[TuxWink]

Thanks to Poltroon, I went and investigated the CA website for equine drugs - http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ahfss/Animal_...onsignors.html

In their downloadable document, "Differences between USEF and California Equine Medication Rule," it clearly states that Equioxx, Surpass, Robaxin and Dexamethasone and PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES and require a 24 hour withdrawal prior to competition.

The website also states the following:
A Drug Declaration Form is a legal document that an exhibitor or consignor must complete and file with an event manager for any horse at an event that has received a prohibited substance or an NSAID that a licensed veterinarian has deemed therapeutically necessary for the treatment of an illness or injury. Drug Declarations must be completed for drugs and medications administered three (3) days prior to the show/competition or five (5) days prior to the sale. The owner/exhibitor/trainer is to submit the completed drug declaration form to the event manager within one (1) hour of administration of the product(s) at the event. If the product administration occurs at a time other than during show or sale hours, the owner or trainer should submit the completed form within one (1) hour after an event manager returns to duty.

So, according to this website, ALL horses who receive bute or other therapeutic substances must file a Drug Declaration form. In addition, no Equioxx, Surpass, Robaxin or Dex may be given AT ALL at a show.

To be honest, I never realized the drug rules were different between USEF and CA. I've also given bute at multi-day shows but never even thought to file a report.

I've been tested a couple of times, but I think it was the USEF doing the testing and not the State of CA. Do they have separate testers or do the results go to both entities? Am I the only one who didn't realize there was a different set of standards?

[sp56]

That's very interesting. I think if everyone declared bute, there would be a lot of paper in the show manager's office - not to mention the hassle of getting it there three days before the event. I had heard that drug rules were different between CA and USEF (someone mentioned the other day that Equioxx wasn't allowed by CA but I haven't looked into it further since I don't use it). The rules as it stands seem sort of excessive.

Perhaps contact USEF and see what this really entails?

[STA]

Honestly, I do not know the correct answer to the following question: If a horse travels from California to a show somewhere else, say The National Horse Show in Kentucky - would that horse have an advantage over other horses since it would legally be able to receive the banned California drugs not previously in it's system therefore having a stronger effect?

[Instant Karma]

No.... because if everyone wanted that advantage, they would also refrain from using the drug up until the National Horse Show....

[doublesstable]

Very interesting.... I wonder if the USEF rules supersede the CA rules? This is how it works in government. You can have rules on the books but if challenged the Fed Government would supersede the smaller entities in many cases.

There are so many variables on the books but there are cases where this takes place. Interested to know what is what on this one.

[paint hunter]

Very interesting.... I wonder if the USEF rules supersede the CA rules? This is how it works in government. You can have rules on the books but if challenged the Fed Government would supersede the smaller entities in many cases.

California regulations trump USEF. Furthermore, California is a governmental entity whereas USEF is a private entity.

[Peggy]

If I am interpreting the handout correctly, CA rules (the more stringent) would trump USEF drug rules.

Handout attached.

(and I typed the above before refreshing and seeing paint hunter's response above--were we separated at birth or something)

[MHM]

Didn't someone post on here a few years back about a California drug tester who was trying to test a horse on the horse trailer at a show without the owner/rider/trainer around? Or some story like that?

If so, they must have very different protocol guidelines from the USEF testers.

[poltroon]

USEF and the State of California merged their drug testing arrangements several years back so we Californians only have to pay one drug fee. (For years, we had to pay two.)

I am hazy on the details... I think the state picks some shows to test and USEF picks other shows. I am not sure if all the labs are done at Davis or if some are done at the USEF labs.

You are bound to the most stringent rules. That is, take the California rules + whatever association recognizes it, and you must be in compliance with both for that particular occasion. California, for example, allows NSAID stacking, but you cannot do it at a California USEF recognized show.

[Peggy]

Didn't someone post on here a few years back about a California drug tester who was trying to test a horse on the horse trailer at a show without the owner/rider/trainer around? Or some story like that?

If so, they must have very different protocol guidelines from the USEF testers.

They're not supposed to do that. Having been tested by both, the protocols seemed about the same except that the CA testers are less likely to be a vet and thus less likely to be able to pull blood.

[poltroon]

That's very interesting. I think if everyone declared bute, there would be a lot of paper in the show manager's office - not to mention the hassle of getting it there three days before the event.

You don't have to get it there three days before the event. The day of the show, you declare any meds given in the past three days. NBD.

As far as a lot of paper... :-) compared to all the membership cards and registration papers and measurement cards and the like that already has to go with every entry, it's not exactly the tipping point.

[TuxWink]

If I am interpreting the handout correctly, CA rules (the more stringent) would trump USEF drug rules.

Yes, this looks to be the case. I guess the real question is, are these rules just not widely known or just known not to be enforced? I know I had no idea I had to file a report for bute or other "therapeutic" substances. I also know that people ARE using CA's "forbidden" substances while showing.

[Peggy]

Yes, this looks to be the case. I guess the real question is, are these rules just not widely known or just known not to be enforced? I know I had no idea I had to file a report for bute or other "therapeutic" substances. I also know that people ARE using CA's "forbidden" substances while showing.

I send a question to the email at the bottom of the handout to verify that the handout was current. I definitely didn't realize about the robaxin, dex, and previcox being forbidden. And people are definitely using CA-forbidden substances. Which makes me also wonder if there is some sort of a "gentlemen's" agreement about not applying the CA rules at USEF shows or something. Because if they were to hold to the CA standards, the AZ circuit would be a lot more popular.

[poltroon]

I am kind of curious about how violations are handled when a positive is found, both in instances where it is only the California rules that were violated and instances where both are violated.

[PonyPenny]

I send a question to the email at the bottom of the handout to verify that the handout was current. I definitely didn't realize about the robaxin, dex, and previcox being forbidden. And people are definitely using CA-forbidden substances. Which makes me also wonder if there is some sort of a "gentlemen's" agreement about not applying the CA rules at USEF shows or something. Because if they were to hold to the CA standards, the AZ circuit would be a lot more popular.

Great question to send to the show managers at HITS Thermal, Blenheim Equisports for Oaks and Showpark shows, and Langer Equestrian for LAEC Shows. I wonder what their answer would be?

[paint hunter]

USEF and the State of California merged their drug testing arrangements several years back so we Californians only have to pay one drug fee. (For years, we had to pay two.)

Not merged. We pay a fee to both CA and USEF. I am currently looking at the premium list for the Northern Winter Classic series at Rancho Murrieta next month. USEF fees include a "USEF Drug Fee" of $8 and there is a separate "CA Drug Fee" of $3 as part of the Miscellaneous Fees (PCHA $3, NorCal $3, CA Drug $5; totaling $11).

[Peggy]

Great question to send to the show managers at HITS Thermal, Blenheim Equisports for Oaks and Showpark shows, and Langer Equestrian for LAEC Shows. I wonder what their answer would be?

Anyone up for a stealth mission out to Thermal to plaster flyers?

[poltroon]

Not merged. We pay a fee to both CA and USEF. I am currently looking at the premium list for the Northern Winter Classic series at Rancho Murrieta next month. USEF fees include a "USEF Drug Fee" of $8 and there is a separate "CA Drug Fee" of $3 as part of the Miscellaneous Fees (PCHA $3, NorCal $3, CA Drug $5; totaling $11).

Innnnteresting. In Dressage, I'll have you know we're paying only one fee now, and although I can't remember when it changed, I know the new fee was less than fee1 + fee2.

[Peggy]

Thermal is $8 USEF drug fee and $5 CDFA drug fee. I too thought there was some sort of agreement.

[DMK]

What is the penalty for failing the CA test?

At USEF shows it might be treated a bit like getting an out of state parking violation (especially if you only show at USEF rated shows). Mostly not relevant if you don't live in the state or pay the fine and go about your business if you do (assuming the fine is not prohibitive).