Jock Paget's Clifton Promise has tested positive to Reserpine

[meupatdoes]

I am against doping horses as much as the next person but honestly I think this zero tolerance policy where infinitesimal, completely non-therapeutic amounts are ruining people’s careers is just nonsense.

ie Courtney King-Dye whose whole Olympics was ruined because of something in the gel on the EKG leads or whatever it was. Even when it is obvious there was no intent whatsoever and the amount makes not a whit of difference anyway.

People don’t want to take the time to draft regulations with an intent based culpability, or GASP have to interpret the facts using something known as “their judgment.” I mean, that would involve developing a reputation for good judgment and fair treatment in the face of wise and impartial factual determination. Instead there is this lazy beaurocrat’s regulation.

At the very least I don’t understand why they can’t pick a level which is deemed to be therapeutic, divide it by two or even three, and then make that the limit, as opposed to this “zero tolerance, your horse must have licked a feed bucket last Wednesday” nonsense. Then everyone can be lazy beaurocrats but it will at least make an iota of sense.

Why on earth spend the money and effort to ride on the circuit if this sort of thing can come out of nowhere and take you out.

[NCRider]

Has anyone in from the New Zealand delegation been particularly vocal in opposition to HRH Haya’s efforts as head of the FEI or her attempts for a third term or outspoken against the rampant cheating by her husband etc. in the endurance and racing world?

[Blugal]

[QUOTE=NCRider;7215433]
Has anyone in from the New Zealand delegation been particularly vocal in opposition to HRH Haya’s efforts as head of the FEI or her attempts for a third term or outspoken against the rampant cheating by her husband etc. in the endurance and racing world?[/QUOTE]

And the plot thickens… seriously, someone write this book!

[SlamDunk]

[QUOTE=Blugal;7215443]
And the plot thickens… seriously, someone write this book![/QUOTE]

Well that sure would make a good book, I’m sure the truth will be much more mundane.

And while in this case, I do truly think I believe Jock’s innocence, I know far too much about what goes on behind the scenes at top levels of the sport to be naive. And honestly the fact that two horses with a connection tested positive with the same drug makes me more suspicious not less.

[goodmorning]

Or, just an easy target, vs say a WFP or Andrew N, to disgrace the eventing sport as a whole? Or, distract from HRHs corrupt husband? Any major FEI vs Eventing debates as of late or upcoming?

[subk]

Both horse have the same primary owner, Frances Stead. One report said that the winner was tested then 5 other horses selected at random. What do you suppose the random chances are of two horses with the same owner both being 2 of 6 drug tests at the same event that runs 70-80 horses?

[bornfreenowexpensive]

[QUOTE=subk;7215569]
Both horse have the same primary owner, Frances Stead. One report said that the winner was tested then 5 other horses selected at random. What do you suppose the random chances are of two horses with the same owner both being 2 of 6 drug tests at the same event that runs 70-80 horses?[/QUOTE]

About the same as mine…been tested twice in two events this year (out of 4 that I’ve done). All on the same horse and just one horse.

[Highflyer]

Really the odds are 1 in 15-16 that any given horse will be tested. And 1 in 75-80 that any given horse will win (and thus be tested.) So not really THAT unlikely a coincidence-- unless they did not decide to test the winner until after JP moved into first or something.

[JER]

It’s not really about ‘guilt’ or ‘innocence’. There’s a prohibited substance found in the A sample.

Now the B sample will be tested at a different lab. If no reserpine, then no problem. If the B sample also tests positive, then it’s a matter of how the substance got in those particular two horses. I would think that the horse’s connections and riders would very much want to know the answer to this, if they don’t already.

On the Burghley testing results as a whole, 2 of 6 horses tested positive for reserpine. That’s 1/3 or 33%.

[JER]

[QUOTE=subk;7215569]
One report said that the winner was tested then 5 other horses selected at random. What do you suppose the random chances are of two horses with the same owner both being 2 of 6 drug tests at the same event that runs 70-80 horses?[/QUOTE]

It’s out of a total of 42 horses, because 42 horses completed Burghley and testing was done after SJ. Actually, 41 are tested ‘randomly’ and the winner is also tested. Each non-winning horse would then have an approximately 12.5% chance of being tested.

Also, in looking back at the Burghley results, I noticed that Paget’s other ride, Clifton Lush had withdrawn before SJ and did not show for the final inspection. I’d forgotten about this. According to various reports, Lush had bumped his leg and was sore. Whatever the case, this is why Clifton Lush wasn’t in the ‘random’ hopper for drug testing (or as the potential winner, as he was in 2nd place).

[Ghazzu]

[QUOTE=subk;7215569]
Both horse have the same primary owner, Frances Stead. One report said that the winner was tested then 5 other horses selected at random. What do you suppose the random chances are of two horses with the same owner both being 2 of 6 drug tests at the same event that runs 70-80 horses?[/QUOTE]

Not all that remote.

I judged a series of 3 ECTRA rides one season in which I tested the same horse 3X. (40-50 horses in each competition; selection of horses was done by drawing numbers out of a hat. One horse tested for every 10 entries, IIRC.)

The owner joked that:
a) if she was even considering using prohibited substances, she’d definitely gotten the message
and
b) if her horse came up anemic, she was sending me a bill for a gallon of Equitinic.

[WW_Queen]

[QUOTE=EWim15;7214834]
Maybe it got flown in on Sheikh Mohammed’s jet. Totally just joking![/QUOTE]

I absolutely LOL’d.

(That list of substances was insane!!)

Truthfully I would assume that any horse at that level in eventing was not given a drug like reserpine for a competitive edge considering the nature of the drug and the requirements for eventing. (If recently administered, would a horse even so slightly tranq’d successfully get around a track like Burghley?)

Doesn’t it make more sense that after a major competition or hard workout, something like heat in the tendon/joint/etc. came up… to prevent any further damage, the horse was kept on stall rest for a week or two for monitoring and prevent damage during handwalking/turnout/etc. considering it is a valuable show horse? Maybe the Ace didn’t cut it and the horse needed something stronger or simply the horse does better on Reserpine?

Obviously the vet/owner/rider is at fault for not adhering to withdrawl times to adhere to FEI rules and should be penalized accordingly… however I don’t think there is any secret plot against Clifton eventers, JP & KM or even the use of drugs for a competitive edge. I think someone probably screwed up somewhere along the lines.

[WinsomeTK]

Maybe there’s a shared barn employee that likes to share his relaxing tea with the horses. Who knows? Unless you’re there when it happens or doesn’t happen, you can’t really know… Definitely a major bummer if it’s a cross contamination.

[kenyarider]

As a trial lawyer, I love that most on this list are willing to give Jock the benefit of the presumption of innocence. I just wish juries were willing to do that instead of things like "an innocent person would . . . . " hahaha.

[OverandOnward]

[QUOTE=kenyarider;7216267]
As a trial lawyer, I love that most on this list are willing to give Jock the benefit of the presumption of innocence. I just wish juries were willing to do that instead of things like "an innocent person would . . . . " hahaha.[/QUOTE]

Well, in all honesty, I think it’s more that "even a guilty person would not … "

Beyond ethics, he had won Badminton, so of course was launching a run for the Grand Slam. Giving the horse anything that could test was pretty much throwing all the possibilities away. If the horse didn’t do well without it, no worse off.

That’s a different train of logic from just being pro-Jock, if that makes sense. I know very little about him other than his 4* record. But jeopardizing his record in any way doesn’t make sense to me, either.

[Rats]

…

[QUOTE=JenEM;7214931]
As Equibrit posted above, the plant that reserpine comes from is Rauwolfia serpentina. It’s categorized as a tropical or subtropical plant, though, so I have trouble believing it’s growing wild in a pasture in Surrey (Florida or something, sure, plausible). It does look like it’s an ingredient in a lot of herbal “blood pressure supplements” for humans readily available online, though…

It’s in Vinca Major, a very common uk hedgerow and garden plant. I have it in my garden, and in the hedgerows and woodland about, SE England.
http://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/museum-and-garden/garden/world-medicine-beds/vinca-major

[riderboy]

[QUOTE=meupatdoes;7215380]
I am against doping horses as much as the next person but honestly I think this zero tolerance policy where infinitesimal, completely non-therapeutic amounts are ruining people’s careers is just nonsense.

ie Courtney King-Dye whose whole Olympics was ruined because of something in the gel on the EKG leads or whatever it was. Even when it is obvious there was no intent whatsoever and the amount makes not a whit of difference anyway.

People don’t want to take the time to draft regulations with an intent based culpability, or GASP have to interpret the facts using something known as “their judgment.” I mean, that would involve developing a reputation for good judgment and fair treatment in the face of wise and impartial factual determination. Instead there is this lazy beaurocrat’s regulation.

At the very least I don’t understand why they can’t pick a level which is deemed to be therapeutic, divide it by two or even three, and then make that the limit, as opposed to this “zero tolerance, your horse must have licked a feed bucket last Wednesday” nonsense. Then everyone can be lazy beaurocrats but it will at least make an iota of sense.

Why on earth spend the money and effort to ride on the circuit if this sort of thing can come out of nowhere and take you out.[/QUOTE]

I agree completely with this. Zero tolerance policies generally translate into zero thinking policies. We may never know how or why these horses were doped, but if the blood levels were minute enough to give no competitive advantage what does it matter?

[pcwertb]

I agree with as well! No one has to think when the tolerance is zero.

[yourcolorfuladdictio]

[QUOTE=riderboy;7216489]
I agree completely with this. Zero tolerance policies generally translate into zero thinking policies. We may never know how or why these horses were doped, but if the blood levels were minute enough to give no competitive advantage what does it matter?[/QUOTE]

Just imagine the benefit someone could gain from the “minute” doses of multiple different banned substances. Mix them all together and suddenly you may have an effective combination that passes the “not enough to matter” rules.

[JER]

[QUOTE=riderboy;7216489]
We may never know how or why these horses were doped, but if the blood levels were minute enough to give no competitive advantage what does it matter?[/QUOTE]

1. Because it’s supposed to be about horse welfare. The presence of a prohibited substance is still the presence of a prohibited substance. Maybe it was given for a legitimate reason didn’t clear in time, maybe no one knows how it got there, maybe it’s part of a more widespread doping program.

Also, horses aren’t tested every time out. A ‘minute’ level this week might have been a higher level two or three weeks ago.

2. Lance Armstrong and his doping gang were very practiced in the art of microdosing. This is because there were allowable levels and thresholds for various substances.