So…How does PP work? One reply referenced injectable Mg, but I thought unused Mg given orally is expelled.
I looked at the manufacturer’s website, and they’ve sure got alot of testimonials up.
Where have I been? Hmm not hanging out on the internet recently.
The advice given is disgraceful.
The horse looks like it needs schooling. A six year old, with a kid. Good project. Probably not going to shine in the Eq ring this year. Take it down a notch. Do the homework.
I do wonder about the little snippet of further description she gave–when he’s at a show he EITHER is EXCITED or REALLY QUIET. Sounds fishy, if you ask me.
First of all I think people need to realize that Perfect Prep’s main ingredient is tryptophan. This is what helps calm them it’s the same thing that makes you sleepy after eating turkey on thanksgiving. And it is an amino acid so something that is essentially natural to the body. And therefore it’s not the same thing as “drugging” them with something like dex.
I do think RG should have offered advice on how she could ride the horse better not just have recommended PP. I always get to the shows early and hack my horse in the morning to see what kind of horse I have for the day. And if he is a little wild I hack him a bit longer and work on getting him round and supple.
As far as everyone being soo against the hunters that are slow. A lot of them have HUGE strides and if they galloped they would leave strides out. And some horses like mine are just naturally quiet in the ring doesn’t always mean they are drugged. And what exactly does expressive mean? Because my horse has a huge stride and has to crawl around the course should he be placed behind one that goes at a quicker step or shakes its head in the corner just because that one is more “expressive”?
1 Like
No, I think all successful professionals should recommend children dope their horses up with a substance that reduces the horse’s reaction time and makes them far more susceptible to accidents. There are probably too many kids showing these days anyway. Good on you, Rob, we’re on the clock here.
Now where is that vomit emoticon everyone is always talking about?
Note that THIS use of social media by a judge is apparently NOT prejudicial to the interests of the sport.
[QUOTE=Ammyrider;7669596]
First of all I think people need to realize that Perfect Prep’s main ingredient is tryptophan. This is what helps calm them it’s the same thing that makes you sleepy after eating turkey on thanksgiving. And it is an amino acid so something that is essentially natural to the body. And therefore it’s not the same thing as “drugging” them with something like dex.
I do think RG should have offered advice on how she could ride the horse better not just have recommended PP. I always get to the shows early and hack my horse in the morning to see what kind of horse I have for the day. And if he is a little wild I hack him a bit longer and work on getting him round and supple.
As far as everyone being soo against the hunters that are slow. A lot of them have HUGE strides and if they galloped they would leave strides out. And some horses like mine are just naturally quiet in the ring doesn’t always mean they are drugged. And what exactly does expressive mean? Because my horse has a huge stride and has to crawl around the course should he be placed behind one that goes at a quicker step or shakes its head in the corner just because that one is more “expressive”?[/QUOTE]
Crawling is not attractive or elegant; the lurch into the air at the jump can be painful to watch --from a crawling pace a horse has to work hard just to get over the jump, which makes a nice photo, but there isn’t any flow to such efforts. Collapsing in a heap on landing is pretty often a result.
If a horse is that big, why NOT leave out the step? A horse who can gallop comfortably on a 14’ stride could feasibly leave out a stride on 5 stride and longer lines without it being missed much…
Maybe we need an X-tra L division, where the course designers can set those lines out there.
Not quite. The main sedative effect of Thanksgiving dinner is more likely to be the huge amount of food generally ingested, which tends to shunt the circulation to the GI tract.
There’s a higher concentration of tryptophan in chicken than in turkey.
And it is an amino acid so something that is essentially natural to the body. And therefore it’s not the same thing as “drugging” them with something like dex.
Do you assert then, that administration of a “natural” substance in excess of normal physiologic levels cannot result in pharmacologic effects?
Because you’d be, well, just plain wrong there, Bucky.
[QUOTE=M. O’Connor;7669832]
If a horse is that big, why NOT leave out the step? A horse who can gallop comfortably on a 14’ stride could feasibly leave out a stride on 5 stride and longer lines without it being missed much…
Maybe we need an X-tra L division, where the course designers can set those lines out there.[/QUOTE]
Or, hey, what if we just freaking quit the obsession with counting strides altogether, eh? It’s really not a “traditonal” part of the hunters, but an outgrowth of the industrialization of what was, originally, a rural sport.
Interestingly, when this thread was started I emailed USEF to ask the D&M folks about the use of PP before a round for calming purposes in a horse showing at a rated show. I did not get a response and it’s been well over a week.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7669911]
Interestingly, when this thread was started I emailed USEF to ask the D&M folks about the use of PP before a round for calming purposes in a horse showing at a rated show. I did not get a response and it’s been well over a week.[/QUOTE]
They may just have been inundated. I emailed as well and DID get a response…quite quickly. I haven’t posted because this thread had dropped down the page significantly.
[INDENT]
[/INDENT]
[INDENT]
Basically, you can use it because the ingredients are legal, but you can’t use it because it violates the spirit and intent of the rule. Super clear, right? Seems to me that it shouldn’t be used because it is a violation, but it isn’t quite as cut and dry because how exactly do they test for spirit and intent when the ingredients are legal?
[/INDENT]
Well, that was a non answer answer. Does it violate the rules if used or not?! By that reasoning, IV mag isn’t prohibited?!
[QUOTE=vxf111;7669938]
Well, that was a non answer answer. Does it violate the rules if used or not?! By that reasoning, IV mag isn’t prohibited?![/QUOTE]
If you get a vet to administer it, then presumably not.
[QUOTE=vxf111;7669938]
Well, that was a non answer answer. Does it violate the rules if used or not?! By that reasoning, IV mag isn’t prohibited?![/QUOTE]
Yeah, it was an non-answer, but it does confirm what most of us have been saying all along. If you are using something for the express purpose of calming your horse for a competition, it violates the spirit and intent of the rule.
Sadly, what this does is hurt the people that do their best to follow the rules to not only the letter, but to the spirit and intent. We are the big chumps in the grand scheme of things.
I understand the difficulty of the situation…goodness knows we can’t rely on everyone to “do the right thing” and since there is no way to test and it is really difficult to prove spirit and intent violations, it’s just a game of he said/she said.
I do think one positive thing USEF could do is force PP to reword its website and remove claims to being “legal.” Make them add verbiage about using a supplement to calm is against the spirit and intent of the rules or something. Their website would leave you to believe there is no problem at all with using it. At least then you would get a portion of the population to stop running around believing it is perfectly legal.
[QUOTE=RugBug;7669963]
Yeah, it was an non-answer, but it does confirm what most of us have been saying all along. If you are using something for the express purpose of calming your horse for a competition, it violates the spirit and intent of the rule.
Sadly, what this does is hurt the people that do their best to follow the rules to not only the letter, but to the spirit and intent. We are the big chumps in the grand scheme of things.
I understand the difficulty of the situation…goodness knows we can’t rely on everyone to “do the right thing” and since there is no way to test and it is really difficult to prove spirit and intent violations, it’s just a game of he said/she said.
I do think one positive thing USEF could do is force PP to reword its website and remove claims to being “legal.” Make them add verbiage about using a supplement to calm is against the spirit and intent of the rules or something. Their website would leave you to believe there is no problem at all with using it. At least then you would get a portion of the population to stop running around believing it is perfectly legal.[/QUOTE]
I have concluded that USEF doesn’t care about D&M issues. They’ll give some lipservice to the idea that they do by testing for substances that are easy to test for and slapping a few wrists-- but otherwise it’s hear no evil, see no evil.
Can you people not understand the difference between the law and ethics? The law/rules are outer boundaries of behavior. Under our constitution, laws must be clear and concise so people can have a “bright line” test to know when they are in violation. Ethics, on the other hand, may be more vague and offer guidelines of behavior for people that need them.
The USEF has promulgated bright line tests for drugs. They also offer an ethical guideline.
I am so sick of this thread. I am actually put off more by the people who cannot mentally handle the difference between legalities and ethics than the people who use calmers.
1 Like
[QUOTE=vxf111;7670009]
I have concluded that USEF doesn’t care about D&M issues. They’ll give some lipservice to the idea that they do by testing for substances that are easy to test for and slapping a few wrists-- but otherwise it’s hear no evil, see no evil.[/QUOTE]
So, what is your solution? What do you propose be done to enforce “spirit and intent” violations?
[QUOTE=ToTheNines;7670021]
I am so sick of this thread. I am actually put off more by the people who cannot mentally handle the difference between legalities and ethics than the people who use calmers.[/QUOTE]
I really hope this isn’t directed at me. Just because I can see the difficulties in enforcing anything that is not “bright line,” as you say, that certainly doesn’t mean I’m all for it.
I have no problem distinguishing ethical issues from rule violations. Note that USEF says not only does using a calming agent violate the spirit of the rules but also the intent. So the USEF says that they INTEND for the use of calming agents to be prohibited. They just can’t prove its use that easily. Which is totally different.
For the record, I also have an understanding how the 5th Amendment applies (or doesn’t) to private organizations. 
The problem is that the USEF talks out of both sides of its mouth. In its OWN interpretation of the rules it states that giving a substance for calming purposes is prohibited. In the email to RugBug, they say the same thing. yet they apparently told some other poster a few pages back something different. If what they say is not what they intend the rule to mean, they need to amend/clarify the rule.
I have NO PROBLEM with accepting that some rule violations are harder to prove than others. They can test for blood levels of NSAIDs. They can’t for IV mag. So to find a rule violation for IV mag, there’d have to be some other evidence beyond blood tests (i.e. an eyewitness, the person admitting it was given, a syringe tested and found to have held magnesium, etc.) It’s hard to prove… but that doesn’t make it NOT a rule violation. You enforce it just that way. If you get a credible report of someone saying they saw the substance being given-- and whatever other circumstantial evidence there is. The accused can put up a defense and you weigh the evidence and have an outcome. It’s not as though direct evidence is the only evidence. People meet the burden of proof for criminal cases with just circumstantial evidence. 2 people who will say they say trainer X give the substance, an empty syringe that tests for the substance in the trash can in the trainer’s tack stall, the horse appears groggy thereafter-- and then the hearing committee decides if it’s persuasive.
It is now prohibited for anyone but a vet to give an injection during a show. That also can’t be proven by blood test. You can’t draw blood and tell whether the horse got a poke from a vet or someone else. That also will require things like eyewitness accounts, etc. It’s a rule whose violation cannot be proven with a blood test. And yet, it’s still a rule that allegedly the USEF is going to enforce. How do you want the USEF to apply that if only direct evidence is good enough for you?
I am fine with the USEF saying “if the calming substance isn’t on the prohibited list that we can test for, it may be harder for us to PROVE you violated the rules but the use is none-the-less against the rules.” After all, that’s what they DO say. There was a time when there was no test for GAGA. It didn’t mean GABA use was allowed it just meant it was harder to prove GABA use. Then they developed a test and voila-- everyone got caught and sanctioned.
Which is I think what the USEF is trying to say in a convoluted, roundabout way… Using a calming agent is prohibited, we don’t have a test for all of them yet, but not having a test just means we can’t easily prove you used it. Which some people are apparently interpreting as the USEF saying “since we can’t test for it, it may be unethical but not against the rules.” Which is, at least in my opinion, a misunderstanding.
[QUOTE=ToTheNines;7670021]
Can you people not understand the difference between the law and ethics?[/QUOTE]
The USEF has written their rules in a way that they simply cannot enforce, and they are therefore leaving it up to the members to police themselves. It’s not at all a matter of rules versus ethics, it’s a matter of rules that can be enforced versus those that cannot be enforced. The rule (with regards to intent) is clear; enforcement is impossible.
But USEF is in a tough position in this situation. There are far more substances being used than they have tests for. And how do they keep up with the chemists who are on the same side as the cheaters? Developing reliable tests and validating the assays they use to test for those substances is so hugely time-consuming and expensive. This is the part that many do not understand. Accurate and consistently reliable assays are a must in this situation. And that does not come cheap, easy, or quickly.
FWIW: I don’t think they told the other poster something all that different from what they told me. I’d have to go back and re-read but it seemed pretty much the same, actually.
Using a calming agent is prohibited, we don’t have a test for all of them yet, but not having a test just means we can’t easily prove you used it. Which some people are apparently interpreting as the USEF saying "since we can’t test for it, it may be unethical but not against the rules." Which is, at least in my opinion, a misunderstanding.
Bolding mine: I think you are giving people too much credit. I honestly think there is a large portion of the population that reads PP’s packaging and or website and therefore believes it’s legal. They probably don’t even know the rules or maybe they do but haven’t given enough thought to what they are really saying.
Then there is another large portion that knows the rules but doesn’t think there is anything unethical about it since the ingredients are all legal. Therefore PP is perfectly legal.
Then there is a smaller portion that does what you indicate, believes it’s unethical, but isn’t against the rules so they use it.
And probably the last few who think it’s unethical and against the rules and use it anyway because they just don’t care about following rules.
Been following this since it was first posted and I know I am going to sound all Pollyanna, but…What does this say about the professionals abilities to train a horse up for the job?..Regardless of the knowledge they have to perhaps do it right and being fair to the horse, they just need to fast track the process and push ahead without enough miles in a lesser venue?..
I get the financial issue of trying to get paying customers into the ring, I do…but, whatever accomplishments are achieved are tainted, aren’t they?..I equate it with the enhancers Maguire used when he broke the homerun record years ago…Yeah he may have accomplished it, but he gets no respect because it wasn’t without bottled help…
