FORBIDDEN SUBSTANCES (examples) is the heading the USEF uses for it rather lengthly list of banned substances. “Examples” parenthetically is the apparent loop hole as it clearly leaves room for the additions.
Historically someone tips off the FEI/USEF regarding the use of a new substance, they develop a test for it, and voila a number of folks take a vacation. Or forfeit an Olympic medal. No it doesn’t seem fair but it’s not new.
Interestingly, the then AHSA got a head start over FEI in the drug testing department. I remember there was a considerble lag between the onset of testing by AHSA and testing by FEI.
Every team travels with vets, therapists, team managers and others. I don’t understand why each and every item that touches a horse, including obscure items like saddle pad detergent, are not individually checked, double checked and approved before use ,by one of these professionals. To me that is part of the team management.
CBoylen, do you mean that the FEI does not specifically list capsaicin by name as a prohibited substance
If they do I can’t find it in their rules. I’d be thrilled if someone could find it for me.
I can’t vouch for every single one, but nearly ALL of the substances listed in the article above fall under the section heading “Prohibited Substances (DOPING)”…there is no distinction between the two. Anti-epileptic drugs, narcotics, steroids, tranquilizers, they’re all on there.
As far as I can tell the substances tested for in the voluntary testing don’t fall under doping. To be doping the tranquilizers have to be non-equine, for example. I’m not familiar with some of the medications tested for in the voluntary testing list, but as far as I can tell they all fall under the “medication” heading of the prohibited substances list, as it says they do in the explanation of the voluntary testing. They are horse medications. Notice how reserpine and fluphenazine, two of the biggest doping agents, aren’t on the list for voluntary testing.
Right, but what I am saying is the USEF’s list of prohibited substances is not necessarily (and in fact is not) the same as the FEI’s. Just because it is banned by USEF does not mean is banned under FEI Rules, and vice versa. It might be educational to look at lists from various governing bodies, but the only one relevant (here, anyway) is the FEI list. And if the FEI list does not explicitly list a substance as banned, when that substance is used for both benign and allegedly nefarious purposes (e.g., liniment vs. chemical rapping), I have a real problem with the organization declaring that use of the previously-unnamed substance is violative of the rules, for the simple reason that it has not given anything resembling adequate notice that that product is banned. Coupled with the fact it appears that the FEI did its best to trap competitors with its testing protocol (as described in the article above), their regulations have provided zero guidance for well-intentioned competitors and no deterrence for ones arguably less well-intentioned. Does anyone have any idea how many commonly used products might arguably be used for “chemical rapping”? I bet if I clipped my horse and left Redken shampoo on a close-clipped leg it would be irritating.
And what REALLY makes me mad is that apparently somehow the FEI thought it preferable to lure competitors into a false sense of complacency through their voluntary testing protocol so that maybe – hopefully – someone would cheat and burn their horse’s legs in competition? Why would the FEI not want to do everything it could to prevent any and all instances of mistreatment of the animals. Of course, if it were really interested in protecting the horses and regulating true instances of chemical rapping, it could have actually used the thermography technology that was available to it.
[QUOTE=tartanfarm;3472387]
Every team travels with vets, therapists, team managers and others. I don’t understand why each and every item that touches a horse, including obscure items like saddle pad detergent, are not individually checked, double checked and approved before use ,by one of these professionals. To me that is part of the team management.[/QUOTE]
I have no problem with the idea of everything being checked and approved in advance; to do so would be prudent. But it appears that would not have prevented the use of Equi-block in this case, and in addition, absent a list from the FEI that explicitly bans certain products (as opposed to broad and vague types and categories of products), there is not sufficient guidance available for people to say, with a level of certainty that should be expected, whether a product is permissible or not.
I have an absolutely absurd question that I am almost afraid to ask. Lynch has admitted to using Equi-Blok all year and has won a lot throughout the year. Is he in danger of having those previous placings taken away from him and any monies won returned?
[QUOTE=bluemoonfarms;3472793]
I have an absolutely absurd question that I am almost afraid to ask. Lynch has admitted to using Equi-Blok all year and has won a lot throughout the year. Is he in danger of having those previous placings taken away from him and any monies won returned?[/QUOTE]
I don’t think that is an absurd question at all. If there ultimately is an FEI ruling that the use of Equi-block is a violation of the regulations (we only have test results and an admission right now; the hearing process still has to run its course) then I would think his previous placements might be in jeopardy. But if the rules are as poorly drafted as it appears they may have been (i.e., explicitly prohibiting “hypersensitizing” agents but not defining this term or listing capsaicin), I think notwithstanding his admission he may have some pretty good arguments available to him. Given that the rules impose a type of strict liability and do not take into account any kind of intent, it is especially important that they give adequate notice of what products constitute prohibited ones. I had never heard of capsaicin being used as a chemical rapping agent until this incident at the Olympics; I did know some people use it to enhance coats, and that the USEF prohibits its use (which I thought was due to its supposed pain-relieving properties). But if I were looking at a rule that said “no hypersensitization agents,” capsaicin would not have entered my mind as a possibility (the issue of the labeling on the Equi-block is separate – that would have raised a red flag to me, but we do not yet know if all 4 competitors were using that or a similarly-labeled product).
YankeeLawyer, I think you and I are in complete agreement, except I’d be surprised to hear that there is a substance banned by USEF rules that is okey-dokey with the FEI.
I am confused as to how you can use capsaicin to sensitize a jumper’s legs in a way that would not be detected during the boot/leg check, where they can evaluate the horse’s reaction to being touched. That seems to me to be more definitive than a blood scan for the effect we’re discussing.
I am incredibly disheartened by FEI nearly all of the time, this current situation being an excellent example of WHY and HOW I get disheartened.
You offer a pre-event test…and it turns out the test is to lull the riders into believeing their horse management is fine, but AHA! the real idea is to then do further drug tests for completely other substances…thus making the original drug test a total sham.
You announce that there WILL be thermography used to catch those who try to hypersensitize or in any other way monkey with their horses’ legs…a fine tool which has a highly legitimate purpose…but then, if the above posts are correct–you do NOT use the tool.
In fact, you do not use the best tool to evaluate who has and who has not tried to do anything to their horses’ legs; instead, you use a ‘secret’ unannounced drug panel/scan/test. Which, as everyone knows,looks at metabolites rather than substances.
In addition, you scan for metabolites of a substance that is basically used to jangle and then deaden nerve endings…and you announce that it has been used to hyper-sensitize.
And then you find that a rather alarmingly large percentage of horses all have the same substance/metabolites in their system!
No wonder Princess Haya is returning to competition and turning the mother ship over to the other…well, they are not human, although I guess they are beings.
WADA has trashed so many lives, so many reputations…I simply do not see how any of this new totally self-created drug scandal engineered by FEI will turn out to be good for the sport.
It is as though FEI decided it needed to have a drug scandal in order to show their support of WADA!!!
they all used the equi-block for the same reason. to burn the legs. it doesn’t matter that they are all from different countries. at that level they all know the same tricks.
If you follow the FEI’s rules of competition to the letter you may only give your horse hay, grain and water and, believe it or not, GastroGard. I don’t know of anything, including EquiBlock, whether used on the back or smeared on the legs, that falls neatly in between hay, grain, water and GastroGard.
The FEI’s stance? Nothing is acceptable. Named or not, previously tested for or not. Fair? No. I stand on the same side of the fence as do YankeeLawyer and Poltroon and others on that score. But as I mentioned earlier, none of this is new. Will it ever change? I leave the monumental task of reform to the younger generation.
Supposedly, after Athens, the FEI took a hard look at their anti-doping rules in light of the events there. Possibly they have quietly accepted trace amounts of certain substances. For all we know the HK test may have been screaming Capsaicin.
<< they all used the equi-block for the same reason. to burn the legs.>>
Of course! That makes perfect sense!
Ludger Beerbaum lost Germany the gold medal in 2004 because he used a steroid ointment on his horses front leg boot rub. Even the FEI stated that the ointment was in no way used for performance enhancement, was in fact used to promote good welfare of the horse, and had been checked with the vet – but nevertheless, they stripped the medal.
Now, 4 years later–why OF COURSE another German team member decides to use a performance-enhancing ointment on his horse’s legs. Not only that, he picks something that actually–after it jangles the nerve endings-- DEADENS the same nerve endings.
Why yes, I can see them in their team meetings now, with Ludger Beerbaum giving a wink and a nudge, saying, Now guys, remember, we dont want to lose any medals over drug tests THIS time!
Even though any one with a brain and a set of clippers can produce “razor burn”, or use countless other techniques if they want to monkey with their horse’s legs, why of course–all these different riders used a crappy, cheap OTC ointment because it was all they could think to do.
Oh, I see now. Even though the FEI has announced it will be LOOKING FOR evidence of burning the horse’s legs, why yes, concentrate on finding something…that burns the horse’s legs! Because you just cannot trust these Olympic horses to want to jump!
And yet…the FEI apparently did not use the thermography tools to actually check to see if indeed any of the horses’ legs were affected.
[QUOTE=lemorro;3473092]
they all used the equi-block for the same reason. to burn the legs. it doesn’t matter that they are all from different countries. at that level they all know the same tricks.[/QUOTE]
Lemorro, you are entitled to your opinion. But to my knowledge, to date, only one of four of the riders implicated in this mess has come forward and provided a statement that he used a product that contains capsaicin (in his case, Equi-block). He denies having used it for any other purpose; the FEI has neither alleged nor has it indicated that it has any evidence that it has been used for any other purpose. The results from the B samples have not yet been released; neither the investigation nor the hearing process has been concluded. And, as indicated above, it appears that it is arguable whether the FEI Rules actually prohibit capsaicin at all. They do prohibit “hypersensitizing” agents, whatever those are.
Moreover, there is still the possibility that the test results were a product of lab or sample contamination. And without any statement from 3 of the riders, if it turns out that the testing process was faulty, it appears they would have a high likelihood of being exonerated (whereas the one who admitted using Equi-block will be left arguing, for example, whether the rules as written suffice to prohibit that specific substance).
In any event, it is premature to declare anyone’s culpability, and certainly no one (not here, at least) has any idea why the one rider used capsaicin or whether the others in fact did at all.
Basically–he says he has used Equi-block on Coster’s back since Cannes CSI.
He points out he would do nothing to jeopardize his team, let alone his own reputation.
I think he says that because the horse has always tested negative, he assumed the stuff was OK to use.
<
Christian Ahlmann goes to the Doping disaster from Hong Kong into the offensive: The world-wide closed jumping rider grants possible errors, but against Doping reproaches he sits down to the resistance. He massed its embankment oh Cöster after a witch shot only the back - however with an ointment, the one forbidden substance (Capsaicin) contains. Case I made an error, do to me that sincerely leid´, said the 33-Jährige on Sunday at a press conference in its place of residence Marl. Ahlmann fights for its call. The events in Hong Kong not only it, but the horse haven altogether would harm and concomitantly its crew comrade. It does not want to accept all this, and therefore it pulls before the international one Sport Court of Justice (CAS). Ahlmann wants against of Rider world union PROTECT with immediate effect imposed world-wide barrier proceed. It judges it as unfair and law adverse to close a professional rider world-wide as long as the procedure is not yet final and many open questions would be located unanswered in the area. I become therefore the protecting decision with the CAS anfechten´, said the 33-Jährige. Ahlmanns of 15 years old embankment oh Cöster had been positively tested in Hong Kong just like three other horses in a-sample on the forbidden means Capsaicin. The rider was excluded on it from the plays and flew back immediately to Germany. I am from all clouds please and was first times speechless. I was total and could no clear thoughts fassen´, meant he to the escape with night and fog. On Friday in Hong Kong also the B-sample had been opened. The result is loud PROTECTS within the next seven days to be present. Ahlmann has however only little hope: I assume the result of the B-sample is not equal loud wird.´ he failure consciously, protests Ahlmann: I was in good faith the opinion that the use of the ointment did not have a bad medication darstellt.´ nevertheless that World union a barrier against it, working world-wide, imposes. How long it is to last, is not well-known it. Ahlmann: PROTECT only communicated that it at least up to the conclusion of the Procedure into force remains, but when the procedure is locked, is completely open. I regret the developed eddy zutiefst.´ The reason for the use of the ointment was a witch shot with Cöster, which suffered embankment oh with the tournament in Cannes. It had to be treated therefore veterinary and be inserted a longer match break, reports Ahlmann: Since this incident we have Cöster daily the backs with the ointment Equiblock massiert.´ This ointment contains the plant active substance Capsaicin, which was Ahlmann communicated by experts also. Since it is freely available in the trade, it assumed it is a preservative agent and no medicine, whose application one must announce means the jumping rider: The further procedure will show whether my estimate correctly or wrongly war.´ The mentioned ointment promotes the blood circulation and works approximately Muscle spannings and - hardening. If it is laid on however above the hooves, in order to make the legs of the horses pain sensitive, so that they pull up it over the obstacles, it concerns Doping and no more around medication. Knows Ahlmann, which insures: I can only say that we the legs of Cöster never with the ointment masses, but them only for the relaxation of the back musculature used haben.´ up to clarifying the special and legal situation he will not however any longer use the ointment. It used it already before, and there the sample was negative. Ahlmann: Therefore I had also no doubts or the thought, that as Mediaktion anzugeben.´ beside Ahlmann was three further riders in Hong Kong suspended, after with their horses likewise in each case in a-sample of arrears of the forbidden active substance Capsaicin determined were. It concerned the Brazilian Bernardo Alves with its horse Chupa Chup, Denis lynches (Ireland) with Latinus and Tony Andre Hansen (Norway) with Camiro. >>
Germany apparently is making Ahlmann repay his costs for travel and accommodation at the Olympics. Why even bother having an A/B sample process, investigation, hearing and appeal if people are going to come to a definitive conclusion as soon as A sample results are released?
BEIJING (Reuters) - Germany will send a bill to show jumper Christian Ahlmann for his travel and accommodation costs at the Games after his horse failed a dope test, International Olympic Committee (IOC) vice president Thomas Bach told Reuters.
Bach, head of Germany’s National Olympic Committee, said on Saturday Ahlmann would be the first German asked to refund the costs of his participation due to a failed doping test.
“This is a new element of our anti-doping campaign and I’m optimistic that it will have a deterrent effect,” Bach said in an interview with Reuters.
“We required every athlete on the Olympic team to sign an agreement obliging them to reimburse all their travel and accommodations costs if they are have a positive doping test.”
Bach said the total bill for Ahlmann had yet to be calculated, but added: “It’s not going to be cheap.”
Ahlmann, who will have to pay all the transport and stall costs for his horse as well, was one of four show jumpers suspended after their horses tested positive for capsaicin.
Capsaicin, an active ingredient in chilli peppers, is sometimes applied as a paste or lotion to a horse’s forelegs so that they try harder to lift their smarting shins over fences.
Ahlmann was also suspended from the German Olympic team pending the results of the B-sample, due within the next four days, and will be ejected if it is positive.
Bach, who is also head of the IOC’s disciplinary commission, had vowed that the Beijing Olympics would have more doping controls than ever before.
Bach, who won a fencing gold medal for West Germany, said he did not know of any countries with similar financial deterrents to doping but added he hoped others would follow.
“We believe it is a useful tool against doping and would warmly welcome other countries adopting this or other measures that contribute to the anti-doping battle,” he said.
Michael Vesper, Germany’s chef de mission, said he was stunned that Ahlmann had apparently ignored the warnings about doping.
“He is going to have to pay for all his costs and he will be thrown off the team if the results are confirmed,” Vesper told Reuters.
“We are not going to finance a trip to China for cheats. We cannot pay for anyone who breaks the rules.”
[QUOTE=lemorro;3473092]
they all used the equi-block for the same reason. to burn the legs. it doesn’t matter that they are all from different countries. at that level they all know the same tricks.[/QUOTE]
Lemorro, I think that is a pretty harsh statement. Equi-Block has 0.025% Capsaicin. I am not saying that there are not cheats out there, but to make a blanket statement like that IMO is without merit.
Some have said that Lynch should have known better because the Manufacturer lists Capsaicin as an ingredient and says it does not test. the Manufacturer’s Labeling - “does not test” could be because there is only 0.025% Capsaicin- meaning this would be below the threshold for a positive test. Hence, Lynch’s previous negative tests. The reporter who blasted Lynch should have done some homework on Equi-Block before stating he is a “doper”.
Now this is really reaching and far fetched but being that this is in China - a land known for some spicey (read peppers, hot chili oil etc) could it be that perhaps one lab or 2 lab technicians happened to be enjoying a nice spicy lunch or dinner while performing their lab tests? Could it be that maybe the samples may have gotten contaminated?
I would like to believe that most of these top level professionals have their horses best interest at heart- they were trying to do right by their horse partners. Unfortunately those unscrupulous types have made it very very difficult for those who do want to do right by their equine partners and for the sport.
Yes; it is possible that there was lab or sample contamination, or that the results were otherwise false positives. But, first Lynch, and now apparently Ahlmann, have come forward and admitted using Equi-block, which does contain trace amounts of Capsaicin. Ironically, if it were to turn out that the tests were flawed / false positives, it would not matter, because these riders admitted using the substance. That is, assuming that the FEI rules, as written, actually suffice to prohibit capsaicin. Assuming it is correct that the rules prohibit “hypersensitizing agents” but do not SPECIFICALLY ban capsaicin, I really do think the FEI has a problem on their hands, as I said before, particularly since capsaicin has recognized benign uses and in fact is fairly common even in innocuous things like a Dorito (okay, well Doritos may have their own issues ; )). Theoretically, just about ANYTHING could conceivably be used as a hypersensitizing agent, including pure water (if one were for example to scald a horse with it).
HAY, FEED, WATER (+ Gastroguard) only?
No actually, these are not even explicitly permitted by the FEI. Feed? You have got to be kidding me. Any idea of how many possible formulations of feed there are out there, and how many possible ingredients might be deemed a “problem” under the FEI’s broad categorizations of prohibited TYPES of substances? I am sure a survey of feeds out there might reveal some interesting observations. Take magnesium, for example. I don’t have a feed label handy at the moment, but I bet most feeds, including mine, probably contain some amount of magnesium. Uh oh. Magnesium is KNOWN to have calming properties, particularly in horses that would otherwise be deficient in the mineral (e.g., due to the soil conditions where they ordinarily graze). What if the FEI decides without telling anyone, and without expressly banning magnesium, that all of a sudden they are going to target that (maybe because they heard Quiessence, a magnesium product, is suddenly being abused). See the problem? Not to mention the fact that feed contamination is not unheard of (see e.g., pet food scandals earlier this year – oh yeah, didn’t those feeds come from CHINA? – and Purina recall of horse feeds, for contamination).
Hay? You mean you would risk feeding HAY to your competition horses? I am not an expert on weeds by any means, but I am sure someone here could think of some noxious weed that could fall afoul of the FEI’s ban on categorizations of substances. I would have to give that one some more thought to come up with examples, but I am fairly certain that with a little research I could.
Water? As I said, could be used to hypersensitize (scalding) and relieve pain (freezing). Don’t even go there!
I do understand that the governing bodies could not be expected to explicitly list every substance under the sun that is prohibited; that would not be possible (hence the USEF’s list of banned substances as “Examples”). But, as to certain substances, including capsaicin, the FEI is fully aware of their existence, apparently is fully aware of the potential for abuse, and in fact has a test specifically designed to identify that substance. So why not clue in competitors that it is specifically banned, because among the many innocuous uses for it, some characters out there use it to torture their horses? As I said before, imo, the FEI rules appear to neither provide sufficient guidance for those who are well-intentioned or sufficient deterrence for those arguably not well-intentioned.
And the bigger question is – are these rules really catching the cheaters, or just trapping people who make (albeit frequently dumb) mistakes related to therapeutic uses of subsrances? And are they the best we can do for the horses, some of whom might really appreciate the equivalent of an Advil in the middle of a week’s worth of Olympic jumping?
(Do note that some of the above is written with a healthy dose of sarcasm, but I am just illustrating how vague and overbroad the rules are).
p.s. Why on earth is Gastroguard permitted, anyway? Don’t get me wrong; I think is a great product, especially for horses under any kind of stress, like competition horses. But why Gastroguard and not other products that have similar properties?
Another thing – I think it is outrageous that only 15 showjumpers were drugtested prior to the individual competition, particularly since the FEI took the stance that any A sample positive sufficed to bar the rider and horse from competing. If later exonerated, there is nothing anyone can ever do to give that opportunity back to that pair. The FEI/IOC’s position is that they are zero tolerance, and these measures are necessary to crack down on doping. If so, then TEST ALL COMPETITORS. The MAJORITY of competitors were not tested before competing, yet, if they ultimately end up having an A sample positive, they are in the position of being able to wait for the B samples and go through the full hearing process, and ultimately challenge any positive results and perhaps be exonerated – all while having ridden in the Games and maybe even medalled. But the 4 riders among the unlucky 15 who were targeted will never be in that position. The best they can hope for is to be exonerated at some point. And given what a scandal that would be (i.e., being wrongfully denied the opportunity to compete) I question whether there is any possibility that the FEI would ever exonerate them (though perhaps the CAS is more objective).
