Equine Canada Statement and backlash from Eric Lamaze

[lauriep]

Exactly. The goal of trying to catch people doing this is great, but they cannot have the attitude that anyone innocent person caught in the cross fire is ok, because the goal of horse welfare is so sacred. Instead, they MUST use all due diligence to NOT DQ a horse that they are not 110% convinced is a hyper sensitized horse.

I would love to hear from ANYONE who was involved with the current protocol as described on the FEI site. RAyers, maybe you can speak to some of these questions. Regarding the thermography piece, which supposedly identifies horses with abnormal heat in the skin: how were baselines established, if indeed they were? Did they use thermography on 100 horses whose legs were known to never have been touched by anything but a brush? Do what we call sensitive skinned horses have a higher reading? Is there a range of normal and who decides what that is? Did they then test 100 horses who HAD been sensitized to get those readings? Over how long a period of time? The actual reaction to the irritant, enough to make them respect the rails, really doesn’t last long, so how far out are these readings even applicable? Who is reading the test and making judgements?

In my opinion, if they get a “positive” reaction, the horse should then be jogged for soundness, allowed to compete so if there truly is no wrong-doing, a once in a lifetime opportunity to compete us not lost forever, and hair samples from they area in question should be taken for analysis. A skin scraping as well, if it can be gotten without further compromising the area. IF the hair tests for any irritant known to be used to “light them up,” then the rider is disciplined, any awards are returned and all ribbon winners move up a slot. This has worked in the case of doping, so it should be acceptable here.

[DMK]

Reed I agree in principle, and the rule absolutely got there for a good reason. But if the standard is “welfare of the horse” and a wee ding is an issue, it’s tough to stand by that logic and let a lot of eventers in the ring on Sunday.

And it appears like that is the stance of the FEI (hence your comments) rather than the bald truth which is more along the lines of “we can’t figure the difference between accidental and intentional hypersensitivity and we don’t even have a consistent, objective way to test for it so we are just going to screw over a lot of people who have not done anything wrong along the way, so just buck up little beavers and deal with it.”

But I doubt the current process would exist much longer if they “spun” it that way. In other words it’s less about eventing and more about poking holes in the FEI’s logic. But you knew that.

But I don’t think a ding is entirely out of the realm of possibility for a jumper especially over the course of many days and monster courses like this. I’ve seen many tiny scrape/ding/owie from a hard rail that would never give me second thought except “well maybe next time you will pick up your feet, fool” - as you know, unlike eventers, jumpers go out of their way to not protect the front of the legs for precisely this reason. Then there is the joys of tent stabling - not always the safest place to be (or the largest, although at this level I’m sure they all have double stalls). But mostly it’s horses. Where there’s a will, there is a way, isn’t there?

I do like the idea of more jogs though, although there must be some add’l opportunity since horses get held all the time after the initial jog, so it’s not like its a free for all after the first one. But a formal presentation and hands on inspection of the legs? Maybe there is some opportunity there?

[MHM]

[QUOTE=lauriep;6489276]

In my opinion, if they get a “positive” reaction, the horse should then be jogged for soundness, allowed to compete so if there truly is no wrong-doing, a once in a lifetime opportunity to compete us not lost forever, and hair samples from they area in question should be taken for analysis. A skin scraping as well, if it can be gotten without further compromising the area. IF the hair tests for any irritant known to be used to “light them up,” then the rider is disciplined, any awards are returned and all ribbon winners move up a slot. This has worked in the case of doping, so it should be acceptable here.[/QUOTE]

I agree.

If the FEI had used that approach at the World Cup two years ago, Sapphire might have won the whole thing. As it was, she was cleared after the fact when it was too late to do any good.

You can always remove the medals afterwards. You can’t award them the same way.

[RAyers]

I think there are some great ideas about the rule, but in the end it is the the lying bastards in the FEI and ALL of the national federations who sold out to the IOC to keep horses in the Olympics. The system has been established that allows non-horsemen to govern and dictate to horsemen allowable conduct all in the name of monetary return (e.g. the aforementioned EC response).

Eric Lamaze can do all he wants but in the end it will be moot because he has little to no pull with the FEI/IOC.

As for thermography, it can show soring of a horse given that is a skin tissue irritation. However, is it a test for a larger lameness? I refer to a paper by Weil M, Litzke LF, Fritsch R. in 1998, “Thermography can show and quantitatively prove very well changes in skin temperature in forelimb lameness. It must be emphasized that thermography in lameness diagnosis of horses is only useful in combination with a thorough clinical examination including additional examination procedures.” So, thermography is appropriate for detecting intentional soring using some form of skin irritant.

But, like lauriep states, a better way it to allow competition when there is a question while collection other evidence to be examined later.

[snoopy]

@RAyers;6489517

I think there are some great ideas about the rule, but in the end it is the the lying bastards in the FEI and ALL of the national federations who sold out to the IOC to keep horses in the Olympics. The system has been established that allows non-horsemen to govern and dictate to horsemen allowable conduct all in the name of monetary return (e.g. the aforementioned EC response).

Eric Lamaze can do all he wants but in the end it will be moot because he has little to no pull with the FEI/IOC.

Agree with both points.

[lauriep]

Eric alone, no. But he is a member of NARG, and that includes a LOT of North American riders. If they, and their sponsors, can band together, they will have some political power. And they need to address it now, while the issue is fresh. Enough wasn’t done after Sapphire’s elimination, so Denis Lynch, a French rider and now Tiffany have been caught by it. It cost Lynch his spot at the Olympics, and we know how it ended for Tiffany. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the FEI, RAyers. The riders have got to figure that ANY of them could be next.

[FalseImpression]

I do think Eric’s intent was first to put pressure on EC and it appears he was successful at that. Then, to hopefully work with EC and other riders/owners to approach the FEI to make changes to that rule. At least, Eric took the first step and I hope others will follow him now.

[FalseImpression]

http://www.barnmice.com/group/barnmicenews/forum/topics/statement-from-fei-secretary-general-on-disqualification-of-canad

and I guess, all’s well that ends well
http://sports.nationalpost.com/2012/08/08/eric-lamaze-equine-canada-clear-the-air-over-olympic-horse-testing-protocol/

[ESG]

@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.

I remember this, too. But what was done to the Canadian rider is unconscionable, and Eric is right to protest. Pure unmitigated bullspit.

[S_A_McKee]

[QUOTE=lauriep;6489849]
Eric alone, no. But he is a member of NARG, and that includes a LOT of North American riders. If they, and their sponsors, can band together, they will have some political power. And they need to address it now, while the issue is fresh. Enough wasn’t done after Sapphire’s elimination, so Denis Lynch, a French rider and now Tiffany have been caught by it. It cost Lynch his spot at the Olympics, and we know how it ended for Tiffany. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with your assessment of the FEI, RAyers. The riders have got to figure that ANY of them could be next.[/QUOTE]

I think you are giving NARG a lot more importance than they actually have.
It is not an inclusive group. While important to a small group of GP show jumpers it has little relevance to the vast majority of those who show in NA and little impact on USEF’s positions .

[SwampYankee]

[QUOTE=Secret Dove;6485001]
For those who haven’t read the statement from Equine Canada here it is:

“We fully support the FEI in its hypersensitivity testing protocol. This is an important testing procedure for the fairness of our sport and for the welfare of the horse which must always be paramount. Victor, our team horse, did have a small but sensitive area on the coronary band as a result of a minor lesion. This resulted in the disqualification of the horse in accordance with the FEI’s hypersensitivity protocol. The Canadian Team is disappointed with the outcome, and the impact both on our team and the Olympic dreams of our athlete Tiffany Foster,” states Mr. Gallagher.

“Equine Canada appreciates that the FEI has shared with us the findings of the veterinary examinations. We also thank the FEI and its president, HRH Princess Haya Al Hussein, for making it clear that the disqualification in no way implies any wrong doing on the part of the Canadian Team, nor athlete Tiffany Foster.”

Eric Lamaze released a statement following Equine Canadas statement:

“Canadian rider and 2008 Olympic Gold Medalist Eric Lamaze has just informed the Canadian Federation that he will not ride on any Canadian Team, including Spruce Meadows and in Spain until Equine Canada releases a new statement in support of their rider”

I give Eric a lot of credit for standing up for Tiffany. I wonder how this is going to play out.[/QUOTE]

Coming to this late, but what is “hypersensitivity protocol?” Are they looking for something like “soring?”

[lauriep]

[QUOTE=S A McKee;6492380]
I think you are giving NARG a lot more importance than they actually have.
It is not an inclusive group. While important to a small group of GP show jumpers it has little relevance to the vast majority of those who show in NA and little impact on USEF’s positions .[/QUOTE]

It is the only organized body of riders there is. They work with USEF and can certainly pool their voices with those of their sponsirs to develop a cohesive plan to present to the FEI. It would behoove riders in other countrues to get onboard as well.

[Pippigirl]

[QUOTE=SwampYankee;6492438]
Coming to this late, but what is “hypersensitivity protocol?” Are they looking for something like “soring?”[/QUOTE]

I think that’s the angle they’re aiming for. I think there’s bigger fish to fry (did you see the photos and video of the dressage warm up area?? All the privacy curtains…). I think Tiffany was an easier target…

[Foxtrot_s]

I’ll standbehind Eric’s comments, if for no reason than it shows he has a backbone and moral courage. He’s come through a lot his whole life long, he has taken his lumps and bumps and I, for one, Glimmerglass, believe in redemption. For years after his ban the CBC reporters never let him come on tv without bringing up the old garbage - I finally wrote a couple of letters, one to the BBC and one to a prominent horse magazine. I go so much positive feedback from people after that and the CBC has refrained from bringing up these past issues again and again. I don’t believe it was my input for one moment, actually, but a Gold medal in Hong Kong didn’t hurt either. Eric has never shied away from the truth, he’s been humble, well spoken and honest, but has moved on regarding his sport.

Not riding on the team may bot hurt him - he has owners and horses who would probably gain more by Eric riding as an individual financially without risking the horse as a Team member. Remember Milton? the Bradley’s would not send him to the Games in case he got hurt on the long route to Seoul. At the time the Brits were outraged as they had taken Milton firmly in as their own horse!

[cyberbay]

If thread is still alive…

To me, I don’t think it’s a bad thing that the FEI had to “sell out” to the IOC in order to keep equestrian in the Olympic Games. If that is what it took, it is OK by me. Because that is the state of things right now, and horses remaining in the Olympics is essential to the future of the sport. It was the pragmatic choice.

Is it ethical that it had to happen this way? No. Appropriate? No. Do the best horses and riders get selected and then compete at the Games? Yes. Is the sport of high quality? Yes.

Because the competition pits the best against the best, I don’t see too much fallout from ‘selling out.’ (And so the FEI vents its anger from the mistreatment from the IOC on the North Americans when it can. :lol:)

I am not agreeing with it, and we should continue to do what we can to right this ship. But, no free lunch.

And although Eric Lamaze may not make THE change occur, bit by incremental bit, change will be made. That’s how it gets done. Slavery wasn’t ended in 5 years. Voiced discomfort over it went on for decades prior to the Civil War. But, that era did get ended.