The Chronicle of the Horse
MagazineNewsHorse SportsHorse CareCOTH StoreVoicesThe Chronicle UntackedDirectoriesMarketplaceDates & Results
 
Page 10 of 44 FirstFirst ... 8910111220 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 200 of 869
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Sep. 17, 2011
    Location
    Cheney, WA
    Posts
    546

    Default

    I noticed that she said the pony had "emerging" lung disease which to me seems like perhaps the early stages. I'm not a dr so perhaps my definition of emerging doesn't match up with the medical definition but to me it would seem if the pathologist supposedly stopped the necropsy to call and say he had never seen lungs so bad that it wouldn't be "emerging." But then none of her story matches up anyway. And like someone else said, her attorney may not be happy with her posting what she did on facebook. And now it's on here if they decide to pull it and use in court. I hope the judge doesn't believe a thing she says. I think you would have to be at her level of crazy to take everything she has said, done, posted, etc and believe it. I feel sorry for the other kids in her program. I would be tucking tail and running very fast.


    3 members found this post helpful.

  2. #182
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBoylen View Post
    Many people give Legend 2-4 hours out because they feel that's when it is at its peak in the bloodstream. It's not uncommon. Especially for a big show where the extra expense would be warrented.
    Interesting rationale BUT while I cannot find the research -- was told by a vet that it takes between 24 and 48 hours for Legend to reach maximum impact.... Where is the documentation of when Legend has its peak impact?


    2 members found this post helpful.

  3. #183
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sticky Situation View Post
    I'm not saying that any horse that needs a little bit of maintenance should be turned out to roam the green pastures with Black Beauty, but we also shouldn't be pushing unsound horses beyond what they can comfortably do.
    The tough part is where to draw that line.

    I can get through a long show day without taking two Advil, but I will be more comfortable if I take them. If I think it's reasonable to take two Advil myself, why wouldn't it be reasonable to give a horse two grams of Bute?

    The problem is when somebody personally takes a scary number or combination of painkillers or other medications, or uses a scary number of painkillers or other medications on a horse.



  4. #184
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    Keswick, VA
    Posts
    7,871

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JER View Post


    Never mind that Bayer's package inserts say 'Horses should be given stall rest after treatment before gradually resuming normal activity.'

    '.
    That refers to when it is used IA not IV.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  5. #185
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBoylen View Post
    That refers to when it is used IA not IV.
    Good point -- but cannnot find a thing that suggests it is most effective 2 to 4 hours after administration.... still believe vet suggested peak effect was 24 to 48 hours after IV administration.... would be nice to have actual research on this


    2 members found this post helpful.

  6. #186
    Join Date
    Sep. 24, 2001
    Location
    on the road.....again
    Posts
    1,820

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Horseymama View Post
    The reason they can't enforce them is because the penalty is a slap on the wrist! They need penalties that matter, at LEAST a year suspension and $15K for the owner and the trainer, for each infraction!

    And grooms, barn managers or other employees of the trainer should not be able to sign as "trainer!" Why does the USEF stand aside and let this happen?

    What does the USEF do for it's members when it can't even police real attempts at cheating? Or impose penalties that ares serious enough to discourage it? I mean really, what do they do?
    I don't think that USEF really goes only by the name on the entry blank. There have been plenty of instances where during the course of the investigation USEF has determined that a different person was really the person responsible for the infraction. In most cases where the person on the entry blank wasn't the person at the show. But I would think the same logic could be applied to assistant trainers.

    As has been stated by others, the USEF is doing a good job with testing and trying to stay ahead of the game. There will ALWAYS be cheaters. You will NEVER stop that. USEF is working on testing for drugs that have come to play with new uses.

    I really wish more people could see the presentation that was done at the convention. It would change many of your perceptions on what USEF does and the true impact of positive drug testing.

    One of the scariest things to me, was the realization that many in the room did not know the "brand name" was really X drug.

    USEF did a big thing with getting the test for GABA. They are constantly working on others.

    Random testing is really the best option, for various reasons. I do agree that at certain level events testing the top 3 would be good as well, but not a rule. Random implies that anyone at anytime can be tested. That impacts every horse at the show, not just the winners.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  7. #187
    Join Date
    May. 6, 2006
    Location
    rapidan,virginia
    Posts
    1,632

    Default

    Sticky and findeight, I do agree with you. We all want to take care of our animals with compassion and reason. The problem is how to write enforceable rules that address the real problems in the industry.

    There are horses who get Dex for allergies and those who get it for quieting. Same thing with Robaxin and a number of other legitimate meds.

    But if the language is too broad, then it knocks out the legitimate uses along with the sketchy ones, because you can't legislate intent.

    The real problem is those injectables that do not have legitimate purposes and are untestable. Because injecting magnesium and calcium into the vein just before showing has what medical benefit???
    "Can you imagine what I would do if I could do all I can?" Sun Tzu, The Art of War
    Rainy: http://tinyurl.com/kj7x53c
    Stash: http://tinyurl.com/mmm3p4e


    1 members found this post helpful.

  8. #188
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2009
    Location
    Location: Indiana, but my heart is in Zone II
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juststartingout View Post
    Good point -- but cannnot find a thing that suggests it is most effective 2 to 4 hours after administration.... still believe vet suggested peak effect was 24 to 48 hours after IV administration.... would be nice to have actual research on this
    Agree w/ the vet... I am wondering if peopel got the "2 hrs" from T max or C max references.
    Should be easily found in the insert (which I don't have). Often referred to as Cmax (maximum concentration of drug in the blood) or Tmax (the time after a drug is administered to reach maximum concentration in blood). But remember, just because it reaches Cmax, does not mean that is when it is most effective. It still has to GET to the joints, synovial fluid etc. Which is not immediate (when administering it IV).I do not know enough about the mechanism of action but I would love to stand corrected on I doubt it reaches peak effect in 2 hrs when given IV.Just musing and agreeing with you.... I call BS on EM.
    Come to the dark side, we have cookies


    2 members found this post helpful.

  9. #189
    Join Date
    Dec. 22, 2000
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    15,086

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Molly99 View Post
    Random testing is really the best option, for various reasons. I do agree that at certain level events testing the top 3 would be good as well, but not a rule. Random implies that anyone at anytime can be tested. That impacts every horse at the show, not just the winners.
    Exactly. All the horses deserve that protection, not just the winners.


    2 members found this post helpful.

  10. #190
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 2bayboys View Post
    Sticky and findeight, I do agree with you. We all want to take care of our animals with compassion and reason. The problem is how to write enforceable rules that address the real problems in the industry.

    There are horses who get Dex for allergies and those who get it for quieting. Same thing with Robaxin and a number of other legitimate meds.

    But if the language is too broad, then it knocks out the legitimate uses along with the sketchy ones, because you can't legislate intent.

    The real problem is those injectables that do not have legitimate purposes and are untestable. Because injecting magnesium and calcium into the vein just before showing has what medical benefit???
    All good points -- however if you restrict administration of the most problematic to vets and require that the vets file a med report with the show office and USEF there is going to be a certain amount of resistance to developing a record showing that certain vets and certain horses are receiving certain meds at every show. While this places a burden on show vets (and an extra expense on owners) its an expense that owners/riders/trainers ought to be willing to incur if the med is truly needed for the health of the animal.

    Wuth today's computer systems and databases, tracking this kind of information is not very difficult and pulling reports once the system is designed is easy - whether by vet, trainer, rider, groom, or horse.

    If we are serious about protecting our animals and changing the sport, then we ought to be willing to create, support, and pay for the systems necessary to make sure it happen



  11. #191
    Join Date
    Nov. 30, 2006
    Posts
    1,068

    Default

    And what evidence exists that would suggest that a joint is positively affected at the peak of the drug in the BLOOD?

    Quote Originally Posted by juststartingout View Post
    Good point -- but cannnot find a thing that suggests it is most effective 2 to 4 hours after administration.... still believe vet suggested peak effect was 24 to 48 hours after IV administration.... would be nice to have actual research on this



  12. #192
    Join Date
    Jan. 27, 2000
    Location
    On Blue Run
    Posts
    1,493

    Default

    I must agree with CB regarding Legend. I have administered Legend four hours out from a competition - to older, sore footed horses - on the advice of my vet. I would not classify this practice as off label.

    Admittedly I routinely use Legend (and Adequan) prophylactically as well.

    There is an enormous difference between the judicious use of theraputic pharmacueticals and doping. I hope, for the sake of the horse, USEF will continue the precedent it has set in regards to restricted use of a single NSAID, etc.

    The FEI protocol is far from the solution. They have their own problems with black market drugs.



  13. #193
    Join Date
    Jul. 31, 1999
    Posts
    3,173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JER View Post
    I'd love -- love -- to see a placebo injection study done on show hunters. You tell one trainer that Horse/Pony A is winning due to Placebo X, then everyone will want it and tout its magic effects. No one will bother to test the substance to find out that it's only saline solution. Heck, you could probably label the vial 'Placebo' and no one would stop to think about what that word means, only that it means 'ribbons'.
    I would love to see this "study" done with dexamethasone vs. saline. I've asked multiple vets, looked in pharm books, and done several literature searches to find out if there is, in fact, a documented "quieting" effect of dex. I get the theory, I think...But if it really worked, don't you think there would be some reference in the literature? Can't find any reference to it.

    So, instead, trainers are administering already over-conditioned show hunters with a drug suspected to cause laminitis (which, oddly enough, IS a side effect mentioned in the literature!) and known to suppress the immune system (again, in horses exposed to strange new barn-mates every week) several times per weekend.



  14. #194
    Join Date
    Mar. 11, 2009
    Posts
    525

    Default

    I'd love to discuss more Julie's point of view- change the incentives and the behavior will change accordingly.

    Change the judging and many problems will be solved (though how to change judging is also a great discussion topic). If horses are not rewarded, as they are currently, for robotic appearances than in turn less horses will be drugged to win in the ring (and less lunging/riding/schooling may also lead to less need for soundness type drugs as well?).

    Also, I have heard and agree with talk of changing courses. The current simple courses (single, side, diagonal, side) promote robotic, metronome performances. Less related distances, more singles, less groundlines will, perhaps, reward pace and more "spark" in the hunter ring. Why can't the hunter ring move more towards the derby ideal?

    Any other ideas on how to change the game, so to speak. Every poster on this forum has brought up the difficulties of focusing only on the drug rules/enforcement. The cost of vet only administered injections and problems with FEI type stabling, the difficulty of testing for "naturally occuring" drugs such as Mg, how to decipher between performance enhancing and legitimate comfort.

    .... so what else can we do to eliminate the incentives for abuse?


    4 members found this post helpful.

  15. #195
    Join Date
    Feb. 2, 2003
    Location
    West
    Posts
    1,009

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Molly99 View Post
    I don't think that USEF really goes only by the name on the entry blank. There have been plenty of instances where during the course of the investigation USEF has determined that a different person was really the person responsible for the infraction. In most cases where the person on the entry blank wasn't the person at the show. But I would think the same logic could be applied to assistant trainers.

    As has been stated by others, the USEF is doing a good job with testing and trying to stay ahead of the game. There will ALWAYS be cheaters. You will NEVER stop that. USEF is working on testing for drugs that have come to play with new uses.

    I really wish more people could see the presentation that was done at the convention. It would change many of your perceptions on what USEF does and the true impact of positive drug testing.

    One of the scariest things to me, was the realization that many in the room did not know the "brand name" was really X drug.

    USEF did a big thing with getting the test for GABA. They are constantly working on others.

    Random testing is really the best option, for various reasons. I do agree that at certain level events testing the top 3 would be good as well, but not a rule. Random implies that anyone at anytime can be tested. That impacts every horse at the show, not just the winners.
    I'm not saying they are not doing a good job at testing. I have seen testers at most shows I've been to, dressage and H/J. And my horses usually get tested once or twice/year.

    What I'm saying is that the penalties are not nearly harsh enough for testing positive. Not even close!

    Yes the testers are present. Yes, I'm sure the USEF is working to develop new tests for previously undetectable drugs.

    But what is the point if it's a slap on the wrist?
    ******
    "A good horse and a good rider are only so in mutual trust."
    -H.M.E.



  16. #196
    Join Date
    May. 5, 2009
    Location
    Location: Indiana, but my heart is in Zone II
    Posts
    2,815

    Default

    Not being snarky, actually, the insert does not specify whether to stall rest the horse after IV or IA:
    DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION:
    Legend Multi Dose (20 mL) and Legend 4 mL (40 mg) injected intravenously only. Legend 2 mL (20 mg) injected intravenously or intra-articularly in the carpus or fetlock.

    Treatment may be repeated at weekly intervals for a total of three treatments.

    Legend Injectable Solution 2 mL: Strict aseptic technique should be observed when administering by intra-articular injection. As with any intra-articular procedure, proper injection site disinfection and animal restraint are important. Excess joint fluid should be aseptically removed prior to injection. Care should be taken to avoid scratching the cartilage surface with the tip of the injection needle. Diffuse swelling lasting 24 to 48 hours may result from movement of the needle while in the joint space.

    For intravenous administration, use aseptic technique and inject slowly into the jugular vein.

    Horses should be given stall rest after treatment before gradually resuming normal activity.
    Come to the dark side, we have cookies


    2 members found this post helpful.

  17. #197
    Join Date
    Jun. 17, 2001
    Location
    down the road from bar.ka
    Posts
    32,042

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juststartingout View Post
    All good points -- however if you restrict administration of the most problematic to vets and require that the vets file a med report with the show office and USEF there is going to be a certain amount of resistance to developing a record showing that certain vets and certain horses are receiving certain meds at every show. While this places a burden on show vets (and an extra expense on owners) its an expense that owners/riders/trainers ought to be willing to incur if the med is truly needed for the health of the animal.

    Wuth today's computer systems and databases, tracking this kind of information is not very difficult and pulling reports once the system is designed is easy - whether by vet, trainer, rider, groom, or horse.

    If we are serious about protecting our animals and changing the sport, then we ought to be willing to create, support, and pay for the systems necessary to make sure it happen
    Ahhhhh, making sure that med record is not available to anybody come sale and PPE time might be an issue with some.

    Honestly, I see alot of new trainers jumping on the multiple meds bandwagon because it's "always been done" and newbie owners blindly accepting all charges on the bill without question because "it's the way everybody does it".

    Thats sad and is really starting to bother me after seeing what happens to some nice horses pushed too far for too long in their hands.

    Also makes me embarassed for the sport.
    When opportunity knocks it's wearing overalls and looks like work.

    The horse world. Two people. Three opinions.


    1 members found this post helpful.

  18. #198
    Join Date
    Feb. 22, 2000
    Location
    passepartout
    Posts
    10,148

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by CBoylen View Post
    That refers to when it is used IA not IV.
    No, it does not. That comes from the NIH site here. You'll notice at the top of the page, it says:

    For Intravenous Use in Horses Only

    Not for Intra-Articular Use


    3 members found this post helpful.

  19. #199
    Join Date
    Jan. 21, 2006
    Posts
    1,007

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by findeight View Post
    Ahhhhh, making sure that med record is not available to anybody come sale and PPE time might be an issue with some.

    Honestly, I see alot of new trainers jumping on the multiple meds bandwagon because it's "always been done" and newbie owners blindly accepting all charges on the bill without question because "it's the way everybody does it".

    Thats sad and is really starting to bother me after seeing what happens to some nice horses pushed too far for too long in their hands.

    Also makes me embarassed for the sport.
    Actually making it available for sale and PPE would be a great idea. Why not -- if you are selling a horse based on its record - why shouldn't the buyer know what medications were necessary to produce that record. I am not naive -- it will be an issue, but if we want to be treated as a professional and honest sport with integrity why not.



  20. #200
    Join Date
    Jan. 1, 2008
    Posts
    4,896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Horseymama View Post
    I'm not saying they are not doing a good job at testing. I have seen testers at most shows I've been to, dressage and H/J. And my horses usually get tested once or twice/year.

    What I'm saying is that the penalties are not nearly harsh enough for testing positive. Not even close!

    Yes the testers are present. Yes, I'm sure the USEF is working to develop new tests for previously undetectable drugs.

    But what is the point if it's a slap on the wrist?
    Exactly.

    I've been horseshowing in one form or another for over 50 years. Illegal medication use has ALWAYS been an issue. People can posture and complain all the want about judging, types of horses, training, etc. But bottom line, until a penalty with TEETH affects a trainer's business negatively, things will not change.

    The USEF playing catch up with testing for new medications or substances will not affect drug use. It never has. Setting down a trainer and/or an owner for a year, or permanently, will.
    Fan of the Swedish Chef


    3 members found this post helpful.

Similar Threads

  1. New york times
    By Airfern in forum Racing
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May. 18, 2012, 01:20 AM
  2. New York Times Front Page article 4/30/12
    By Lizzie in forum Racing
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: May. 2, 2012, 02:58 AM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: Sep. 28, 2010, 10:39 PM
  4. New York Times article on air vests
    By JAGold in forum Eventing
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: Sep. 13, 2010, 11:24 PM
  5. Replies: 75
    Last Post: Apr. 9, 2008, 09:46 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •