FEI Softening Zero Drug Tolerance?

[bambam]

Originally Posted by PineTreeFarm

(l) Cocaine - 300 ng/ml urine

I apparently missed the memo on the therapeutic effects of cocaine (since it is an illegal narcotic, I am assuming it is a byproduct of something legit or this does not actually refer to the illegel narcotic that comes to my mind???)

As to the FEI rule- what a giant cluster

[GotSpots]

Cocaine is (ostensibly) a contamination issue, not a health/welfare issue.

[bambam]

Then I fail to see why any levels should be permitted since it is, oh I don't know, a CRIME to have it at all. They are tacitly acknowledging cocaine use by competitors and their staff and are arguably affirmatively condoning it by having permissible levels of contamination.
I am sure that the focus is on whether the drug is performance enhancing or not, but to have permissible levels of an illegal narcotic is, at best, wildly misguided.
Okay- sorry for the tangent

[GotSpots]

The argument (not expressing support pro/con) is that there is sufficient trace residue of cocaine on a high percentage of paper money in circulation that even a non-user could inadvertently trigger a positive drug test in a horse if s/he handled tainted bills and then the horse. So not (in professed theory) condoning use by riders/grooms/etc.

[bambam]

if the trace amounts on money were enough to show up in drug tests on horses whose handlers touched that money often enough that it warrants an exception in the USEF drug rules, wouldn't pretty much every person who is drug tested (for whatever reason) outside of the equestrian competition context be testing positive for cocaine ? I would be very surprised if the tests done on horses were that much more sensitive than those conducted on parolees, arrestees, certain employees, etc on a daily basis.
sorry, not buying it (and, yes, I understand GS that you not "selling" the justification )

[DMK]

oops, I do believe the 300ng/ml is a direct copy from the trace amounts permitted in pilots, so that certainly lends some support to the accidental contamination idea.

As for positive tests, there are reasons why you don't see many: a) you have to be tested, b) the sample has to be tested for cocaine, and c) you probably need to know the specific chemical name of metabolites of cocaine in order to determine whose name showed up in USEF for that particular positive. (hint there might be more than you think)

Now I'm not sure that 300ng/ml is the right number, but more than a few racing jurisdictions have a threshold that they apply to race horses, so that might be the better starting place. Trace levels in humans and horses may not have anything to do with weight.

[Sara Lieser]

Our reporter just sent us a fairly comprehensive story about the debate. http://www.chronofhorse.com/article/...ei-competition

I have calls in to USEF, so we'll see how they respond!

[RAyers]

Just to give perspective as to testing sensitivity and the insanity it presents.

A nanogram is 1/1,000,000 of a gram or about the weight of a grain of sand. Thus, the concentration of 300ng/ml is really a measure of 3 parts for every million. It is like looking for 400 very specific people in the entire US (pop of approx. 400 million) or 6 small bolts in the entire Space Shuttle, or using a telescope to see a candle in LA from New York. Seeing INDIVIDUAL atoms in a material requires only a 2,000,000 times magnification. So you can see that these measurements get into a very gray area.

Considering that most therapeutic dosages are in the order of parts per 100,000, the measurement of parts per million is beyond what is needed. In our labs we can measure things in the parts per TRILLION (3 orders of magnitude even finer). This is where drug testing has gone off the deep end. The ability to measure something so fine precludes the idea that there is any effect. There is no such thing as perfectly clear or pure. The only reason in the past we thought there was was because we could not measure it.

Sure there are compounds and such that will kill in the parts per trillion range - plutonium etc. - but most pharmaceutics have no action at that level unless used in a VERY specifically designed delivery system into the targeted tissue.

Reed

[Gry2Yng]

Reed - I really *could* have skipped high school chemistry and gone straight to the School of Reed. (In reality, although I attended class, I did skip most of it.) Thanks, I learned something.

[PhoenixFarm]

OK, I have a dumb question.

I'm not sure I understand why several of the countries most currently voicing loud opposition to the threshold concept/new lists, would be so, given they are countries that have consistently had big, public, embarrassing, medal-removing positive drug tests for far more complex--and IMHO, questionable--substances than things like bute and banamine.

Clearly their own people aren't in favor of/able to abide by (as defined by actions, not just words) their concept of "clean sport" so why all the hue and cry?

I get that Europeans have to deal with press on this issue to a degree we don't, but how is the press they get for losing medals when trying to find a way around zero tolerance "better" than saying, our horses are athletes and we'd like to give them an asprin?

Ireland, Germany, and England have all had "unfortuante incidents" at all the recent championships (as have we), and lost medals as a result.

I guess I'm just confused how they can claim this is a departure from the principles of clean sport, when the positive tests have been coming hard and fast for several quadrenniums now?

Now the way it's being handled? Classic FEI cluster. They can't even do the right thing right.

[subk]

Originally Posted by RAyers

This is where drug testing has gone off the deep end. The ability to measure something so fine precludes the idea that there is any effect. There is no such thing as perfectly clear or pure. The only reason in the past we thought there was was because we could not measure it.

Thanks for explaining why I find the whole concept of "zero-tolerance" ridiculous and as always much better than I ever could have...

[JER]

Another thing about the FEI and drug testing...

Some FEI events do urine screening only while others screen urine and blood samples.

As you can have a positive blood test but a negative urine test, shouldn't it be standardized as to what tests are required at an FEI event?

And while the FEI offers pre-competition screening to competitors, they only offer this pre-screening on a limited list of substances and only via urine testing. If they're going to offer pre-screening, shouldn't it be on everything they test for and in the form of the tests that are actually done in competition?

If they are testing blood and urine in competition and want to offer pre-screening, they should be offering pre-screening in blood and urine, on the full list of substances.

[Peggy]

Reed's post clearly explains why low thresholds are far more appropriate than zero tolerance.

Cocaine is a very useful topical painkiller.

[Sebastian]

Originally Posted by PhoenixFarm

OK, I have a dumb question.

I'm not sure I understand why several of the countries most currently voicing loud opposition to the threshold concept/new lists, would be so, given they are countries that have consistently had big, public, embarrassing, medal-removing positive drug tests for far more complex--and IMHO, questionable--substances than things like bute and banamine.

Clearly their own people aren't in favor of/able to abide by (as defined by actions, not just words) their concept of "clean sport" so why all the hue and cry?

I get that Europeans have to deal with press on this issue to a degree we don't, but how is the press they get for losing medals when trying to find a way around zero tolerance "better" than saying, our horses are athletes and we'd like to give them an asprin?

Ireland, Germany, and England have all had "unfortuante incidents" at all the recent championships (as have we), and lost medals as a result.

I guess I'm just confused how they can claim this is a departure from the principles of clean sport, when the positive tests have been coming hard and fast for several quadrenniums now?

Now the way it's being handled? Classic FEI cluster. They can't even do the right thing right.

Not dumb at all... I was wondering the same thing.

And Reed, thanks again for your succinct and scientific explanation of realilty.

Seb

[Danny1234]

He. Simply because it is, of course, the ultimate declaration of bankruptcy. If you can’t prevent testing for a prohibited substance, that is prohibited for a good reason (i.e. making the lame walk again by killing the pain and therefore risking serious damages), then just make it legal. It’s like saying, okay, everyone in e.g. Cycling and Track and Field dopes, let’s just stop testing. While some think that would indeed be a good idea – it’s impossible. Why? Because it would destroy the billion-$$-Olympic-fairytale-machine: “You have to risk your health if you want to become an Olympic Champion, that's the way it is, noone forces you, take it or leave it!”, just doesn’t make well for pompous opening speeches. Same for horses. So I wonder how the IOC will take to this new rule, but sure, there’s a good chance they’ll just keep silent about it if there’s no major public uproar. However, this new FEI-rule is illegal as by national laws, in at least Sweden and Germany. So I suppose come next year’s tournaments, the media will be very interested in how the FN will manage with that. Then the animal rights people will come up, with good reason, and finally something in their hands that will easily win them every spectacular law suite. There you go, fab rule for the positive public image i.e..
If a horse is in pain, yes, make it more comfortable, give it an Aspirin, fine. And then give it a rest. Don’t take any risk then by competing at highest imaginable levels. That’s why that rule existed and it is as idealistic as it can get, sure, but as for central Europe, it’s the only way equestrian has any chance to remain (or become again) socially accepted.


Btw., I just love the 300 ng Cocaine/ml urine by contaminated money explanation.