hard to use every available tool to get a horse back in 3 1/2 months to 3 star form from what must have been a pretty tough illness. It appears that the withdrawal time didn't work out.

[Speedy]

I can also see the other side of this. Winstrol is an anabolic sterioid and can have serious negative side effects for the horse. It is used specifically to enhance recovery, strength, etc. - including weight gain and muscle development - and does in fact produce those benefits, even if given in small doses, particularly if the horse is dosed over a period of time in combination with a good physical conditioning program (I know this, btw, because I've actually used it myself).

So, I don't buy the argument that there should be some de minimis amount permitted in horses that are competing at these levels, because there isn't any way to determine the true intention of the rider, or the duration and cumulative amounts given to a horse prior to a withdrawal period. Giving a horse Wintrol to achieve what he cannot through good nutruition and physical conditioning IS a performance enhancing use of the drug...and unfair to other riders who have worked hard to prepare their horses without the use of drugs like this.

I personally don't fault MP for using it, and agree that there are good uses for it, but you can be sure that he knew and assumed the risks when he did.

[ahf]

appears like they were trying very hard to use every available tool to get a horse back in 3 1/2 months to 3 star form

No, it doesn't appear like that at ALL to me. It "appears" to me they were trying to get the horse to eat. So he could get better. (What a concept.)

I had a 2yo colt that developed,and was hospitalized in iso with a clostridium infection. Trust me, his appetite wasn't so hot once he was released. If i had known about Winstrol, he would have gotten it - and I had no competition timetable in mind. I just wanted him to live, gain weight, get better.

[subk]

SubK- I thought MP said it was Winstrol, and the FEI said it was Winstrol, so I didn't think they disagreed about that. Did I understand that wrong? I thought this was just about the horse not having cleared the drug.
The only info I'm going on is the COTH article (quick google search didn't bring anything else up) which says the FEI found an "anabolic steroid." I'm not sure if this is poor wording by COTH or not but it is not at all clear from the article that the FEI and MP are discussing the same drug as I believe there are multiple drugs that would fall under this category.

Again, I'm not trying to disparage Michael just questioning if there are enough facts from multiple sources out there to come to any conclusions.

[JER]

SubK- I thought MP said it was Winstrol, and the FEI said it was Winstrol, so I didn't think they disagreed about that. Did I understand that wrong? I thought this was just about the horse not having cleared the drug.

Winstrol is also known as stanozolol. It is the drug in question. It's an exogenous (not naturally-occurring) anabolic steroid.

The case is about 'trace amounts'.

The USEF gives a 90-day withdrawal advisory (http://www.usef.org/documents/drugsMeds/2005Advice.pdf). But the USEF -- like racing -- has a threshold of 1 nanogram/mL. A nanogram is one billionth of a gram. 'Trace amounts' is somewhere in the trillionths of a gram.

But withdrawal from stanozolol is tricky. The U of FL Racing Lab did a study that found a 'wide variance' in withdrawal times in TBs.


BUT I wouldn't go to the mat for a competitor's right to use an anabolic for the health and welfare of their horse. Lots of other drugs, sure...but anabolics, not so much.

Anabolic steroids are a very valuable medical tool.

It appears that the withdrawal time didn't work out.

But, if this is all in the name of horse welfare, what's the real impact of a horse losing its qualifications over 'trace amounts' that could not have affected performance? It means the horse has to compete more to re-qualify -- which is not exactly the most welfare-oriented solution. I hope the FEI can be reasonable here.

[subk]

Winstrol is also known as stanozolol. It is the drug in question. It's an exogenous (not naturally-occurring) anabolic steroid.
I'm not much of a scientist here but do/can the tests differintiate one anabolic steroid from another? In other words can/does/would the FEI know that it is specifically "Winstrol" (or its chemical equivilant without the trademark?) Or do they have more simple parameters to their testing?

[tx3dayeventer]

But, if this is all in the name of horse welfare, what's the real impact of a horse losing its qualifications over 'trace amounts' that could not have affected performance? It means the horse has to compete more to re-qualify -- which is not exactly the most welfare-oriented solution. I hope the FEI can be reasonable here.

:yes::yes::yes:

[JER]

I'm not much of a scientist here but do/can the tests differintiate one anabolic steroid from another? In other words can/does/would the FEI know that it is specifically "Winstrol" (or its chemical equivilant without the trademark?) Or do they have more simple parameters to their testing?

Yes.

Some anabolic steroids are difficult to detect, like the 'designer' steroid THG, which was the steroid of choice in the BALCO scandal. Others are naturally-occurring, like testosterone and nandrolone.

Stanozolol is an old-school steroid -- think Ben Johnson. It is very easy to test for.

Racing set a threshold of 1 nanogram/mL for stanozolol but the CHRB guidelines also note that most labs aren't capable of testing to that level. The FEI labs are picking up amounts much smaller than that.

[Lori T]

It is too bad that we can't vote the idiots out and get in some intelligent people who have common sense. Their way of thinking is giving equestrian sports a bad name..everytime news like this hits the media, horse sports are given negative publicity and our image is tarnished..non-horse people (which is the majority of the media) don't get the full story. The negative image of our sports just gives the Olympic committee further reasons to drop equestrian sports and for the public to view as a bunch of elitists who don't take care of our horses.

[CANTEREOIN]

I'm not going to comment on MP in particular... but I think we have to be careful as to what we will allow and how much. Not claiming to be an expert... but, while there may be a good use for anabolic steroids, there are many that will (and do) use it as a performance enhancing drug.

If there is a zero tolerance limit and you change it because there may be trace amounts and you want to allow trace amounts... what do you do when folks exceed the new level? Do you change that too? And if you do it then, why have a drug policy at all?

I went to a clinic once with a HJ clinician who suggested that I give my horse a shot of dexamethasone before a show to "quiet" her... He knew the exact dose to use and in what time frame to avoid the drug test. Nice, huh?

If the horse couldn't pass the test as they are written today... thems the rules. Go ahead and petition to change them... but they are doing the best they can to keep a level playing field.

And, I wonder what the board would be saying if the title was Darren's suspension... I wonder...

[SevenDogs]

I'm not going to comment on MP in particular... but I think we have to be careful as to what we will allow and how much. Not claiming to be an expert... but, while there may be a good use for anabolic steroids, there are many that will (and do) use it as a performance enhancing drug.

If there is a zero tolerance limit and you change it because there may be trace amounts and you want to allow trace amounts... what do you do when folks exceed the new level? Do you change that too? And if you do it then, why have a drug policy at all?

I went to a clinic once with a HJ clinician who suggested that I give my horse a shot of dexamethasone before a show to "quiet" her... He knew the exact dose to use and in what time frame to avoid the drug test. Nice, huh?

If the horse couldn't pass the test as they are written today... thems the rules. Go ahead and petition to change them... but they are doing the best they can to keep a level playing field.

And, I wonder what the board would be saying if the title was Darren's suspension... I wonder...

I understand what you are saying but that is exactly why there needs to be research to show exactly what levels are significant (performance enhancing, detrimental to the horse, etc.) I think everyone agrees that there needs to be a drug policy and testing to back it up, but when the tests become so sensitive that you can test positive because the horse was in the same room as the substance, then the testing might just be a little bit too sensitive and/or zero tolerance policies don't make sense.

I don't know Michael Pollard. As some have said, we don't know the whole story and frankly, I don't need to. There is a whole series of cases where the FEI testing is penalizing the wrong people, because of it's sensitivity. Science and technology are powerful tools but only when they are in the right hands and have the appropriate research and data to back them up. Otherwise, they can be more dangerous than that which you are trying to control.

... and I don't care who it is that gets caught in this situation... if the FEI is acting wrongly, then they are acting wrongly. Period. I don't buy that they are doing the best they can to level the playing field. Keeping tests in place that you know you "have a problem" with, as one other poster suggested, is just plain wrong. Go back to the drawing board and work the kinks out before you enact them. That is the only responsible thing to do.

[PhoenixFarm]

Ya know folks, this threshold vs trace amounts thing isn't rocket science. Even our poor beleagured USEF has managed to come up with performance enhancing thresholds for ALL KINDS of drugs. A stunning amount practically. And if the USEF can do, then I'd think the FEI could as well. Heck, they could even, get ready, ASK US for all the research already done on the matter.

I mean I realize it goes against the grain to ask anyone for anything and thus imply that maybe, just maybe, the FEI isn't the be-all, end-all, but it might save some time and money.

I don't know anyone who is in favor of drugged up horses running around, or thinks that performance enhancing substances should be used in competing horses. But there is a world of difference between a trace amount of a metabolite and a performance enhancing amount.

As far as Winstrol goes, it's a drug I dislike intensely, and would use only as a last resort, BUT I have used it as a last resort for just the reasons listed by Michael in the story--sick sack of bones horse that needed to EAT. It does work in that capacity, but if anything I found it to be performance UN-enhancing--makes them rather wild and studdish and disinclined to cooperate. Since he won the bloody thing I'm inclined to believe it had worn off in any significant way by then. ;). It is not the same type of steroid at all as Dex, and has a very different action.

Other than whining about it being hard, there is absolutely no logical reason not to establish threshold levels for equine medications. It's not about moving the goalposts, it's about caring for the horses. If x-amount in the bloodstream doesn't effect the horse in any way, then why do we care what's in there? If you test above that x-amount, then heck yes, throw the book at 'em. But going down for trace amounts is just ridiculous and an unmeetable standard unless we insist that everyone start competing on mustangs pulled freshly off the range. Those guys probably don't have too much in their system.

[broodmare]

Just throwing the ball up in the air. So if one were totally the boss: what kind of drug policy would work for the welfare of the horse and the fairness of the sport?

[SevenDogs]

Well said Phoenix Farms!

I also believe the USEF has done a decent job of defining a workable drug policy. Drugs can only be used for therapeutic purposes and can not be of a level that would enhance performance. That's where the research comes into play (or as Phoenix Farms suggested, cooperation with other governing bodies that have already done the research!).

[subk]

It's not about moving the goalposts, it's about caring for the horses.
This is what concerns me. Zero tolerance can only be defined by the sensitivity of our drug testing and that sensitivity has changed drastically in the last 10 to 20 years and more so everyday. The goal posts are ALREADY in a constant state of motion! Moving goal post doesn't sound like a fair or even safe sport to me.

I also have some more drug questions for the knowledgable. Does the FEI use urine or blood tests? I've always understood that when the USEF comes around to test they are waiting for a urine sample but will take blood if urine isn't forth coming. Is one type of collection more accurate/sensitive/predictable than the other? Is one more expensive?

[Peggy]

In theory, you could distinguish one steroid from another; however, I don't know if the enough material is obtained. Winstrol/Stanozolol (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanozolol) might be one of the easier ones to distinguish since it contains an extra ring (the one with the nitrogens). In fact, IIRC, there wasn't a test for it much before the 1988 Olympics (and the Ben Johnson brou-ha-ha) b/c of its structural difference from many other steroids.

[Gry2Yng]

I am constantly blown away by the education and experience of the members of this board. Especially when contrasted to some of the really dumb things that happen in the horse world.

[Eventingjunkie]

Our horse was tested twice this year...both times they took both blood and urine.

[Debbie]

As far as Winstrol goes, it's a drug I dislike intensely, and would use only as a last resort, BUT I have used it as a last resort for just the reasons listed by Michael in the story--sick sack of bones horse that needed to EAT. It does work in that capacity, but if anything I found it to be performance UN-enhancing--makes them rather wild and studdish and disinclined to cooperate. Since he won the bloody thing I'm inclined to believe it had worn off in any significant way by then. ;). It is not the same type of steroid at all as Dex, and has a very different action.


That was my experience with Winstrol as well. My normally tractable, lovely mare lost her mind for about 3 weeks and unfortunately, in my case, it didn't help her appetite either. :no:


I also agree with the sentiments regarding zero tolerance - sounds high minded, but too simplistic in practice.

[RunForIt]

That was my experience with Winstrol as well. My normally tractable, lovely mare lost her mind for about 3 weeks and unfortunately, in my case, it didn't help her appetite either. :no:


I also agree with the sentiments regarding zero tolerance - sounds high minded, but too simplistic in practice.

all or nothing generally eliminates reasoning...

[Gry2Yng]

all or nothing generally eliminates reasoning...

True. However, the FEI continues to demonstrate that reasoning is beyond their ability.

[Carol Ames]

Isn't that what Isabel Werth said, too:confused:?That really sucks, especially since he was doing it for the horse's health, not as a performance enhancement.

[riderboy]

Zero tolerance drug policies for legal drugs take thought and reasoning completely out of the equation. It's a brain dead way to formulate policy and reflects directly on the intelligence of the people who put said policies into existence.

[ponyjumper4]

So I just heard from someone that said they looked it up, that with Winstrol or anabolic steroids period possibly (not completely sure on that part), the USEF has a 45 day withdrawal period while the FEI has a 120 day withdrawal period. Pollard's horse was tested at 110 days.

[Thames Pirate]

So should every drug have a "withdrawal period" within which the horse cannot compete? So by competing the horse within that period it would be a violation? Thus if "trace amounts" are found at 122 days people can say "oh, the horse processed it more slowly"? If so, how do we know that the rider didn't give the drug again later during the period, counting on the initial vet records to account for the trace amounts that would show up but in reality hoping to improve performance? Not saying that's the case with MP, but how do we know?

Then there's the contaminant issue. Capsaicin (what KCD's horse tested for in the Olympics if I'm not mistaken) is found in spicy peppers. Who's to say the groom didn't eat at a restaurant that used those spices, which could have then been shed from skin, hair, and clothing into the horse's evening feed (a likely scenario)? But who's to say the groom didn't slip the horse a drug hoping to blame a positive test on contamination?

That's the problem, isn't it? There ought to be a "reasonable" answer, but every time you allow for that, you allow for potential abuses of said loophole.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not a big fan of the FEI. I'm just saying they're stuck between a rock and a hard place. Maybe instead of a question of "guilty of doping" it should be a question of consequences--fine, loss of qualification, suspension, etc. But here again--how do you determine a rider's intent?

[MsM]

A question regarding anabolic steroids:
If "trace amounts" are allowed, will that allow trainers (using the term loosely) to use it to enhance performance, muscle mass, etc during non-performance time and still have benefit from that "treatment" when the testable levels are in the trace range?
In other words, would it open the door to people using it to gain an unfair advantage? Would the benefits last long enough afterwards (when testing levels are only trace) so that the policy might encourage this kind of abuse?

[JER]

A zero tolerance policy encourages abuses just as much, if not more, than a threshold policy.

A zero tolerance policy results in Ludger Beerbaum's policy of using 'anything that doesn't test' -- a credo that may very well be at odds with horse welfare. 'Things that don't test' might include unapproved substances, experimental substances, off-label uses, unproven/dangerous procedures, etc.

Some of the medications on the prohibited substance list have well-researched and well-defined veterinary therapeutic uses. Many of these medications are important tools in maintaining the well-being of our horses. There needs to be a balance somewhere in all of this.

[Fixerupper]

A question regarding anabolic steroids:
If "trace amounts" are allowed, will that allow trainers (using the term loosely) to use it to enhance performance, muscle mass, etc during non-performance time and still have benefit from that "treatment" when the testable levels are in the trace range?
In other words, would it open the door to people using it to gain an unfair advantage? Would the benefits last long enough afterwards (when testing levels are only trace) so that the policy might encourage this kind of abuse?

Unfortunately ...yes which is why not only FEI but all sports are very serious about testing for this drug.

So I just heard from someone that said they looked it up, that with Winstrol or anabolic steroids period possibly (not completely sure on that part), the USEF has a 45 day withdrawal period while the FEI has a 120 day withdrawal period. Pollard's horse was tested at 110 days.

There is no published FEI 'detection' period (they never say 'withdrawal')

[ponyjumper4]

There is no published FEI 'detection' period (they never say 'withdrawal')

well that's quite possible, as I said, I wasn't the one that looked it up and it's not a direct quote

[cyberbay]

A reason for 'zero tolerance' is its unassailability.

When a rider is being set down b/c of a positive drug test, the federation in question must have a airtight argument to do so. The amount of pressure that comes against a federation when a well-connected and financed rider or owner is in violation is, well, nearly incomprehensible. The legal action that NFs can be threatened with whenever it finds itself enforcing its rules against a millionaire owner or rider and the dollars spent by the NF on that action make for a very expensive, protracted situation. Negotiated behind the scenes. The NFs need every weapon in their corner.

And I think, maybe, there was some heavy pressure from a European corporate sponsor at one point to go zero...

[S A McKee]

well that's quite possible, as I said, I wasn't the one that looked it up and it's not a direct quote

Whoever does your 'looking up' needs to pay more attention.
USEF's suggested withdrawal is 90 days not 45 and they make it clear that each horse can react differently.

[Ruby G. Weber]

I'm from another discipline but have experience with FEI.

Is FEI simply going to destroy the sport - all disciplines - with their zero tolerance/no threshhold policy or are they going to finally revise their doping regs in keeping with the more and more sophisticated drug tests?

[denny]

I`ve spoken with quite a few people about these various drug tests, and it seems to be the majority attitude that drug tests ought to have at least two "common sense" parameters.

1. Was this person trying to obtain an unfair advantage?

2. Was the amount of "substance" in the horse such as to be performance enhancing or performance altering?

If either of those questions appear to be answered by the word "yes", then there should be sanctions.

However, if both of those questions are answered by the word "no", then why should there be sanctions?

How do you react to this line of reasoning?

[RAyers]

I`ve spoken with quite a few people about these various drug tests, and it seems to be the majority attitude that drug tests ought to have at least two "common sense" parameters.

1. Was this person trying to obtain an unfair advantage?

2. Was the amount of "substance" in the horse such as to be performance enhancing or performance altering?

If either of those questions appear to be answered by the word "yes", then there should be sanctions.

However, if both of those questions are answered by the word "no", then why should there be sanctions?

How do you react to this line of reasoning?


It would never work as it is too logical and requires common sense thinking on the part of the governing body.

As for dectability, how can anybody continue to defend a "zero-tolerance" level is beyond me. Detection capabilities for a variety of things are in the parts per TRILLION. Other words, it is like finding 200 very specific cells in your ENTIRE body. Do you really think 200 cells can totally affect your performance/ability? You lose more than that every day in almost every tissue as the result of aging.

As for vets, they need to take responsibility and uphold the Hippocratic oath and be unassailable in matters of animal health. However we all know money wins every time.

Reed

[S A McKee]

I`ve spoken with quite a few people about these various drug tests, and it seems to be the majority attitude that drug tests ought to have at least two "common sense" parameters.

1. Was this person trying to obtain an unfair advantage?



OK, so how do you make that judgement? If someone 'says' they were giving s steroid to increase apatite how do you know that's what they used it for instead of trying to gain an advantage from the other effects of a steroid.
That would be just great. A better defense than the 'bucket got switched' story.

Once you start allowing drugs based on what the 'story' is for the use then you open the door to lots and lots of cheating. Sorry, but I'm not sure I'd be taking anybody's word for the reason they gave a performance enhancing drug.

[SevenDogs]

I`ve spoken with quite a few people about these various drug tests, and it seems to be the majority attitude that drug tests ought to have at least two "common sense" parameters.

1. Was this person trying to obtain an unfair advantage?

2. Was the amount of "substance" in the horse such as to be performance enhancing or performance altering?

If either of those questions appear to be answered by the word "yes", then there should be sanctions.

However, if both of those questions are answered by the word "no", then why should there be sanctions?

How do you react to this line of reasoning?

:yes: :yes: :yes:

But I also agree with Reed that it is way to logical to actually be implemented by the FEI.

[SevenDogs]

OK, so how do you make that judgement? If someone 'says' they were giving s steroid to increase apatite how do you know that's what they used it for instead of trying to gain an advantage from the other effects of a steroid.
That would be just great. A better defense than the 'bucket got switched' story.

Once you start allowing drugs based on what the 'story' is for the use then you open the door to lots and lots of cheating. Sorry, but I'm not sure I'd be taking anybody's word for the reason they gave a performance enhancing drug.

Easy... if the steroid give unfair advantage, you are penalized. (whether or not you used it for veterinary purposes). Thems the breaks and at that point, you are either a good horseperson (and put your horse's needs above your own competitive goals) or you aren't.

What people are objecting to, is penalizing detection levels that are so microscopic that there is no way they are performance enhancing. No one wants drugged up horses competing, but what we need are drug policies that are reasonable!

[S A McKee]

Easy... if the steroid give unfair advantage, you are penalized. (whether or not you used it for veterinary purposes). Thems the breaks and at that point, you are either a good horseperson (and put your horse's needs above your own competitive goals) or you aren't.

What people are objecting to, is penalizing detection levels that are so microscopic that there is no way they are performance enhancing. No one wants drugged up horses competing, but what we need are drug policies that are reasonable!

No need to be patronizing. I understand the problem.

But there is currently no set levels at which a medication has a therapeutic effect or at which it can provide an unfair advantage. And those levels will differ considerably based on the individual horse being treated.

What is troubling is those of you that would throw out the drug rules now before those levels have been determined. It gives you a free pass to cheat like mad. On second thought that may be what some of you have in mind.

Once the levels have been corrctly determined then modify away but not till then.

You can use some medications but the issue is those medications that are ALSO performance enhancing.

Otherwise we go back to the good old days when every strong horse had a little ace on board ( or worse).

[JER]

OK, so how do you make that judgement? If someone 'says' they were giving s steroid to increase apatite how do you know that's what they used it for instead of trying to gain an advantage from the other effects of a steroid.

Take a look at some of the FEI hearing reports. Like this recent one (http://www.fei.org/Athletes_AND_Horses/Medication_Control_AND_Antidoping/Horses/Documents/03%20-%20BEBABELOULA%20-%20Final%20Tribunal%20Decision%20dated%2022%20July %202009.pdf). The folks in this case were cheating and never quite managed to put across a convincing cover story. Also, it appeared that one party eventually balked at lying and taking the fall.

What this shows is that a hearing can be an effective tool in placing blame and assigning accountability.

There's a world of difference between the case of these boneheads and the case of someone who can substantiate a veterinary need on specific dates for a particular substance that showed up in trace amounts at a time beyond 'average' withdrawal time.

There is always the chance that everyone is lying together -- vet, owner, rider, etc. -- but a good hearing should uncover inconsistencies and most vets probably don't want to face disciplinary/licensure action for the sake of one client.

The cheaters will ALWAYS find a way to cheat. Just ask Marion Jones, who never failed a drug test. Or all those MLB heroes like David Ortiz (:mad:) and Barry Bonds. Or any top-level professional cyclist (doping is part of the job description). But there's no reason to not be reasonable with cases when you can ascertain that the person was not trying to gain an advantage and the amount of the substance was not performance-enhancing.

[SevenDogs]

No need to be patronizing. I understand the problem.

But there is currently no set levels at which a medication has a therapeutic effect or at which it can provide an unfair advantage. And those levels will differ considerably based on the individual horse being treated.

What is troubling is those of you that would throw out the drug rules now before those levels have been determined. It gives you a free pass to cheat like mad. On second thought that may be what some of you have in mind.

Once the levels have been corrctly determined then modify away but not till then.

You can use some medications but the issue is those medications that are ALSO performance enhancing.

Otherwise we go back to the good old days when every strong horse had a little ace on board ( or worse).

No one is being patronizing or advocating horses competing while drugged.

What I am saying is that it is TROUBLING that we have implemented NEW and OVERLY sensitive tests WITHOUT having done the research to determine levels are perfomance enhancing, etc. Even more troubling is that from what I see, no resources are being allocated for such research.

Where I think you and I differ is that you are willing to continue to use these test until the research is done (if ever!). I find it very unfair and inappropriate. If you are going to implement new tests, you have the responsibility to have done the homework! If a horse can test positive for some of these substances simply by being in the same room as the substance, we need researched guidelines before we continue using these tests.

[S A McKee]

Where I think you and I differ is that you are willing to continue to use these test until the research is done (if ever!). I find it very unfair and inappropriate. If you are going to implement new tests, you have the responsibility to have done the homework! If a horse can test positive for some of these substances simply by being in the same room as the substance, we need researched guidelines before we continue using these tests.

So I take it that your position is to throw out all the drug rules. That's just great. Think of all the possibilities to cheat.

And some of the possibilities are not too great for the horse's welfare.
For example, you could stack as many NSAID's and add whatever else you want and show or compete a horse that is lame enough to be on stall rest.
Is that OK with you ?

[SevenDogs]

So I take it that your position is to throw out all the drug rules. That's just great. Think of all the possibilities to cheat.

And some of the possibilities are not too great for the horse's welfare.
For example, you could stack as many NSAID's and add whatever else you want and show or compete a horse that is lame enough to be on stall rest.
Is that OK with you ?

Not sure how you are coming to these conclusions, but to be clear, I haven't heard ANYONE advocate for throwing out all of the drug rules, least of all me. I have, ad naseum, discussed (as others have) that the current (and fairly new) tests are ahead of the research that needs to be done. They are so sensitive that they are detecting micro, micro, micro amounts and undeserving riders are being penalized.

My first thought would be do the necessary research to be able to use the new tests appropriately and fairly. Meanwhile, consider using other federation data on such substances or even use some of the old testing methods.

Science is a GREAT thing when used in responsible hands with appropriate knowledge backing it up. Without that, it can be a dangerous thing that actually makes that which you are trying to correct, worse.

By the way, I am very sensitive about horse welfare and think the most important thing about drug rules is making sure horses are not injured or compromised physically in competition because of it. Cheating, while significant, is secondary to the horse's well being.

[RAyers]

...
What is troubling is those of you that would throw out the drug rules now before those levels have been determined. It gives you a free pass to cheat like mad. On second thought that may be what some of you have in mind.

Once the levels have been corrctly determined then modify away but not till then.

You can use some medications but the issue is those medications that are ALSO performance enhancing.

Otherwise we go back to the good old days when every strong horse had a little ace on board ( or worse).

You are asking for the physically impossible in measuring every level for every individual horse. The reality is that the levels have already been determined. The drug policy of the USEF is based on an "average" accepted therapeutic dose that is commonly accepted by the AAEP. That should be sufficient as it is an INDUSTRY standard.

I feel you already have a free pass to cheat as it is better to beat the hell out of the horses than to actually maintain them to their best performance. Competitors already take horses off the property for treatment by non-FEI vets before presenting them for jogs. They drug the crap out of them to keep them sound during conditioning (e.g. overuse of hayluronic acid and glycosaminoglycans) between competitions and drop everything a few day/weeks ahead of the competition. And there is obviously more.

At the competitive FEI levels, there are those who cheat and those who say they don't.

Reed

[magnolia73]

How do you define performance enhancing? Isn't any drug performance enhancing? If it allows you to continue or return to training by treating an issue, it is enhancing your performance of what you are naturally capable of. If I am training for a marathon, and wake up with a back ache on the morning of a scheduled training run, take an advil so I can get the benefit of that run (the building of endurance and muscles), advil has given me the ability to enhance my performance by fitting in that run despite my back hurting. Is it cheating? Perhaps in a way.

I think the best solution is to catalog various common issues and have a set treatment protocol for FEI riders so they can keep horses comfortable on a level playing field.

[akrogirl]

No need to be patronizing. I understand the problem.

But there is currently no set levels at which a medication has a therapeutic effect or at which it can provide an unfair advantage. And those levels will differ considerably based on the individual horse being treated.

What is troubling is those of you that would throw out the drug rules now before those levels have been determined. It gives you a free pass to cheat like mad. On second thought that may be what some of you have in mind.

Once the levels have been corrctly determined then modify away but not till then.

You can use some medications but the issue is those medications that are ALSO performance enhancing.

Otherwise we go back to the good old days when every strong horse had a little ace on board ( or worse).

We have detectable levels of some of these substances in many of our water sources, so be careful what you allow your horse to drink. It is very, very hard to avoid environmental contamination these days.

I used to work for a chemical consulting company. We had one client whose waste water samples kept exceeding the permitted limits for a certain chemical. All their treatment processes were found to be working correctly so we were pretty puzzled. Finally, we decided to test the incoming city water and, bingo, there was the source of the contamination!

Reed is also correct about the levels. I used to routinely test for contaminants at the single digit ppt level ten years ago, and I know concentrator column technology has improved since then.

[RAyers]

... Reed is also correct about the levels. I used to routinely test for contaminants at the single digit ppt level ten years ago, and I know concentrator column technology has improved since then.


Here is an example of how ludicrous having a zero-tolerance policy is:

We published several papers that showed we could detect the gadolinium level from MRI contrast agents in multiple tissues after a renal patient had an MRI in the parts per trillion concentration (nano-grams/gram). And this was found YEARS after the fact! For the lay person that is basically like finding the left hand pinky finger print of one particular person out of ALL of the ENTIRE population of earth. We CAN find the drug needle in the haystack and that has to recognized.

Reed

[S A McKee]

You are asking for the physically impossible in measuring every level for every individual horse. The reality is that the levels have already been determined. The drug policy of the USEF is based on an "average" accepted therapeutic dose that is commonly accepted by the AAEP. That should be sufficient as it is an INDUSTRY standard.

I feel you already have a free pass to cheat as it is better to beat the hell out of the horses than to actually maintain them to their best performance. Competitors already take horses off the property for treatment by non-FEI vets before presenting them for jogs. They drug the crap out of them to keep them sound during conditioning (e.g. overuse of hayluronic acid and glycosaminoglycans) between competitions and drop everything a few day/weeks ahead of the competition. And there is obviously more.

At the competitive FEI levels, there are those who cheat and those who say they don't.

Reed

USEF also has prohibited substances.

I'm not sure the AAEP set the does levels but I'll check that.

Your argument about those who cheat now is not strong. Anytime you use the excuse 'somebody else does it' you know how that goes.

As far as the horses going off competition grounds to be treated by non FEI vets two things come to mind.

1) aren't there rules in eventing about horses being on the compeition grounds for x hours before an event? Perhaps the jog doesn't count as the start of the event?
2) If they are being treated with illegal drugs prior to the jog wouldn't those drugs show up in a standard drug test during or after the event?

If you allow drugs/medications to 'maintain them' does that mean your ( not you personally ) horse can't compete without medication? If that is the case then the horse shouldn't be competing. And I'm not referring to things like a little bute.

Some would say Legend and Adequan are useful medications that allow horses to still have a 'job'. Sounds like you think they should be banned?

If the FEI does away with drug testing then USEF won't be far behind.
Just think, I can give one a little ace and say the vet had to treat him yesterday for [insert favorite excuse] so no, he wasn't tranq'ed to show, just for vet treatment. Somehow, I can see that horse having a vet incident before every show. LOL

[Gry2Yng]

Hi SA McKee,
I think you are making some really valid points, but I also think you are assuming that all of us "zero tolerance doesn't work" people are over the deep end extremists. Take this as being said with the utmost respect for you and your position, but please assume we are reasonable people whose only interest is the best interest of the horse, while at the same time recognizing that we own them love them and want to compete them. No one is advocating anything in the extreme, only looking for a better answer.

whether this is true of MP, I cannot say. I can only say that this is true. It is certainly no good to have a horse run around *another* three star for an inadvertent infraction where there was no competitive advantage.

[RAyers]

I agree that you bring up some valid observations but it also seems you are unfamiliar with the technologies used to detect drugs. At the same time, it seems you think we are advocating doing away with drug testing.

Current detection technologies are so sensitive that in some cases THERE IS NO CLEARANCE time. That is, even the most benign drug could be detected months after administration. I just had a discussion about this with a friend at the EPA who has to review all horse fly sprays (classified as pesticides) and their detection in ground water (which they are).

The AAEP does not set the standard for the USEF. The USEF CHOOSES to follow AAEP set standards for veterinary care. These are the same standards used to measure abuse, malpractice, or good care by the vets.

No, there are no rules anymore about horses having to remain on the property. FEI horses are no longer segregated from HT horses. Sure back in 2000 I remember having to have a barn pass and there was a watchman but in the last several years my horse is treated no different than the HT horses when it comes to stabling.

From your post below, it seems you advocate no drugs EVER, even during training outside competitions. And I DO mean a little bute because that IS detectable given the sensitivities of modern detection.

No, I do not think most drugs should be banned. I think a policy of veterinary therapeutic administration should be applied. That is, so long as it can be shown that drug levels are appropriate for a given documented and treated condition under the control of a licensed vet, be it disease, congnenital condition, trauma, etc. and the blood levels are within given tolerances for clearance, then the horse should be allowed to compete.



USEF also has prohibited substances.

I'm not sure the AAEP set the does levels but I'll check that.

Your argument about those who cheat now is not strong. Anytime you use the excuse 'somebody else does it' you know how that goes.

As far as the horses going off competition grounds to be treated by non FEI vets two things come to mind.

1) aren't there rules in eventing about horses being on the compeition grounds for x hours before an event? Perhaps the jog doesn't count as the start of the event?
2) If they are being treated with illegal drugs prior to the jog wouldn't those drugs show up in a standard drug test during or after the event?

If you allow drugs/medications to 'maintain them' does that mean your ( not you personally ) horse can't compete without medication? If that is the case then the horse shouldn't be competing. And I'm not referring to things like a little bute.

Some would say Legend and Adequan are useful medications that allow horses to still have a 'job'. Sounds like you think they should be banned?

If the FEI does away with drug testing then USEF won't be far behind.
Just think, I can give one a little ace and say the vet had to treat him yesterday for [insert favorite excuse] so no, he wasn't tranq'ed to show, just for vet treatment. Somehow, I can see that horse having a vet incident before every show. LOL

[gottagrey]

Easy... if the steroid give unfair advantage, you are penalized. (whether or not you used it for veterinary purposes). Thems the breaks and at that point, you are either a good horseperson (and put your horse's needs above your own competitive goals) or you aren't.

What people are objecting to, is penalizing detection levels that are so microscopic that there is no way they are performance enhancing. No one wants drugged up horses competing, but what we need are drug policies that are reasonable!

Touchee'. With the mess at the Bejing Olympics I learned that had I shared my penchant for Doritos w/ my horse (as I'm apt to do - not too many) he could have tested positive. My giving him Doritos is in no way an attempt to enchance his performance... I also learned that once when we were drug tested (fortunately for us we had stayed away from Doritos) the Vet told me that sometimes these poor kids think its cute to share their cokes w/ their horses but they will test positive! So see the problem isn't really always so cut and dry - like any positive test automatically means a rider was a Cheat and a scoundrel. It often means that several months prior they needed to treat their horse for some reason (usually physical i.e. injury, not performance related) and even though they've read the books, notices, forms and followed the protocol- bammo the testing is so sophisticated a positive test comes back. My trainer/barn manager was spraying one of our horses blankets w/ that MCNASTY stuff I had to tell her not to use it as that was one of the villans of a Bejing positive test.. She said they spray on the blankets... that's what that Olympic rider did so his horse wouldn't eat his blanket and wraps..

[retreadeventer]

I`ve spoken with quite a few people about these various drug tests, and it seems to be the majority attitude that drug tests ought to have at least two "common sense" parameters.

1. Was this person trying to obtain an unfair advantage?

2. Was the amount of "substance" in the horse such as to be performance enhancing or performance altering?

If either of those questions appear to be answered by the word "yes", then there should be sanctions.

However, if both of those questions are answered by the word "no", then why should there be sanctions?

How do you react to this line of reasoning?

I'm responding based on what I know as a race track trainer.
1. Evidence of a prohibited substance is prima facie evidence of trying to obtain unfair advantage. So the answer legally to No. 1, Denny, is YES. And is always yes.

The problem is defining "substance" at what trace amount level. Leads to the answer for No. 2....the racing industry has classified drugs in order of their affect on horses and I believe this came from veterinary recommendations. Each state that has legalized horse racing has their own rules but there has been an effort for the last 20 years or so to standardize so that horses racing from one state to another, to have more uniform requirements. The classification system they use puts the real bell ringers in category 5 - nerve and powerful pain agents. The other categories are lesser, with bute/banamine/sunflower seeds and dandylions at the bottom. (I found the statutes for Delaware, for instance, here: http://regulations.delaware.gov/AdminCode/title3/500/501/501-07.shtml#TopOfPage) If you read down, the drugs have a 5-class system. Anabolics are listed in the 4th class.)

Penalties for testing "positive" staircase with the class of drug detected. The amount BEYOND A CERTAIN THRESHOLD is immaterial.
The racing commissions have taken a look at the science, or whatever criteria they use, and determined WHERE that "performance enhancement" is along the positive test scale - some have published it, some keep that info secret to discourage any use - and if you cross the line you get zinged.
I gather the FEI's line is pretty far into the very very small end of the spectrum. It doesn't really matter WHERE they set the line.
If you put anabolic steroids in a horse three months before competition you ARE going to get caught in just about any racing jurisdiction now on the East coast. That class is very heavily penalized right now, they are on the warpath with anything like that in racing to my knowledge. Doesn't matter if it's a "trace" amount. It is there - you used it - the fact that it's in the horse means you were altering its natural state to gain advantage. That's the thinking of the commissions and jurisdictions right now, and I don't know anything at all about the FEI drug commission, but I do know that racing has changed its way of thinking over the past ten years. There also is one thing racing does, too. They are much better at keeping stuff secret. Racing commissions know a LOT of stuff about drugs in horses. They just aren't letting everyone out there with a $10 claimer know what they COULD potentially use.
Here's the problem with sporting horses -- there is incentive not only to make a horse fast, and athletic, but quiet and biddable. In racing the quiet and biddable is a much lesser deal. So the FEI has a much broader expansion of the definition "performance enhancing" than racing does, logically. So here's the deal.
Suck it up, Rest of the Horse World people. This is the new way and racing people are already there.

[riderboy]

I`ve spoken with quite a few people about these various drug tests, and it seems to be the majority attitude that drug tests ought to have at least two "common sense" parameters.

1. Was this person trying to obtain an unfair advantage?

2. Was the amount of "substance" in the horse such as to be performance enhancing or performance altering?

If either of those questions appear to be answered by the word "yes", then there should be sanctions.

However, if both of those questions are answered by the word "no", then why should there be sanctions?

How do you react to this line of reasoning?This is exactly right. I mean, society defines a blood alcohol content above which driving performance is altered ( no zero tolerance there in this country) but we can't make a decision about that with our horses? And spare people,good people, like MP ,a completely idiotic sanction?

[LLDM]

Hi SA McKee,
I think you are making some really valid points, but I also think you are assuming that all of us "zero tolerance doesn't work" people are over the deep end extremists. Take this as being said with the utmost respect for you and your position, but please assume we are reasonable people whose only interest is the best interest of the horse, while at the same time recognizing that we own them love them and want to compete them. No one is advocating anything in the extreme, only looking for a better answer.

whether this is true of MP, I cannot say. I can only say that this is true. It is certainly no good to have a horse run around *another* three star for an inadvertent infraction where there was no competitive advantage.

I don't think SA McKee thinks that you (meaning the folks opposed on this thread) are the unreasonable ones. I think SA McKee is concerned with those unscrupulous folks who will skirt through even the tiniest of cracks. The ones who DO - and who DO use (for example) steroids to build up a horse and then withdraw it in time for competitions. They are the ones these rules are meant for.

In this type of case they have not enhanced the competition performance directly - but have enhanced the training, endurance building, muscle conditioning, etc. leading up to it. It's still cheating and it is still NOT in the best interest of the horse. You all know that it can be quite harmful to the horse.

I understand the frustration. But the real issue comes down to this. Do we make rules that protect the horse uppermost and hope that the good horseman will make the right decisions to treat their horses accept the consequences which may hurt them unfairly OR do we make the rules as strict as possible to catch those who cheat at the expense of their horses welfare?

IMHO this is a REAL dilemma. As much as I would love to drive out those who would win at all costs, I also understand that we might drive out all the best horseman in the attempt.

I appreciate what SA McKee is trying to say. Yes, the technology might be picking up completely ambient substances. And I, for one, can't tell if that would show up as a billionth or a trillionth. So we are in the process trying to sort this out. But we are also in a position of having the some of the most successful riders in the world admitting that they have done *whatever* can't be detected or isn't specifically illegal.

BTW - I *know* the steroid example I used above has happened (at least) in the hunter world. With the young, old and/or with marginally sound. But it is not technically against the rules. And it kills me as the consequences to the horses and ponies are very real. They get used up real fast and then they are done and useless. When I see this I *wish* the USEF had zero tolerance.

I don't know the answers. I don't know how to drum out the cheaters while never hurting a good horseman. I don't know Pollard, but if he is completely innocent, then I am sorry as hell this happened to him. But that doesn't mean I am willing to give up a system that is trying to catch and stop rewarding those really bad, sneaky, win-at-all-costs people.

But please understand - when I see these threads and all the outrage, I makes me want to argue the other side too. Zero tolerance isn't an arbitrary rule. It is a very imperfect way to deal with very real problems that we have yet to produce better answers for. I also realize that it is *easy* for me to support a rule that hasn't made me (or someone close to me) the poster child for cheating by drugs unfairly.

This is hard stuff folks. No, we will never catch all the cheaters. But we can't stop trying and we have to make it as hard.

SCFarm

[JER]

I'm responding based on what I know as a race track trainer.
1. Evidence of a prohibited substance is prima facie evidence of trying to obtain unfair advantage. So the answer legally to No. 1, Denny, is YES. And is always yes.

Okay.

Penalties for testing "positive" staircase with the class of drug detected. The amount BEYOND A CERTAIN THRESHOLD is immaterial.

In California racing, the threshold level for stanozolol in urine is 1 nanogram per millilitre. There are also threshold levels for clenbuterol, testosterone, boldenone and a number of other drugs. More here (http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/45206/chrb-issues-steroid-advisory).

The Jockey Club's Throroughbred Safety Committee has recommended these same guidelines for all of North American racing. From their documents (http://horseracingofficial.com/resources/news_pdf/TSC_Steroids.pdf):
Concentrations of these AAS shall not exceed the following urine threshold concentrations for total (i.e., free drug or metabolite and drug or metabolite liberated from its conjugates):
(a) 16β-hydroxystanozolol (metabolite of stanozolol (Winstrol)) – 1 ng/ml in urine
for all horses regardless of sex

Suck it up, Rest of the Horse World people. This is the new way and racing people are already there.

Except that the horse in question wouldn't have tested positive under the racing rules. 'Trace amounts' in a blood test is considerably less (a fairly large multiple) than the 1 ng/mL in urine that would be allowed under racing.

Also, the CHRB noted that most racing labs are unable to test to even 1 ng/mL. Not true of FEI labs.

[grayarabpony]

When you have highly enhanced testing procedures, coupled with a zero tolerance drug rule, then the inevitable result will be lots of completely innocent people getting caught in the web.

Which is what we are seeing, again, and again.

I`ve never had much respect for the FEI, and less now, if that`s possible.

Well said Denny.

[RAyers]

I don't think SA McKee thinks that you (meaning the folks opposed on this thread) are the unreasonable ones. I think SA McKee is concerned with those unscrupulous folks who will skirt through even the tiniest of cracks. The ones who DO - and who DO use (for example) steroids to build up a horse and then withdraw it in time for competitions. They are the ones these rules are meant for.

In this type of case they have not enhanced the competition performance directly - but have enhanced the training, endurance building, muscle conditioning, etc. leading up to it. It's still cheating and it is still NOT in the best interest of the horse. You all know that it can be quite harmful to the horse.

I understand the frustration. But the real issue comes down to this. Do we make rules that protect the horse uppermost and hope that the good horseman will make the right decisions to treat their horses accept the consequences which may hurt them unfairly OR do we make the rules as strict as possible to catch those who cheat at the expense of their horses welfare?

IMHO this is a REAL dilemma. As much as I would love to drive out those who would win at all costs, I also understand that we might drive out all the best horseman in the attempt...

But you KNOW that no matter how the rules are set up people will cheat. Rules are only for those who DON'T cheat.

As to 'roids. There are PLENTY of valid therapeutic applications, including allergy, anti-inflammatory, and developmental applications. Saying the use of 'roids implies INTENT to cheat is specious.

Zero tolerance rules are at a point that they cease being strict because it assumes EVERYBODY cheats and thus penalizes everybody. It is kinda like pulling over every driver because at some point they exceeded the speed limit (even if only by a few miles an hour). Therefore the enforcement becomes laughable at best and the only folks who try to go play in the system understand the best ways to CHEAT the system.

Reed

[Eventer55]

I agree that you bring up some valid observations but it also seems you are unfamiliar with the technologies used to detect drugs. At the same time, it seems you think we are advocating doing away with drug testing.

Current detection technologies are so sensitive that in some cases THERE IS NO CLEARANCE time. That is, even the most benign drug could be detected months after administration. I just had a discussion about this with a friend at the EPA who has to review all horse fly sprays (classified as pesticides) and their detection in ground water (which they are).

The AAEP does not set the standard for the USEF. The USEF CHOOSES to follow AAEP set standards for veterinary care. These are the same standards used to measure abuse, malpractice, or good care by the vets.

No, there are no rules anymore about horses having to remain on the property. FEI horses are no longer segregated from HT horses. Sure back in 2000 I remember having to have a barn pass and there was a watchman but in the last several years my horse is treated no different than the HT horses when it comes to stabling.

From your post below, it seems you advocate no drugs EVER, even during training outside competitions. And I DO mean a little bute because that IS detectable given the sensitivities of modern detection.

No, I do not think most drugs should be banned. I think a policy of veterinary therapeutic administration should be applied. That is, so long as it can be shown that drug levels are appropriate for a given documented and treated condition under the control of a licensed vet, be it disease, congnenital condition, trauma, etc. and the blood levels are within given tolerances for clearance, then the horse should be allowed to compete.

Valid point, I just went to a lecture by a vet who has numerous 3 day horses in his care and one of the things he said was that the labs are always coming up with new ways to detect drugs FARTHER OUT. This means that soon you can give Trigger a shot of Banamine 6 months out and some lab somewhere has just found a method to detect Dorm 5 months out.

The labs do not have to declare how sensetive their testing is, so we never know what's going to test and how far out until we get nailed. The labs in my estimation are playing a game of cat and mouse stacked in the cats favor. I hope this makes sense and isn't too redundant form another post. Feel free to correct me.

[RAyers]

....
Except that the horse in question wouldn't have tested positive under the racing rules. 'Trace amounts' in a blood test is considerably less (a fairly large multiple) than the 1 ng/mL in urine that would be allowed under racing.

Also, the CHRB noted that most racing labs are unable to test to even 1 ng/mL. Not true of FEI labs.

1ng/ml is a parts per million concentration. I know tests go to the 1/10th and 1/100th of that in sensitivity which becomes 1 part in 100,000,000.

Put is this way, who here gets their horse's joints injected? The vet uses one of several STEROIDS to stop the inflammation (depomederol, triamcinolone) along with administration of HA or other polyglycan. This is a GOOD thing. The steroids can be detected in the blood and are considered "performance" enhancing. Do you want to be suspended for taking care of your horse if that is all you did and it was detected?

Eventer55, I don't think it is a labs that are the problem. Researchers and medical practitioners NEED that sensitivity and more to develop solid treatment procedures and drugs. The labs are simply contractors to the USEF/FEI and test to the standards presented to them. I think the USEF has brought drug testing in-house which creates a standard level of testing.

[Fixerupper]

cortico-steroids - short term anti-inflammatory effect

anabolic steroids - long term strength building effect

same-ish name - 2 totally different drugs

All human sports are now very serious about banning anabolics - witness baseball - hard to argue for anabolics in horse sport...

carry on..

[broodmare]

I sympathize with people like Courtney Dye King who get a positive test for something totally out of their control. Environmental contaminants, systemic absorption of topical preparations, eye ointments, that sort of thing is a problem that really should be addressed. And perhaps I am naive but I think the Medication and Doping control committee is wrestling with it. I think we can all agree that it is really bad for the sport when a competitor gets blindsided by an unintentional exposure. we need to fix that.

I have just spent way too much time reading rules on the Web (AAEP, USEF, FEI). Some of these problems really can be avoided even while the debate on drug rules goes forward.
In MP's case:
The FEI is clear that they consider anabolic steroids a Class A prohibited drug. They are also clear that the rider's treating vet can request a "pretest" for up to four drugs. If your own national federation suggests 90 days for anabolics, and you know the FEI tests are notoriously sensitive, and you have a mechanism in place to look before you compete. It might be prudent to check.

And I surely have no sympathy for Isabel Werth along those lines. Fluphenazine, for heaven's sake. Pyschoactive drug, not approved in horses, obscure reason for use, known to hang around a long time. you better make sure that is cleared. and there is a mechanism.

The FEI drug box, gives detection times and recommendations for many of the more common therapeutic drugs. They emphasize that these are just guidelines (smallish numbers in their studies) and the rider should work with their veterinarian to take into account individual variation. But your NSAID's, buscopam, local block and sedatives are right there on the internet. On the FEI site. With enough $$ they can add more drugs to this list.

Ludwig Beerbaum's frank statement of only using drugs that don't test, pretty much sums up the way it works for a small subset of competitors in all horse sports. Not all riders or competitors, but certainly some. This will be true with any set of drug rules that are used.

The mechanism is in place to address the use of a therapeutic medication close to the detection time. Even if we switch our detection levels or standardize them in some way, or change definitions of what constitutes therapeutic medication, the ability to pretest using the governing group's lab allows competitors and their veterinarians the ability to avoid a positive on a drug they know they have given. (god help us with the doritos, diet coke, and stuff in the ultrasound gel).

[JER]

anabolic steroids - long term strength building effect

All human sports are now very serious about banning anabolics - witness baseball - hard to argue for anabolics in horse sport...


Winstrol/stanozolol is an effective medication for loss of appetite/wasting diseases in animals and humans. There's about 50 years of history behind it.

If someone wants to cycle their horses on anabolic steroids and EPO and whatnot, they'll do it anyway. Having a threshold level of 1 ng/mL like in racing or like with the USEF is not going to ruin the sport. It hasn't done so in the US, has it?

Regularly cycling a human athlete on steroids or other drugs for performance benefit requires a departure from 'normal' training and competition methods. You can't compete when you know you'll test positive. So you compete rarely and attend 'training camps' in odd locations, like South Africa, where it's not so easy for the drug testers to find you on short notice. It helps when your NGB looks the other way, like US Track & Field routinely did with positive tests of star athletes. But this isn't the case with the USEF.

With event horses, you'd have a tough time maintaining their qualifications as well as their competition-readiness if you cycled them on performance enhancers -- the rules in place at the USEF level are enough for that.

It's also doubtful if cycles of anabolic steroids would really help your horse's overall performance in eventing. The side effects are pretty serious and you do need to be able to ride your horse. Bulky muscle is not an advantage on XC on a hot, humid day and steroid-built muscles are known to lead to increased tendon/ligament injuries and muscle ruptures. Another side effect of anabolic steroids is high blood pressure, which is probably not something you want in your eventer.

So I don't think anyone is arguing that anabolic steroids should have a place in equine sports. But they do have a place in veterinary medicine.

(Baseball has not been serious about cleaning up. Cycling's governing body, the UCI, has been serious about not cleaning up. Lip service is lip service, nothing more.)

[Maya01]

This completely pisses me off! The horse basically needed the steroid to survive and four months later they penalize them! I bet there was barely any trace of it in the horse - curse you power hungry FEI! *shakes fist at FEI*
Sometimes I have force myself not question why these imbeciles are controlling such an important organization and how the hell they got there in the first place (couldn't have been through pure genius) and just stick my head back into my fishbowl... Ignore me if you feel I am 'stepping on your toes', just thinking of the FEI suspending Pollard for such a stupidly minuscule thing sets me on a tangent :yes:

[RAyers]

cortico-steroids - short term anti-inflammatory effect

anabolic steroids - long term strength building effect

same-ish name - 2 totally different drugs

All human sports are now very serious about banning anabolics - witness baseball - hard to argue for anabolics in horse sport...

carry on..

But, stanozolol and danazol to not act like natural androgen in that they act on the gluco-corticoid receptors, the same as cortico-steroids such as dexamethesone etc. They do not have the same effect as testosterone or estrogen, so one needs to be more accurate in the definition of what an anabolic is. It seems it is not as simple as you present.

By your definition and the science behind the drugs, Mr. Pollard should NOT be punished!

Reed

[LLDM]

But you KNOW that no matter how the rules are set up people will cheat. Rules are only for those who DON'T cheat.

I agree that *some* people will try to cheat. But this, to me, means we just have to try harder, be smarter and find ways to improve the system whilst protecting the horses. One huge thing we could do as a community is to spend more time rewarding good horsemanship and less time fawning over people who *just* cross the finish line first. Unfortunately we have a culture of leadership who think the winning is everything.

As to 'roids. There are PLENTY of valid therapeutic applications, including allergy, anti-inflammatory, and developmental applications. Saying the use of 'roids implies INTENT to cheat is specious.

I neither said, nor implied any such thing. I have used them for myself and my horses - yes, for therapeutic purposes only - and can and do attest to their effectiveness. And I would use them again, even if it meant never competing with the horse again if that were the only option and best treatment. However, it is easy for me to say, as I have no FEI career to give up! :lol:

The intent arguement was someone else's - not mine.

Zero tolerance rules are at a point that they cease being strict because it assumes EVERYBODY cheats and thus penalizes everybody. It is kinda like pulling over every driver because at some point they exceeded the speed limit (even if only by a few miles an hour). Therefore the enforcement becomes laughable at best and the only folks who try to go play in the system understand the best ways to CHEAT the system.

Reed

My concern is that we are there, or too close to there now. But I don't really know.

But I do think that giving up completely is way to dangerous for the horses.

My real point is that we can't give up zero tolerance until we have something BETTER. The ONLY thing about zero tolerance is that it isn't arbitrary in one sense. If a horse tests clean, then it IS clean. So it is only fallible in one direction - not in both.

Look, I don't think it's a great system. It's likely not a good system. But right now it is the best we have. I know the USEF rules allow very bad things to go through.

The only way, IMHO, to get a better system than zero tolerance is to understand both the good and the bad about it before we trade it in on something new and untested.

SCFarm

BTW - I think the conversation is good. And important. And necessary.

SCFarm

[RiverBendPol]

........The only way, IMHO, to get a better system than zero tolerance is to understand both the good and the bad about it before we trade it in on something new and untested.

SCFarm

BTW - I think the conversation is good. And important. And necessary.

SCFarm

But SCF, the only way the FEI can operate is to trade and change things to new and untested ways. That is all they know. They've proven it year after year.
(where is the furious, sarcastic icon?)

[LLDM]

But SCF, the only way the FEI can operate is to trade and change things to new and untested ways. That is all they know. They've proven it year after year.
(where is the furious, sarcastic icon?)

Hey, why not save some of your outrage for the USEF? They go along with some of the worst of the FEI rules with nary a whimper, yet keep keep their own rules on some things that are worse (esp. for horse welfare) than the FEI's rules. For example, it is still legal in the USEF to stack NSAIDs - which we *know* is very bad news both long and short term for horses.

I know it's fun to hate the FEI. But I think the USEF is worse in the case of drug policy. They knowing turn a blind eye to abuses they condone since they don't consider them *that bad*. Even though we are finding out more and more that it is *that bad* - they don't want to have to change.

Radical change, no change. Both suck.

SCFarm

[RAyers]

.... For example, it is still legal in the USEF to stack NSAIDs - which we *know* is very bad news both long and short term for horses.



SCFarm


I am not sure where you are getting the idea you can stack NSIADs. The USEF drug policy explicitly states no "stacking" on page one of the drug guidelines, e.g. one can not use bute and Banamine together. Yes, it does say if two NSAIDs are used (as sometimes done in treatments) a third can not be used. For instance you can give banamine orally for soft tissue inflammation and then Surpass on a joint. After that, no other NSAID can be used.

Reed

[riderboy]

Look, perhaps another way to look at this is this: is it more important to try to catch all the cheaters(if that is even possible) with zero tolerance rules, knowing you are going to trash the reputations of some very decent, hard working and ethical riders, or are you willing to miss a few cheaters perhaps and have threshold rules that allow those who play by the rules to continue to use needed medications without worry. Really, I would think if done correctly we should be able to do both. Punishing innocent people really bothers me, that's all.

[LLDM]

I am not sure where you are getting the idea you can stack NSIADs. The USEF drug policy explicitly states no "stacking" on page one of the drug guidelines, e.g. one can not use bute and Banamine together. Yes, it does say if two NSAIDs are used (as sometimes done in treatments) a third can not be used. For instance you can give banamine orally for soft tissue inflammation and then Surpass on a joint. After that, no other NSAID can be used.

Reed

Sorry, but 2 NSAIDs are a stack in my book. And I have had recent, very personal experience with this. Banning one combination doesn't make is okay. But hey, you can always buy stock in Merial. I am sorry, but not only does it mask pain well, it plays absolute havoc with the entire digestive system from one end to the other. It can greatly increase the likelihood of ulcers and colics. If your horse needs two NSAIDs to compete, maybe he shouldn't be there. (Not you personally Reed - in general.)

Look, perhaps another way to look at this is this: is it more important to try to catch all the cheaters(if that is even possible) with zero tolerance rules, knowing you are going to trash the reputations of some very decent, hard working and ethical riders, or are you willing to miss a few cheaters perhaps and have threshold rules that allow those who play by the rules to continue to use needed medications without worry. Really, I would think if done correctly we should be able to do both. Punishing innocent people really bothers me, that's all.

Punishing innocent people bothers me too. But not as much as allowing horses to be subjected to drugs and medications improperly used in order to win. We are responsible for protecting them. They have no choice. People can give interviews and express how disappointed they are that they were unfairly accused. Horses suffer in silence when they are wronged.

If we are really about the welfare of the horse first, mustn't we err on the side of caution for them? Even if some good people are treated unfairly? My mother taught me early on the life is unfair. But that doesn't mean it isn't worth living and trying. There are all kinds of unfair things our there. And big boys and girls learn to cope.

Maybe we should think about easing up on the competition requirements at the highest levels in order to make Teams? Isn't that one reason why MP was so disappointed? That his horse wouldn't have his qualification? (Not that MP did anything wrong - I just don't know)

Yes, we need better rules. But we need better mindsets more than we need better rules. Reed is correct in the sense that cheaters will always try to cheat whatever the rules are. Creating an environment that rewards those who behave well and pushes out those who behave poorly is the only thing that can work. Why do we tolerate some of those who behave poorly? Because they win. That's what is wrong with the system.

SCFarm

[mpollard]

Glad to see im sparking debate, but i much prefer not to be controversial.

Thank you for the great back and forth. It is only in this way that ideas evolve and provide us with the possibility for a brighter future.

I tried to follow the rules and was still caught out. I listened to excellent experts and still I will probably be punished for something that really helped my horse when everything else had failed. It is a shame, but i feel i did the right thing. If i am punished I guess Ill have to live with that. however, they cant keep me from enjoying the best horses that nat and i have ever had in the barn. Additionally, Phin still thinks Im great, and probably will for another 12 years or so.

to clear up a few points:

1. Icarus(fly) tested positive in blood plasma sample only(both urine samples were negative), and within the margin of error+-5 picograms of the limit of detection(25 picograms or trillionths of a gram). this is the most sensitive test currently available

2. most all racing states have banned winstrol. In the only state with an interim level of positive test in blood, Penn, a test of over 1000 pg is positive, 200-999 is a warning and less than 200 is negative.

3. good withdrawal info can be found in a new bolton/upenn study. they found that most horses had withdrawal times between 30-43 days but said that longer was possible with current testing methods.

4. elective pre testing would have been unhelpful for me because; a)it would have been urine and he would have passed, and b) the FEI will not electively test for winstrol.


I am sorry for the psitive result and its relection on the sport, my family, owners, and me. However i followed very competent advice and i do not feel i broke my responsibility to compete fairly. lets all look forward to great days of eventing and riding in the future. ill see you all as soon as they let me! all the best: Michael

[YankeeLawyer]

Look, perhaps another way to look at this is this: is it more important to try to catch all the cheaters(if that is even possible) with zero tolerance rules, knowing you are going to trash the reputations of some very decent, hard working and ethical riders, or are you willing to miss a few cheaters perhaps and have threshold rules that allow those who play by the rules to continue to use needed medications without worry. Really, I would think if done correctly we should be able to do both. Punishing innocent people really bothers me, that's all.

I think the current system catches a lot of people who had no intent to gain an unfair advantage and whose horses had residual traces of illegal substances (sometimes ones with legitimate uses) that could not conceivably impact performance, while all but the least sophisticated cheaters get away with it.

[wolfmare]

Michael, thanks for speaking up. You gave us all the lasting memory of one "kick ass ride"(Tanya's words) at Jersey, on one fit and healthy horse. You and Nat do Fly and the rest of the stable proud in your care and caring. It seems public opinion recognizes that. Fingers crossed you can get it back on track as quickly as possible.
debora

[riderboy]

I think the current system catches a lot of people who had no intent to gain an unfair advantage and whose horses had residual traces of illegal substances (sometimes ones with legitimate uses) that could not conceivably impact performance, while all but the least sophisticated cheaters get away with it.Well said, and from a Yankee Lawyer no less! LLDM; Why can't we do both, protect our horses AND the honest people in our sport? Why is that such a difficult thing to do? Besides,it's pretty easy to throw someone else under the bus,but when you are the innocent person being defamed it's a whole 'nother ballgame.

[RAyers]

Glad to see im sparking debate, but i much prefer not to be controversial....


Michael, thank you for chiming in here. To me, you are not very controversial. Your situation, as well of others is, however. Many of us, especially the scientists, recognize the foolishness of the rules.

[LLDM]

LLDM; Why can't we do both, protect our horses AND the honest people in our sport? Why is that such a difficult thing to do? Besides,it's pretty easy to throw someone else under the bus,but when you are the innocent person being defamed it's a whole 'nother ballgame.

Don't ask me why it is so difficult, ask people like Reed! I am all for a way to protect both. My ONLY point is that if we can't (at least yet) I believe we have to protect the horses first over the people.

The USEF rules are too lax. The FEI too tight. (MHO) I absolutely believe people like Reed when they say that the detectable amounts of some drugs are ridiculous. But I don't think anyone has a true grasp on the point where ridiculous starts turning into an indicator of monkey business. Maybe someone does - but it seems to vary by the individual horse too. Hopefully someone credible will help us draw these lines soon.

Let me ask you this - have you personally seen what happens to horses and ponies maintained under the USEF drug rules over the long term - the ones pushed to the legal limit?

As much as it is popular to hate the FEI, do you really think that they are doing this for the sole purpose of ruining good horse people?

If we do not really understand the problems, how do we create better solutions? I just don't want people sitting around thinking that the answers are cut and dried and that the USEF drug rules are the answer. Again, in MHO and IME, they are NOT.

I have no idea how the racing rules would work for us. But bear in mind that our horses' age demographic begins about where theirs ends. So I would assume the drugs of choice for cheaters would have a different profile.

SCFarm

[riderboy]

I have never seen what happens to horses pushed to the USEF legal limits but perhaps those limits need to be changed if what you are implying ( horses being harmed ) is true. And I have no reason to doubt you. I also see no reason to sanction and harm riders who are TRYING to play by the rules. Riders who work hard ( don"t we all! ) and yet could have an Olympic medal stripped away because of these zero tolerance rules.. It seems like a solvable problem to me. We have the technology and science, we do not have the reason and common sense.

[Gry2Yng]

I am not sure where you are getting the idea you can stack NSIADs. The USEF drug policy explicitly states no "stacking" on page one of the drug guidelines, e.g. one can not use bute and Banamine together. Yes, it does say if two NSAIDs are used (as sometimes done in treatments) a third can not be used. For instance you can give banamine orally for soft tissue inflammation and then Surpass on a joint. After that, no other NSAID can be used.

Reed

FWIW, and sadly I know/have seen more than I ever wish to in this regard and I believe I have barely scratched the surface. I also consider two NSAIDs stacking - because the damage to the horse is substantial. And two are used EVERY SINGLE DAY there is a horse show going on in this country for more than "treatments" or therapeutic uses. One cannot use bute and banamine, but you can use banamine and naproxen and if you are really ambitious you can add methocarbamol and that is just if you are dealing with pain or muscle soreness (after lunging and jumping the heck out of the poor animal), if you want them to be quiet, there an additional list of "stuff".

The h/j crowd is pretty open about this. The level of sophistication in the administration of drugs and meds at even the smallest barns far surpasses anything I have seen in Eventing. They are not violating any rules, but they are using up horses. The Federation is all lip service as far as this goes. There is not doubt about the damage the use of two NSAIDs can do to a horses gastro intestinal system. In some cases "playing by the rules" doesn't make you innocent of crossing my personal line of ethics in the pursuit of a blue ribbon.


Michael, thanks for your comments. Much additional food for thought. Best of luck to you and your horses and in sorting out the mess.

The fact is, EVERYTHING we do is performance enhancing (feeding quality grain and hay, providing clean water and proper exercise). We train to enhance performance and if the people at PETA wrote the rules we wouldn't train. So it is really just a matter of where the majority wants to draw the line. I am actually a pretty big fan of 'zero tolerance" because I think the line is a difficult one to draw, and the stories spun can be very creative and convincing. But as tests become more and more sensitive, I think we are losing the ability to do the right thing (as defined by the majority in consultation with veterinary medicine) and compete.

[RAyers]

This is the difference between therapeutic and idiotic application. And, I admit I am only approaching this from the view point of medicinal application, e.g. a vet will stack bute and banamine as a first response in tying up. Stacking is NOT inherently bad, if done correctly for a given treatment of a condition. Your example as well as LLDM's are spot on as far as I am concerned as I see/seen the exact same things in the h/j world over the years.

But then is it the PEOPLE who are doing this or the PEOPLE who police this?

As for zero-tolerance, the way I see it is the "Sixth Sense." "I see guilty people." As tests get more sophisticated, it makes EVERYBODY guilty. If the FEI wants to eliminate or discredit a horse/rider, they can do so at their whim as the tests will pick up simple environmental contaminants that will imply guilt. Who watches the governing body?


...
The h/j crowd is pretty open about this. The level of sophistication in the administration of drugs and meds at even the smallest barns far surpasses anything I have seen in Eventing. They are not violating any rules, but they are using up horses. The Federation is all lip service as far as this goes. There is not doubt about the damage the use of two NSAIDs can do to a horses gastro intestinal system. In some cases "playing by the rules" doesn't make you innocent of crossing my personal line of ethics in the pursuit of a blue ribbon.
...

[Gry2Yng]

\

As for zero-tolerance, the way I see it is the "Sixth Sense." "I see guilty people."

LOL! and then not so much.