Now that Paget’s has been cleared by the FEI of wrongdoing, I wonder if there will be any retractions of statements by those that were quick to throw him under the bus when the news first came out…
[QUOTE=Sticky Situation;7702098]
Now that Paget’s has been cleared by the FEI of wrongdoing, I wonder if there will be any retractions of statements by those that were quick to throw him under the bus when the news first came out…[/QUOTE]
This is wonderful news for JP and KM, and I’m glad they’ve been vindicated re: the reserpine, but I want to know in general (not specific to Jock and Kevin) is why it is now considered standard practice and acceptable for eventers to give their horses calming supplements with the intent to make them calmer in the dressage. How is that not cheating even if none of the ingredients are techinically banned substances? The FEI does comment on that a little bit but wondering what people think in general?
I’m glad to see them cleared, but I hope people will really give second and third and fourth thoughts on using these “calming supplements.” I doubt they do much of anything in their intended formulation, and it just seems like a foolish risk, along with the whole ‘against the spirit of the rules’ thing.
[QUOTE=NCRider;7702115]
This is wonderful news for JP and KM, and I’m glad they’ve been vindicated re: the reserpine, but I want to know in general (not specific to Jock and Kevin) is why it is now considered standard practice and acceptable for eventers to give their horses calming supplements with the intent to make them calmer in the dressage. How is that not cheating even if none of the ingredients are techinically banned substances? The FEI does comment on that a little bit but wondering what people think in general?[/QUOTE]
If it is not banned, then it is legal and I have no problem with that (with obvious exceptions such as a supplement that can harm the horse). Calming supplements that are legal are typically very mild. Heck, I use ulcergard as a calming supplement and I would be pretty disgusted if it were frowned upon.
[QUOTE=poltroon;7702286]
I’m glad to see them cleared, but I hope people will really give second and third and fourth thoughts on using these “calming supplements.” I doubt they do much of anything in their intended formulation, and it just seems like a foolish risk, along with the whole ‘against the spirit of the rules’ thing.[/QUOTE]
One could argue that any supplement could be risky, as the companies who formulate them can’t always guarantee that the ingredients haven’t been exposed to illegal substances by the suppliers, as occurred in this case. I feel that the type of supplement in this instance is not correlated with the fact that it was contaminated.
To go with that point, what about grain formulations? What if someone maliciously dropped Reserpine in a batch of oats, which went to Cavalor to be formulated into grain for competition horses?
I personally feel that in this instance, the debate over whether one should feed so-called ‘calming’ supplements has nothing to do with whether said supplement is made with contaminated ingredients.
Short of cultivating wheat fields ourselves and feeding our horses only things that have been in our hands from seed to plant, there’s really no way to guarantee that supplements and feeds don’t get contaminated, despite best efforts, earlier up in the supply chain. And short of testing each bag of bucket prior to feeding, no way for us as riders to know for sure nothing is contaminated.
From page 11 of this thread:
UL is mine. This poster finally called USEF about Perfect Prep, which apparently is so ubiquitous in hunterland even judges are recommending it. This is the answer she got.
[QUOTE=Halt Near X;7648621]
Ok, I just got off the phone Diana Tartal at USEF. I want to make a few things VERY clear:
-
By the time I called her, the conversation WAS NOT about Robert Gage or Perfect Prep in particular.
-
She was immensely professional and helpful all morning and is very happy to answer peoples’ questions. She says the encourage anyone with questions/concerns to contact them and they are always happy to help–which is exactly my experience. We went through several emails before the phone call, and she was professional, helpful, and made sure all of my concerns were addressed.
-
It was a phone call, so I don’t have a screen shot. You don’t have to believe me; as I said, call USEF yourself. I believe I have captured all of this accurately, but if something is misrepresented here, it would be my fault, not Diana’s/USEF’s.
That said, what I got from the phone call was:
The “spirit and intent” portion of the rule is to help people understand what they should do/should not do. However, if a substance does not contain a forbidden ingredient, there is no violation of the letter of the rule.
So, while people should not be giving their horses calming supplements and violating the spirit and the intent of the rules, as long as the supplements do not contain forbidden ingredients, they fall within the letter of the rule and can be given.
I have always thought people could be set down for violating the spirit and intent of the rule, even if the ingredients were not forbidden, but she said no. When it comes to violations, the letter of the rule (e.g. if an ingredient is permitted or forbidden) is all that matters.
So, there you go. It is definitely not the answer I was expecting, based on how I have previously read the rules.[/QUOTE]
I realize this was from USEF and not FEI, but I believe it’s relevant to this discussion. It seems as though at least some governing bodies are adopting a stance that if something isn’t expressly banned, it’s legal. Even if it violates the spirit of the rule, it doesn’t violate the letter and so is okay.
[QUOTE=Kadenz;7702561]
From page 11 of this thread:
UL is mine. This poster finally called USEF about Perfect Prep, which apparently is so ubiquitous in hunterland even judges are recommending it. This is the answer she got.
I realize this was from USEF and not FEI, but I believe it’s relevant to this discussion. It seems as though at least some governing bodies are adopting a stance that if something isn’t expressly banned, it’s legal. Even if it violates the spirit of the rule, it doesn’t violate the letter and so is okay.[/QUOTE]
I feel like people, including the USEF, are confusing the distinction between spirit and letter of the law and enforceability. Giving your horse a substance like Perfect Prep, intending to calm it for performance appears to violate the letter of the law per the text of the rules, but if that substance is not on the specific banned substance list yet, and they can’t test for it, there’s no way it can be enforced. But that doesn’t mean that it’s only a violation of the spirit of the law.
The logical extension of their interpretation is it’s only cheating if you get caught.
[QUOTE=Divine Comedy;7702476]
One could argue that any supplement could be risky, as the companies who formulate them can’t always guarantee that the ingredients haven’t been exposed to illegal substances by the suppliers, as occurred in this case. I feel that the type of supplement in this instance is not correlated with the fact that it was contaminated.
To go with that point, what about grain formulations? What if someone maliciously dropped Reserpine in a batch of oats, which went to Cavalor to be formulated into grain for competition horses?
I personally feel that in this instance, the debate over whether one should feed so-called ‘calming’ supplements has nothing to do with whether said supplement is made with contaminated ingredients.
Short of cultivating wheat fields ourselves and feeding our horses only things that have been in our hands from seed to plant, there’s really no way to guarantee that supplements and feeds don’t get contaminated, despite best efforts, earlier up in the supply chain. And short of testing each bag of bucket prior to feeding, no way for us as riders to know for sure nothing is contaminated.[/QUOTE]
I think herbs are especially likely to be problematic because what they pick up in a field chemically is not guaranteed. If the company is making the supplement by saying, “We put rosemary in this” that’s a different thing than saying, “this supplement contains X vitamin A Y Magnesium Z methionine” etc.
Of course contamination is still possible, and hays would have potentially similar issues, since whole plants are harvested and fed without individual plants being scrutinized or analyzed.
