Jumpers disqualified for doping ???

[canyonoak]

Let me see.

A few weeks before the equestrian portion of the Olympics starts, FEI fires its head vet and replaces him with another FEI vet.

FEI announces it will use thermography. Apparently it decides not to.

FEI does 15 drug tests, finds that nearly 25% test positive, but does not test the rest of the competitors.
FEI does not use thermography on any of the positives in order to ascertain if indeed any legs show signs of anything, let alone hypersensitization.

FEI suggests everyone do the pre-event drug test, finds all negative, but then performs a completely different drug tests to find the positives.

I cannot imagine any sport finding 25% positives and not testing all other competitiors.

WHat if they had done so and found over 50% using capsaicin? 75%?

This is WADA techniques–make a big stink, find someone(s) positive and applaud yourself while destroying human beings, sport, careers, reputations, federations, etc.

chraming. ANd sd good to know that FEI and NF’s will just bend over.

[gottagrey]

Yankee Lawyer you make some very valid points - the thing is the FEI has 0 tolerance rule -so Equi-Block contains trace amounts of Capsaicin - it doesn’t matter how much or little the test shows - only that the test was positive! It is unfortunate for these riders that the results reports given to the media do not include the level or amount in which the horse tested positive. To read some of the articles you would think these horses were high on METH. Again, I am not saying there are not cheats and scoundrels out there but I think it is wrong to assume that every rider/person who has a positve test is as Lemorro stated. I know of a trainer who had a positive drug test on a horse - she had no idea how the horse tested positive as it was for something she did not ever use or administer - turns out the horse was a cribber and cribbed on his neighbor’s stall - where that particular barn had used something on the stall to disinfect/clean.

I remember when human drug testing for employment first became popular -you were warned not to eat something as benign as a poppy seed muffin or bage or you could test postive for opiates. Ditto for some OTC sinus/cold meds - could test you positive for marijuana.

Lavendar is on the USEF list of forbidden substances - why is something so seemingly benign on the list? Never having been a druggy or a cheat or a scoundrel it would never ever occur to me - I guess that it why I want to assume the best of these riders and not the worst.

[Mozart]

@canyonoak;3474321

Let me see.

A few weeks before the equestrian portion of the Olympics starts, FEI fires its head vet and replaces him with another FEI vet.

FEI announces it will use thermography. Apparently it decides not to.

FEI does 15 drug tests, finds that nearly 25% test positive, but does not test the rest of the competitors.
FEI does not use thermography on any of the positives in order to ascertain if indeed any legs show signs of anything, let alone hypersensitization.

FEI suggests everyone do the pre-event drug test, finds all negative, but then performs a completely different drug tests to find the positives.

I cannot imagine any sport finding 25% positives and not testing all other competitiors.

WHat if they had done so and found over 50% using capsaicin? 75%?

This is WADA techniques–make a big stink, find someone(s) positive and applaud yourself while destroying human beings, sport, careers, reputations, federations, etc.

chraming. ANd sd good to know that FEI and NF’s will just bend over.

I think that about covers it. However, I am still a bit gobsmacked that two teams who have had, shall we say, their “issues” with drug tests would not put everything they put on, in or around their horses under a figurative microscope. Either they were being surprisingly…relaxed…or those riders thought they were getting away with something. However, if being used for the latter…would that not somehow show up in a boot check? Aside from looking and sniffing…do the stewards also run their hand along the horse’s shin?

Which of course brings us back to thermography test. Yes, make a big announcement about it and then don’t use it.

[Ruby_G_Weber]

GastroGard is approved because the head of Merck sits on the FEI Board?

Two down, two to go. Wanna bet those rider’s B sample results are positive too?

As I have said before, using the element of surprise is the way USEF and FEI operate in the drug testing theater. (Back in the 70’s USEF didn’t bother to mention it had come up with a test for reserpine - nor include it in the list of “examples” and oh my the positives looked like a list of who’s who in horse showing.)

Yankee, I know you think because FEI does not specifically list capsaicin as a banned substance they are going to “have their hands full.” Unfortunately for the innocent riders I don’t agree. The FEI has covered it’s tush with “Zero Tolerance.”

One more thing. I suspect if the FEI thought EquiBlock was being used for the purpose stated by Allman and Lynch they may well have left the whole capsaicin thing alone.

[poltroon]

[QUOTE=Ruby G. Weber;3475135]
GastroGard is approved because the head of Merck sits on the FEI Board? [/QUOTE]

Whimper.

[YankeeLawyer]

@Ruby G. Weber;3475135

Yankee, I know you think because FEI does not specifically list capsaicin as a banned substance they are going to “have their hands full.” Unfortunately for the innocent riders I don’t agree. The FEI has covered it’s tush with “Zero Tolerance.”

I have not looked at all their regs closely but I disagree that a prohibition on “hypersensitization” agents suffices to prohibit capsaicin (given some of the factors I already mentioned) and, imo, “zero tolerance” does not CYA adequately – hence my examples of hay, water, and feed being arguably prohibited substances. Absurd? Maybe, but the point was to illustrate how plainly absurd their rules are. I really hope someone gets these riders a lawyer (and imo they could have used one from the get go, but that is a different story).

And again, is the FEI actually catching the cheaters, the most egregious cases of cheating, the ones the rules were supposedly designed to catch, or are the rules, as I suspect, both overly broad and underinclusive? (Overly broad in the sense they are catching innocent and “quasi” innocent conduct and underinclusive because they appear not to be unmasking the worst cheats).

[YankeeLawyer]

@Ruby G. Weber;3475135

GastroGard is approved because the head of Merck sits on the FEI Board?

I suspected as much, hence the question.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Ruby G. Weber;3475135]

One more thing. I suspect if the FEI thought EquiBlock was being used for the purpose stated by Allman and Lynch they may well have left the whole capsaicin thing alone.[/QUOTE]

If the FEI wanted to know the truth, they would have used thermography.

And, does anyone happen to know if they had video cameras in the aisles of the stabling area there? Perhaps time-stamped tapes of everything done to a horse (in the barn, at least) while on the grounds at the Games? Presumably such tapes would exist for security reasons, no?

[summerhorse]

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3466460]
I don’t know anything about the circumstances surrounding that but I will say if my horse ever was in need of medical treatment he would get it and screw the medal; I would withdraw from the competition. No medal is worth risking your horse’s life by denying needed medical attention. That is absurd.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I am kind of shocked that anyone would let a horse COLIC without treatment for a chance at a medal (was that her first or something?) but I forget for some people it is the winning that counts not the animal.

[Geneva]

@Ruby G. Weber

GastroGard is approved because the head of Merck sits on the FEI Board?

And who might this be? And what were those person’s titles as of the time this decision was made? And can you tell us the date that decision was made? And is it Merck, or the offshoot Merial, that owns the patent on Gastrogard? And does Merck own a patent on cimetidine? Ranitidine? Because as I recall these were expressly approved by the FEI at the same time as omeprazole (a/k/a Gastrogard).

The competitor’s guide to med control, which all NFs know they should be distributing to all their international riders upon registering them, actually summarizes things quite clearly in simple layman’s terms.

http://www.fei.org/Rules/Veterinary/Documents/Anglais.pdf

Is any medication allowed ?
Yes. Certain medications are permitted under FEI Rules. These currently
include rehydration fluids, antibiotics with the exception of
procaine penicillin and anti-parasite drugs (dewormers) with the
exception of levamisole. In addition, some drugs to treat or prevent
gastric ulcers may be given (i.e. ranitidine, cimetidine and omeprazole).
The use of altrenogest (Regumate) is currently permitted for
mares with oestrus-related behavioural problems. Only saline is
permitted as an inhalation therapy in a competition horse.

Can I treat my horse during or prior to a competition ?
…With the exception of the permitted medications described above, your horse must be “clean” at the time of competition.

[YankeeLawyer]

[From the FEI Pamphlet]
Please keep in mind the possible contamination of feed by prohibited substances and discuss this with your feed supplier. Food for competition horses should be certified free of prohibited substances. Avoid buying products in retail outlets for which specifications are unclear or from retailers you do not know very well. This warning also applies to certain herbal products and feed additives.

What is the likelihood of a feed supplier being willing to certify his/her products are free of prohibited substances?

[Ruby_G_Weber]

Sorry guys. The Merck comment was meant to be tongue in cheek.

If you believe USEF is a good ol’ boys club well then you now have a better understanding of the FEI.

I admire you YL for your desire to go to the defense of these four riders. And I totally agree with your sentiment regarding the absurdity of some of the rules although the one about checking your feed is simple for me to understand. FEI wants to make sure no one tries to blame the feed mill for a positive test. Or the farmer who made the hay. Heaven forbid a chamomile flower gets baled with the Timothy!

The fact remains these riders got caught using a linament containing a banned substance.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Ruby G. Weber;3475692]
FEI wants to make sure no one tries to blame the feed mill for a positive test. Or the farmer who made the hay. Heaven forbid a chamomile flower gets baled with the Timothy!

The fact remains these riders got caught using a linament containing a banned substance.[/QUOTE]

The certification suggestion really doesn’t make a lot of sense. Sure, the FEI is saying be careful. But all a certification will do for anyone (IF you could obtain it) is give the competitor recourse against the mill if despite the certification, the feed turns out to be contaminated. The FEI won’t accept as a defense the fact the feed was certified free of banned substances. Advising that competitors obtain such certifications, however, implies that they might be entitled to rely on such guarantees.

Re the riders getting caught using a liniment with a “banned substance”: (1) to my knowledge, only 2 of the 4 riders have provided any statement, and both said they used Equi-block; and (2) I still maintain that arguably the FEI regs do not contain language banning capsaicin.

[Dixon]

If I asked any feed supplier, whether of horse feed, dog feed or human feed, to certify that the food was free of prohibited substances and that feed supplier refused, I’d publicize the hell out of it and find another supplier. After what recently happened with dogfood from China (yes, the same China that hosted these Olympics), feed suppliers should be so liability-averse that they’ve combed and cleaned their sources and processing plants well enough to certify with confidence that their product is not tainted with prohibited substances.

[bluemoonfarms]

This is from the FEI.org site

Annex III Equine Prohibited List
SUBSTANCES AND METHODS PROHIBITED IN-COMPETITION
PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES (DOPING)

Agents, cocktails or mixtures of substances that may affect the performance of a horse;
masking agents; substances with no generally accepted medical use in competition
horses; substances which are usually products prescribed for use in humans or other
species; agents used to hypersensitise or desensitise the limbs or body parts, including
but not limited to:

• two or more anti-inflammatory drugs (steroidal and/or non-steroidal) or other
combinations of anti-inflammatory substances with similar or distinct
pharmacological actions;
• antipsychotic, anti-epileptic and antihypertensive substances including reserpine,
gabapentin, fluphenazine, and guanabenz;
• antidepressants such as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs),
monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs), and tricyclic antidepressants (TCAs);
• tranquilizers, sedatives (including sedating antihistaminics) commonly used in
humans and/or non-equine species, including benzodiazepines, barbiturates and
azaperone ;
• narcotics and opioid analgesics; endorphins;
• amphetamines and other central nervous system (CNS) stimulants including
cocaine and related psychotic drugs;
• beta-blockers including propranolol, atenolol, and timolol;
• diuretics and other masking agents;
• anabolic steroids (including testosterone in mares and geldings) and growth
promoters;
• peptides and genetically recombinant substances such as erythropoietin, insulin
growth factor and growth hormone;
• hormonal products (natural or synthesized) including adrenocorticotropic hormone
(ACTH) and cortisol (above the threshold);
• substances designed and marketed primarily for human use or use in other species
and for which alternative and generally accepted products are available for use in
horses;
• hypersensitizing or sensitizing agents (organic or inorganic or other substances
likely to have been applied to body parts or to tack to influence performance);
• oxygen carriers;

and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological
effect(s).

2

PROHIBITED SUBSTANCES (MEDICATION CLASS A)

Agents which could influence performance by relieving pain, sedating, stimulating or
producing/modifying other physiological or behavioural effects, including:

• local anaesthetics;
• sympathomimetic cardiac stimulants;
• central and respiratory stimulants;
• clenbuterol and other bronchodilators and products used for the treatment of
recurrent airway disease (RAD);
• a single non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug ± metabolite(s);
• a single corticosteroid;
• sedatives or tranquillisers indicated for equine use including antihistamines;
thiamine; valerian and other herbal products other than those listed as Prohibited
Substances (Doping);
• muscle relaxants including methocarbamol and propantheline;
• anti-coagulants including heparin or warfarin;
and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological
effect(s).

Doesn’t the FEI cover themselves by stating:

“agents used to hypersensitise or desensitise the limbs or body parts, including
but not limited to:”

and

"and other substances with a similar chemical structure or similar biological
effect(s). "

As far as feed goes I had a major problem with my broodmares a while back and had everything at my barn tested. The problem was in the feed and the manufacturer was a major feed company. Very scary.

All of the barns I have visited in Europe have mixed their own feed on site. They could still have a problem with the ingredients they purchase to mix but would be less likely to incur any problems.

[nycjumper]

Re: the supposedly untreated colic - can someone verify this is in fact true? I have never heard about it before someone posted on this thread about it.

[Peggy]

Dang! Endorphins are on the list posted by bluemoonfarms. There goes that scheme to retire early;).

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Dixon;3475821]
If I asked any feed supplier, whether of horse feed, dog feed or human feed, to certify that the food was free of prohibited substances and that feed supplier refused, I’d publicize the hell out of it and find another supplier. After what recently happened with dogfood from China (yes, the same China that hosted these Olympics), feed suppliers should be so liability-averse that they’ve combed and cleaned their sources and processing plants well enough to certify with confidence that their product is not tainted with prohibited substances.[/QUOTE]

Good luck with that. It is precisely because of the recent scandals that no supplier with a brain in their head would attempt to guarantee the products are free of prohibited substances.

By the way, with such poorly – YES POORLY-- drafted “prohibitions” by the FEI, how on Earth is any supplier supposed to make such a certification? It would be unbelievably irresponsible, in my opinion, for a supplier to do such a thing. Do suppliers know, for example, the identity of every conceivable substance that might, one day, be declared a “hypersensitizing agent”? That would be a pretty tough call to make, especially given the FEI’s apparent penchant for declaring specific substances taboo after the fact.

[Ghazzu]

@gottagrey;3473708

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.

I am willing to believe that the people who used the stuff during the Games did it to make their horse more comfortable, and not to sensitize their legs.

However, saying that it “contains only 0.025% capsacin” is meaningless, in and of itself.

Unless you are familiar with the chemical properties of the substance, you’d have no way of determining whether that was a lot or a little.

And either way, it was just plain dumb to take a chance on using anything you weren’t certain was ok.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;3476073]

And either way, it was just plain dumb to take a chance on using anything you weren’t certain was ok.[/QUOTE]

I agree, but the problem here is that the riders apparently were certain it was okay; indeed they had been tested (or so they believed) all year and never had a positive result while using. Now whether it was dumb to be certain it was okay… different issue ; ). The thing is, there are precious few, if any, products that you can be certain are okay given the wording of the rules.

With respect to the regs posted above, I can still see a defense argument there. I have dealt with a lot more difficult cases than that.

Re feeds - BlueMoon, that is interesting re your experience. I hope everything turned out okay! I was actually thinking it might be prudent for competitors to retain samples of feed they give just before and during competitions. If something goes wrong with the feed, having a sample might not help with the FEI (though perhaps the evidence could be used to argue for less severe sanctions) but might provide some evidence of the source of the problem.