Wait, need clarification.
If a dressage horse or eventing horse had the same superficial scratch on its coronet band, would it be tested for sensitivity ? Or do the FEI vets only look at show jumpers…
Surely there are some dings and scrapes on eventers…
Is there any scientific evidence that the thermography plus manipulation (poking) the offending limb up to and around 50 times by various people (as reported by Lamaze and McLain) is the state of the art perfectly infallible way to detect a hypersensitive condition?
Again?
[QUOTE=Glimmerglass;6485047]
Never thought I’d see the day that was said about Eric. He was banned twice by Canadian sport officials after testing positive for cocaine before the 1996 Games in Atlanta and then testing positive for ephedrine before the 2000 Sydney Olympics, for which he was handed a lifetime ban. That was revoked later.[/QUOTE]
I agree, If that is a class act, we are in serious trouble!
Amazing what people choose to ignore huh!:no:
So Sorry!!!
I suppose all you Eric Lamaze “downers” are just Miss Perfects.
[QUOTE=Sannois;6488308]
I agree, If that is a class act, we are in serious trouble!
Amazing what people choose to ignore huh!:no:[/QUOTE]
Ok so once again, yes Eric did stupid things yeeeeeeears ago ( OMG so 12 years ago)(said in teenage girl voice). We all know that. It’s a class act because he, stood up for a team mate/ student- that’s why. This has nothing to do with the past. We’d all be lucky to have a someone who had our backs like that.
And I’m not naive in thinking he’s 100% Mr.InnocentPants these days - but can you really say that any of them are living the life of a nun. But for heaven’s sake let the past go!
[QUOTE=Sannois;6488308]
I agree, If that is a class act, we are in serious trouble!
Amazing what people choose to ignore huh!:no:[/QUOTE]
To quote one of my favorite movies
“the bull’s-eye of an easy target. May you be publicly flogged for all of your bad choices, and may your noses be rubbed in all of your mistakes”.
Seriously, the guy is a recovered drug addict from over 10 years ago, turned his life around to win OLYMPIC GOLD not to mention then hundreds of other things he has won and you are going to not forgive the man for his past mistakes that he publicly acknowledges as mistakes?
Geeze I would love to live in the perfect world you live in.
[QUOTE=crackerjack;6488436]
And I’m not naive in thinking he’s 100% Mr.InnocentPants these days - but can you really say that any of them are living the life of a nun. [/QUOTE]
<Raises hand> I am! But that’s just because I haven’t met Eric yet. 
notice that the canadian comment has been “fine tuned” and absolutely believe they would have sat on their hands without the pressure from lamaze ( and i am sure thousands of others).
Jeez… sour grapes or what? May I remind you that (well you must know it since you are so clean and perfect and knowledgeable)… that it was 12 years ago, that the first disqualification was because of an ingredient in a supplement (never happened to any of your athletes of course), the second was because of cocaine at a party (does not make it an “addict” when he was in the dumps because of the dq. He was not dq during competition…
Also may I remind you of your numerous athletes (in many sports ie T&F, baseball, cycling, etc.) who have been found/have admitted to taking drugs to improve their performances… who have won medals and gold during their competitions (yes we had Ben Johnson…)… still, don’t go all holly on us now!
He made a mistake, was punished by his federation (for once, it took a stand)… and obviously by the public and came back little by little and because he was so good… he proved himself to everyone. Luckily, he had friends and sponsors who believed in him and stuck with him. He is just paying forward and helping Tiffany, just like others did for him (even if her situation is nowhere the same).
I would love a friend like that.
People who keep bringing back errors of 12 years ago obviously have never matured and still live 12 years ago.
[QUOTE=lauriep;6486561]
The eventers have a stadium jumping test that can be/is as crucial to their results as to the jumpers. So why is this test only used on jumpers?.[/QUOTE]
Because we have a jog up/vet inspection the morning of stadium after XC. The hypersensitivity testing is pointless. If there were more jogs during FEI jumping competitions, that may be an answer. Eventers have 2 jogs and 3 vet inspections over the 3 days.
Great, RAAYERS, but they don’t even couple the test with a jog. And my point is that they are targeting show jumping with this asinine test, when there may be as many or more eventers that are “hypersensitive.”. Why only one discipline? If they are now targeting nicks, abrasions, bumps, then why limit it to show jumpers?
[QUOTE=lauriep;6488817]
Great, RAAYERS, but they don’t even couple the test with a jog. And my point is that they are targeting show jumping with this asinine test, when there may be as many or more eventers that are “hypersensitive.”. Why only one discipline? If they are now targeting nicks, abrasions, bumps, then why limit it to show jumpers?[/QUOTE]
I honestly feel the FEI is one of the most corrupt entities that allows its officials to act with impunity. I think it should be burned to the ground and a new entity formed.
In this case you can not use eventers as a comparison. It is apples and Audis.
Deliberate hypersensitization is not a real issue with eventers. It is a normal result of XC for the horses to come off with cuts and scratches (some even needing stitches) given that XC is done on open only partially modified terrain (it is not just the fences, but sticks and rocks and over steps and slips and…). Therefore the test used on jumpers is useless for eventers given every horse, most likely will show reaction. Note that event horses live with ice boots, Game Readys, etc. post XC. We are tying to REMOVE hypersensitization as it is an indicator of inflammation and tissue damage.
This is why I would simply suggest a jog in front of the veterinary committee everyday prior to competition for the jumpers. Thermography is useless as a medical diagnostic tool (well proven in studies) so that is not viable.
In terms of LOOKING for DELIBERATE hypersensitization, the rule and test makes GREAT sense. A jog will not elucidate it as it is a skin response. Thus, only the poking will suffice. As for using it to justify elimination, the question is does the wound observed seem to be one commonly caused by jumping or was it inflicted by another means (can be pretty obvious sometimes)? Sadly the verterinary committee is the the only allowed judge in the matter.
I doubt jogs would catch lighting up a horse’s front legs. If you apply to both legs the horse is likely to still jog even. So–a jog would not rule out hypersensitivity in eventers, nor would it confirm it in jumpers who have been lit up, in my view. I suppose that is why the poking method is used.
I do think the application of poking techniques to minor abrasions is ridiculous. If a scratch on one leg is causing problems it would show up in a jog. FEI needs situation-specific techniques, not application of a rule designed to uncover one abuse used across the board in situations where it makes no sense.
I doubt jogs would catch lighting up a horse’s front legs. If you apply to both legs the horse is likely to still jog even. So–a jog would not rule out hypersensitivity in eventers, nor would it confirm it in jumpers who have been lit up, in my view. I suppose that is why the poking method is used.
I do think the application of poking techniques to minor abrasions is ridiculous. If a scratch on one leg is causing problems it would show up in a jog. FEI needs situation-specific techniques, not application of a rule designed to uncover one abuse used across the board in situations where it makes no sense.
I doubt jogs would catch lighting up a horse’s front legs. If you apply to both legs the horse is likely to still jog even. So–a jog would not rule out hypersensitivity in eventers, nor would it confirm it in jumpers who have been lit up, in my view. I suppose that is why the poking method is used.
I do think the application of poking techniques to minor abrasions is ridiculous. If a scratch on one leg is causing problems it would show up in a jog. FEI needs situation-specific techniques, not application of a rule designed to uncover one abuse used across the board in situations where it makes no sense.
I don’t think LaurieP is saying that eventers should be compared in the real world, but is pointing out that IF part of the standard for a horse to jump around is that a horse not be hypersensitive at all, regardless of reason (intent or accident, deliberate soring or owie from banging a pole in competition), and the reason why the accidental owie cannot compete is based on the welfare of the horse (which is where the FEI is hanging its hat on this matter)… Then how do you defend that process and NOT apply it to event horses who go into day 3 with a lot of unintentional owies?
[QUOTE=RAyers;6488903]
I honestly feel the FEI is one of the most corrupt entities that allows its officials to act with impunity. I think it should be burned to the ground and a new entity formed. [/QUOTE]
Hmm…I’m trying to decide if this should be my new signature line or not. :lol: So true!
[QUOTE=DMK;6488994]
I don’t think LaurieP is saying that eventers should be compared in the real world, but is pointing out that IF part of the standard for a horse to jump around is that a horse not be hypersensitive at all, regardless of reason (intent or accident, deliberate soring or owie from banging a pole in competition), and the reason why the accidental owie cannot compete is based on the welfare of the horse (which is where the FEI is hanging its hat on this matter)… Then how do you defend that process and NOT apply it to event horses who go into day 3 with a lot of unintentional owies?[/QUOTE]
I agree with what is being said, hence my comment about FEI officials acting without impunity.
But, should it be EXPECTED, a horse who does the high jumpers HAVE cuts or such as the result of showing? On XC it is expected. However, in a ring? While cuts are not foreign, I suspect they are a rarity based on my past. Hence, my comment about judging HOW the cut occurred. A vet should be able to make a fairly decent assessment of the cause of a wound (deliberate or otherwise). And that is the gray area of this rule.
This rule was established ONLY for the jumpers for a valid reason based upon past infractions. The application of the rule is otherwise. To question why the rule is not applied across the board would be the same thing as asking why brushing boots are not allowed in dressage?
Thank you Eric
Eric showed his true courage and heart. I thank him very much for his stand and his dedication . Gallagher should resign from Equine Canada and make a public apology for his actions. He is a fool and an embarrassment to Canada’s equestrian community.
[QUOTE=fair judy;6488677]
notice that the canadian comment has been “fine tuned” and absolutely believe they would have sat on their hands without the pressure from lamaze ( and i am sure thousands of others).[/QUOTE]
Totally agree.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
