[QUOTE=vineyridge;7224401]
This is interesting, given that in the 1975 study equibrit posted, this chemical cross reacts with the reserpine test.
http://rawmusclegain.com/rauwolfia-canescens-rauwolscine/
It’s not on the banned substances list per se.[/QUOTE]
Equibrit’s study is ancient history - RIA is not the current test method, read the link I posted above: it’s current tech (as is the summary that JER linked).
I didn’t post it to demonstrate method, but in reply to Viney’s post #216.
Is it really that easy for a horse to inadvertently ingest reserpine?
In 2012, the FEI performed 3877 drug tests. There were 0 reserpine positives.
In 2011, out of 3767 total tests, 1 of these was positive for reserpine. The PR, a driver, had a BS story about oleander but his horse was also positive for dormosedan and ace, and he didn’t even try to explain away the ace.
In 2010, there were 3540 tests with 1 reserpine positive (actually in 2009). This was the showjumper who claimed a disgruntled WS injected the horse.
In 2013, at Burghley, there were 2 reserpine positives among the 6 horses tested.
Assuming those numbers are accurate, that is very strange.
http://www.hbpa.org/HorsemensJournalDisplay.asp?section=3&key1=13749
<<
Baker also points to a study conducted and reported by Dr. Marie-Agnes Popot, PharmD, Ph.D, head of research at the Laboratoire des Courses Hippiques south of Paris presented on February 28, 2008 at the 34th Annual Equine Research Day.
“Popot has not done anything recently, but her work establishes the fact environmental contamination from the deposition of drugs from horses that are administered them can extend withdrawal times and cause contamination of other horses that create positives or the drug stays at a detectable level for a longer period of time,” Barker said. “Her study shows the real hazard of administering drugs to horses in the same environment where they live. Horses that were never given the drug or horses withdrawn from a drug can come up positive because there are residues of the drug in their stalls, and those two things should be of great concern to horsemen. This is a proven fact.” >>
[QUOTE=JER;7224888]
Is it really that easy for a horse to inadvertently ingest reserpine?
In 2012, the FEI performed 3877 drug tests. There were 0 reserpine positives.
In 2011, out of 3767 total tests, 1 of these was positive for reserpine. The PR, a driver, had a BS story about oleander but his horse was also positive for dormosedan and ace, and he didn’t even try to explain away the ace.
In 2010, there were 3540 tests with 1 reserpine positive (actually in 2009). This was the showjumper who claimed a disgruntled WS injected the horse.
In 2013, at Burghley, there were 2 reserpine positives among the 6 horses tested.[/QUOTE]
I agree completely. I don’t think Reserpine is even in the top 5 most commonly tested positive results. I’m sure an explanation of this will come out eventually but I really don’t think it will be as simple as the horse eating a plant.
[QUOTE=JER;7224888]
In 2011, out of 3767 total tests, 1 of these was positive for reserpine. The PR, a driver, had a BS story about oleander but his horse was also positive for dormosedan and ace, and he didn’t even try to explain away the ace.[/QUOTE]
Sorry guys, I got it wrong here.
In 2011, out of 3767 total tests, 2 were positive for reserpine.
The other positive was a UAE showjumper who said he’d had trouble loading his horse en route to the competition and, on his vet’s advice, injected Rakelin without knowing what was in it. He said. He also said he didn’t use to enhance his horse’s performance.
To sum up, for the years 2010, 2011, and 2012, there were 3 positive tests for reserpine from 7307 total tests. Two PRs identified that their horses were injected with reserpine (by non-vets). One PR said his horse – who also tested positive for dormosedan and ace – ate oleander but provided no evidence.
No one tried to argue cross-contamination, and the gentleman who made some noise about oleander offered a less-than-half-assed explanation of why his horse was found with ace, demotidine and reserpine in its system.
Those statistics sound compelling. It sounds as if reserpine just isn’t in use and cross-contamination is so scarce it’s practically non-existent.
But statistics can be misleading. To understand better what those numbers are telling us, we have to know more … especially, what percentage of horses competing were tested? At each competition … and in the entire population of horses competing at competitions where there was testing? How many total horses were in the population? Etc.
As an example, if in a group of 1,000 horses, 10 are tested for substances and all come up clean … does that mean that those substances are not in use among the 1,000? Hardly. It wasn’t a big enough sample to be a strong indicator.
If the population is only 100 horses and 10 are tested and are clean, that’s a stronger indication … but with only 10% tested it can still miss a some amount of substance use in the population. Still not a strong predictor.
There is also a lot of stuff about sub-groups with certain characteristics that are more likely or less likely to be trying to get away with substances than others and were they sampled, etc. & so on. It’s frankly a bias that the top placings are targeted, because those competitors largely do anticipate finishing high in the rankings and must assume they will be tested. Middle/lower rank ambitions know they have a very small chance of being tested.
So … for the Clifton horses, only 6 tests out of 65-85 horses that were on the grounds in FEI stabling during the entire competition? I am afraid that doesn’t tell me much, personally, about how many horses that weren’t sampled might have tested positive as well. If we say hypothetically that the Clifton horses picked it up innocently, several more horses that weren’t tested could easily have had the same exposure. As others have posted earlier, testing all the horses stabled in the same area would be interesting.
It doesn’t seem to me that the testing is being done in a way to create good statistics. It’s just to scare the competitors into staying clean - or appearing to - in case they are tested, especially if they anticipate they will finish with a high placing.
Back in the day, one of my graduate statistics professors liked to point out that most of the statistics published in the media don’t really show what they seem to show. Often what they show, mathematically, is not much of anything. 
The US ranks 24th or 49th or something in math :lol:
Does every blood test examine for the same substances? In other words, do they screen for all of the banned and controlled substances? Or do they select a few to test for, which can be different for each group of tests?
So were 7307 blood samples tested for resperpine (and all other banned/controlled substances), or were a fraction of those tested for reserpine?
[QUOTE=Blugal;7225505]
Does every blood test examine for the same substances? In other words, do they screen for all of the banned and controlled substances? Or do they select a few to test for, which can be different for each group of tests?
So were 7307 blood samples tested for resperpine (and all other banned/controlled substances), or were a fraction of those tested for reserpine?[/QUOTE]
What I would rather know is how many horses were in the entire population of the group being sampled. That is, 7,307 competitors were tested out of how many total competitors?
Keeping in mind that the same horses go to multiple competitions, so that isn’t really the number of individuals, just the number of entries. That’s another big factor in what the stats could say.
And even those numbers, if we had them, are not enough information to really understand what goes on with reserpine. I personally don’t think the statistics on all the tests say very much at all about the Burghley samples, because of the way the samples are being done - just imo.
Did we ever hear what the levels were? I think if they are high, you’re much more likely to have a good novel to write 
I’ve seen a R horse coming back from rehab & the prolonged drug exposure made the horse mentally off. I wouldn’t want to ride it. Reared & flipped at least twice, out of the blue…It’s hard to dose properly, and the suicide warnings + random rearing from a calm/un-antagonized horse that was never a rearer, make you wonder…
the whole thing is really just a shame if he is innocent or not because either way, isn’t his career and ability to compete going to be effected?
In case anyone is actually interested in the statistics and reports available from the FEI, here are some places to start:
annual reports for medication controls
annual recording of negative medication controls
[QUOTE=CrowneDragon;7223769]
Why don’t they run the B sample immediately after the A sample, if there is a positive? Why let all of this hoopla start, when they aren’t completely sure. Even if the B sample is clean, a lot of people will mis-remember this down the road. It’s like calling the guy a murderer, and all of his friends and family shunning him, and then a month later “Oh j/k! Wrong guy!” A lot of folks will still hold doubt.
Yes, the horse could compete again in the mean time if their turnaround is slow, but it seems like a B test for a positive horse should get priority treatment. In a dedicated MS lab this shouldn’t be taking weeks and weeks.[/QUOTE]
I am unable to recall a case where the B sample came back negative; how often has that happened?
[QUOTE=JER;7223009]
The FEI records negative test results here.
The four other horses tested at Burghley were:
The Lion, Matthew Heath, 39th
Piano Star, Benjamin Massie, E on XC
King Bob, Ludvig Svennerstal, 9th
Newmarket Vasco One, Chloe Newton, 51st after dressage but W before XC[/QUOTE]
I am surprised we test so few horses at a signature event.
I would think you’d want to test several of the top placers at least. If the first place horse is automatically tested and is positive, there’s no way to know if your new first place is clean.
[QUOTE=canyonoak;7224962]
http://www.hbpa.org/HorsemensJournalDisplay.asp?section=3&key1=13749
<<
Baker also points to a study conducted and reported by Dr. Marie-Agnes Popot, PharmD, Ph.D, head of research at the Laboratoire des Courses Hippiques south of Paris presented on February 28, 2008 at the 34th Annual Equine Research Day.
“Popot has not done anything recently, but her work establishes the fact environmental contamination from the deposition of drugs from horses that are administered them can extend withdrawal times and cause contamination of other horses that create positives or the drug stays at a detectable level for a longer period of time,” Barker said. “Her study shows the real hazard of administering drugs to horses in the same environment where they live. Horses that were never given the drug or horses withdrawn from a drug can come up positive because there are residues of the drug in their stalls, and those two things should be of great concern to horsemen. This is a proven fact.” >>[/QUOTE]
That’s a really interesting article, and thinking back to the Mythilus case, you can wonder if simply being present in a veterinary hospital could produce a positive.
I think doing some threshold work is probably in order in the long term. There are some drugs where the value is in the withdrawal, and perhaps those have no threshold. But something like caffeine in a racehorse would only be valuable (one assumes) if it was present in sufficient quantity in the blood during the race. There’s no unfair advantage to a trace amount.
An option for cases where trace amounts are found but not prosecuted would be to subject that person to out-of-competition spot testing. So for the example of the caffeinated race horse, maybe that draws you weekly spot checks to see if you’re inexplicably using the drug to train or in some other way.
But they leave the Vet Hospital and go home to an environment (supposedly) that is drug-free. Except for the landscape plants.
[QUOTE=BaroquePony;7225681]
But they leave the Vet Hospital and go home to an environment (supposedly) that is drug-free. Except for the landscape plants.[/QUOTE]
In the Mythilus case, he was in the vet hospital - which was colocated with the Olympic equestrian venue - only a short time before the actual competition, to treat him for travel stress. Probably had he had those symptoms shipping into a more normal venue, he wouldn’t have been treated at a veterinary hospital.
[QUOTE=poltroon;7225642]
I think doing some threshold work is probably in order in the long term. There are some drugs where the value is in the withdrawal, and perhaps those have no threshold. [/QUOTE]
The current FEI threshold list: 2013 Threshold Substances
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
