• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

FEI Softening Zero Drug Tolerance?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • FEI Softening Zero Drug Tolerance?

    Eventing Nation has a recap on the discussions in Copenhagen. "Turmoil" is the descriptive verb...

    http://eventingnation.com/home/2009/...ce-policy.html

  • #2
    More at Horse & Hound: FEI president Princess Haya refuses to allow a re-vote on bute

    Britain's and Ireland's calls for a re-vote on the decision to allow bute in competition have been dismissed.

    Damian McDonald chief executive of Horse Sport Ireland has questioned this afternoon whether delegates at the FEI general assembly understood fully what they were voting for.

    "On 13 November it was stated by the FEI that we would get a choice between the 'progressive list' and a list legally called the '20 October list'," he said.

    "But this morning we were asked to vote on 'progressive list' and 'current list', and the current list we had until now is very different from the list of 20 October."

    He urged to allow a revote to be absolutely certain that federations were clear on what they were voting for, a call backed up by British Equestrian Federation (BEF) chairman Keith Taylor.
    Don't you just love international sport federations?

    (Most of my sport-federation-related anger today is directed at FIFA over the France-Ireland outrage. Why is it these federations can act so corruptly and with such impunity?)

    Comment


    • #3
      JER. you get outraged over SOCCER?!
      "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
      Thread killer Extraordinaire

      Comment


      • #4
        and then there's the sticky issue that the bylaws require the final draft of rule changes to be sent out 4 weeks before the general ASSembly. they only got this on nov 13.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by vineyridge View Post
          JER. you get outraged over SOCCER?!
          No. I get outraged over FOOTBALL.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by JER View Post
            No. I get outraged over FOOTBALL.

            "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
            Thread killer Extraordinaire

            Comment

            • Original Poster

              #7
              Eventing Nation gives an update today with a host of links to follow.

              http://eventingnation.com/home/2009/...the-world.html

              Leave it to the FEI to fumble the process...

              Comment


              • #8
                From subk's EN link:

                It is unclear exactly where the push for the progressive list was initiated, but the FEI apparently concealed the progressive list's existence until several days ago, and then rushed the proposal to vote without fully educating the delegates. The FEI also repeatedly changed the names and contents of the lists just a few hours prior to the vote. To make matters worse, check out this ridiculous spin by the FEI.

                The FEI stated that the progressive list is built from the USEF model of allowing low levels of drugs, such as bute at competitions. This prompted the USEF chief executive Jon Long to strongly deny any involvement by the US in starting the new proposal. Jon Long also said that the USEF did not support the progressive list. Most other major equestrian nations, such as Great Britain also strongly opposed the progressive list.

                Comment


                • #9
                  So...is anyone buying what John Long is selling? Because the US has a long history of lobbying for FEI thresholds, no secret there. Not that there weren't other known "behind the scenes factions" at work from the moment the Commission came back with the "wrong" recommendations.

                  I can certainly accept it wasn't them driving it this time, but not that they weren't in support of it. It was only that statement by Long that makes me suspicious (voting is no longer done by a show of hands so no one would ever know whether or not they supported it). A love of statutory process is usually secondary to getting what you want. And I find it hard to believe that O'Connor and Co. weren't giddy with delight when they saw it, the Statutes be damned! David was on one of the commissions, he is well within the inner circle. JL was one of the handful of people developing the new structure/statutes which would have given even more inappropriate power to HRH. Thank God the NFs woke up and didn't allow that to happen.

                  Originally posted by subk
                  Leave it to the FEI to fumble the process...
                  it's not really "the FEI" though, that's the thing. The real "FEI" is not the problem here. It's ONE person's takeover of the FEI, and this should have been dealt with two long years ago over the financial business.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The Telegraph: "International Equestrian Federation damns decision to take 'bute' off banned list"

                    Some words from Capt. Mark Phillips:
                    The bute proposals were a surprise to delegates in Copenhagen, and Phillips was baffled by the news.

                    "I have not seen the new list yet," he said. "It has long been a complaint of riders and vets that the medicine box is not big enough, but that what is a required is a larger list of medications that are non-performance enhancing.

                    "The rules were written in the days when testing was steam-driven. Nowadays they can detect miscroscopic amounts of anything. What riders don't want to be looking at is six months off [through a disciplinary suspension] if a miscroscopic residue is detected. But if you can give a significant dose, then it's not a clean sport."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      well if the "progressive list" is truly modeled after the USEF list, I think there are a few things on that list that USEF is stuck with due to membership (i.e., "trainers") demand rather than a historical philosophical attachment (not mentioning stacking NSAIDS or dex by name or anything) ... so if the list (anyone seen it?) IS modeled closely off that list, yeah, I can see that being an issue with USEF.
                      Your crazy is showing. You might want to tuck that back in.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        MP's comments are the other thing, besides how it was done. Even if done properly, when I was thinking "thresholds" I was thinking of getting rid of these ridiculously infinitessimal amounts that can't possibly have any effect. Drawing a line and saying we will not pursue these cases, because they damage the conduct and perception of the sport without catching the actual cheaters. This only for legitimate medication, not for doping class drugs which would still be zero tolerance. Then after you get Europe adjusted to that in concept, you can possibly start to look at what USEF does again, in a new environment that might be open to it some time in the future. But this is so radical in addition to being done in a highly improper way. Not the way to go, times two.

                        DMK it's rather funny that it seems only the MSM that can give us that information! (which is of course not authoritative):
                        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/oth...nned-list.html
                        The [progressive list] does not prohibit phenylbutazone (up to 8 mcg/ml in plasma or serum), three times the level tolerated in the 1980s before the ban, salicyclic acid (up to 750mcg/ml in urine and up to 6.5 mcg/ml in plasma or serum) and flunixin (up to 500 mcg/ml in plasma or serum,) so long as those substances are not detected in a horse's sample above the prescribed limits noted and are used in isolation and not combined.
                        The progressive list also sanctions acetycysteine, dichloroacetate (lactanase), and isoxuprine.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Geneva View Post
                          So...is anyone buying what John Long is selling? Because the US has a long history of lobbying for FEI thresholds, no secret there. Not that there weren't other known "behind the scenes factions" at work from the moment the Commission came back with the "wrong" recommendations.

                          I can certainly accept it wasn't them driving it this time, but not that they weren't in support of it. It was only that statement by Long that makes me suspicious (voting is no longer done by a show of hands so no one would ever know whether or not they supported it). A love of statutory process is usually secondary to getting what you want. And I find it hard to believe that O'Connor and Co. weren't giddy with delight when they saw it, the Statutes be damned! David was on one of the commissions, he is well within the inner circle. JL was one of the handful of people developing the new structure/statutes which would have given even more inappropriate power to HRH. Thank God the NFs woke up and didn't allow that to happen.

                          it's not really "the FEI" though, that's the thing. The real "FEI" is not the problem here. It's ONE person's takeover of the FEI, and this should have been dealt with two long years ago over the financial business.

                          I have yet to see the FEI do anything because the USEF promoted the idea. Do you know John Long? Cause IMHO, which is based on limited interaction, he is a pretty straight shooting, ethical guy. Sounds more like the FEI throwing the USEF under the bus.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Geneva View Post
                            DMK it's rather funny that it seems only the MSM that can give us that information! (which is of course not authoritative)
                            The Telegraph has a long history of excellence in reporting on equestrian sports.

                            I thought there was already an equivalent (750 mcg/ml) threshold for salicylates as they are naturally occurring.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by JER View Post
                              The Telegraph has a long history of excellence in reporting on equestrian sports.
                              I wasn't slighting the Telegraph, lol, just stating the obvious reality that any information on rules is never in fact "authoritative" unless it comes directly from the applicable governing body. ie the "authoritative" information is the actual document with the FEI logo on it, which has not been published. Thus highlighting the irony that we are first reading the specifics about drastic rule changes from the MSM, rather than directly from actual governing body news releases/ documents.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                http://equisearch.com/equiwire_news/...309/index.aspx
                                The following quotes from David O’Connor dated 3 Sept suggest that he was well aware that thresholds were imminently on the way and likely quite actively involved in their development. That doesn’t mean the USEF was the only one working on it, since obviously there were a few others on the commission, and various riders known to be whispering in Haya’s ear after HK, which is what started it. But it is USEF medication principles, which are fairly unique in the world, and he is the USEF president.

                                By the statutory FEI rule change process, the deadline for the first draft of both the Vet Regs (which contain the prohibited substance list, or at least used to), and the EADMCRs would have already passed when this interview was published. The first drafts would already have been under consideration by the NFs at this time, with no apparent mention of thresholds (either because the prohibited list was fully extracted from the new VRs, or only the old list was included). The NFs then comment back to the FEI, the FEI either incorporates those comments and tweaks or not, and the final draft goes out a month prior to the GA.

                                “It’s a major paradigm shift in equestrian sport, making it more professional, and protecting the riders, the people who are playing the game within the rules as well as trying to catch the people outside the rules,” said David, noting that it also addresses “guarding the welfare of the horse. It’s a different way to look at it. I think everybody believes it is needed and needs to happen now.”
                                If “everybody” believes it, why were they kept in the dark until the last minute?

                                Stakeholders in the sport, David said, “must have the conversation” about the details on the medication situation to determine what and how much can be used.
                                So why were they only allowed to “have the conversation” about “what and how much can be used” once they got to the GA?

                                Defining what a performance-enhancing drug is, and at what level it acts in that regard
                                “I think the realistic part is that there are medication thresholds for classes of drugs. If the sport gets there, I think it’s going to be in a good place. I think people are ready for this, because the sport has to be held in high repute.”
                                The commission called for establishing threshold levels of certain medications, as the USEF does. Below the threshhold, these drugs will be deemed to have no effect in competition, so their presence will not be penalized. But David also warned there are some medications, such as human anti-psychotics, that have no place in treating equines, and will not be tolerated in any amount.
                                So if the commission called for this, why did no other NF know about it until they got to Copenhagen? (or at least, no other NF except those few lucky enough to have members on the commission, or, alternatively, those aware that they needed to read equisearch.com instead of relying on info from their IF?)

                                ETA: the draft EADMCRs went out 24 July; still checking on the VRs but it had to be before Sept. Also I corrected myself to say the draft should have gone out before this interview was published rather than when he gave it (but you'd think for something so huge, there would be a call to Nancy J if something had changed in the interim).
                                Last edited by Ellie K; Nov. 20, 2009, 12:38 AM.
                                "See I hope to IMPROVE humanity as a whole and yet feel lost on this forum."

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Thanks for posting that, Ellie K.

                                  Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Zero tolerance

                                    It is well past time that the FEI recognized that they made a mistake twenty years ago when they adopted the homeopathic princesse's agenda. Why should horses be denied the minor discomfort relief that riders allow themselves?

                                    And before you go off on the USEF permitting "stacking" NSAIDa, check out the rule change proposals for this year. From the D&M Committee: no more "stacking". Do something for the horses and express yoiur apporoval of this proposal.

                                    tulkas

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      It's one thing to establish thresholds for therapeutic benefits and a whole different thing to allow horses to compete on painkillers. Why bute and the others and not capsacin? If the thresholds for the drugs which are now to be allowed up to the day before the performance (did I read that right?) are high enough to provide therapeutic benefits then they are performance enhancing and questionable to say the least.

                                      Do I hear Sheik Mo screaming in the background at his wife, La Presidenta?
                                      "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay."
                                      Thread killer Extraordinaire

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by tulkas View Post
                                        And before you go off on the USEF permitting "stacking" NSAIDa, check out the rule change proposals for this year. From the D&M Committee: no more "stacking". Do something for the horses and express yoiur apporoval of this proposal.

                                        tulkas
                                        Yes, but there is also a rule change proposal that reinforces the use of 2 NSAIDS. All you have to do is report the 2nd one on the drug form. That one has the support of USHJA.

                                        And one proposal that will allow 3 NSAIDS
                                        "In the event that a third substance listed in (a) through (f) above is present in the same plasma or urine sample as two other substances and the quantitative amount of the third substance is less than 25% of the permissible amount defined in (a) through (f) above, the amount is considered to be below the permissible threshold level and is not considered to affect the soundness or performance
                                        of the horse and will not be considered as a positive under this rule"

                                        And one that would allow the following stuff to be 'legal' within limits.

                                        (a) Procaine - 25 ng/ml urine
                                        (b) Benzocaine - 50 ng/ml urine
                                        (c) Mepivacaine - 10 ng/ml urine
                                        (d) Lidocaine - 50 ng/ml urine
                                        (e) Bupivacaine - 5 ng/ml urine
                                        (f) Clenbuterol - 25 pg/ml serum or plasma
                                        (g) Acepromazine - 25 ng/ml urine
                                        (h) Promazine - 25 ng/ml urine
                                        (i) Albuterol - 1 ng/ml urine
                                        (j) Pyrilamine - 50 ng/ml urine
                                        (k) Theobromine - 2000 ng/ml urine
                                        (l) Cocaine - 300 ng/ml urine
                                        Fan of Sea Accounts

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X