Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

What is Capsaicin?

Archives 2018 World Equestrian Games
#261

[QUOTE=CBoylen;3467913]
I think you had better re-read Darlyn, your summary doesn’t pertain to my post.[/QUOTE]

CBoylen, thank you for clarifying. I believe I am much more on the same page now. Part of my point (only a small part) was that I did not believe that the use of capsaicin to actually blister legs, for example, was “widespread.” And by blistering, I mean causing painful sores and/or irritation on the legs as with Tennessee Walkers, and other instances of abuse. While I do not condone cheating (as in anything that violates the rules), I also think there is a difference between methods that cause harm to the horse and ones that don’t (for example, capsaicin to relieve muscle soreness versus capsaicin to blister and supposedly enhance performance). I recognize that banned means banned, and there are and should be consequences for violations, but my concern is more about people actually hurting their horses rather than making (even dumb) mistakes that don’t hurt them.

And I 100% agree re allowing horses in need of treatment to be treated, as I indicated with regard to what apparently occurred with Authentic in '04.

#262

[QUOTE=diamondblue;3467918]
CBoylen, I get where you are coming from. The real world is not always black and white, if ever. It is almost always gray. It seems most of the rules written pertain to a black and white world.[/QUOTE]

I agree the world is grey, but believe they try to make brightline rules (black and white ones) precisely because they don’t want to have to deal with grey arguments. In other words, the FEI apparently does not want to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis, and have to make judgment calls each time as to whether one person’s excuse is better than another’s. And generally, you will get more fair and consistent results with outright bans than the case-by-case approach; the more rigid rule necessarily treats everyone the same, and all competitors theoretically know in advance which side of the rule they are on.

#263

I did not read all the prior posts but just read about the “equi-block”. Have any of you ever used it? I put it on a horse at a boss’s recommendation (10 years ago) and the horse began throwing itself on the ground. He then instructed me to take the horse out and wash the stuff off, well the water (hot or cold) reactivates it. The horse was sensitive for 2 days with that stuff. I don’t think it has that same drastic effect on every horse but I do think it is strong stuff. I don’t pretend to know “FEI” rules, but I thought it was basically you can’t use anything period. I thought the only therapy was good old fashioned ice.

#264

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3467928]
I agree the world is grey, but believe they try to make brightline rules (black and white ones) precisely because they don’t want to have to deal with grey arguments. In other words, the FEI apparently does not want to deal with these issues on a case-by-case basis, and have to make judgment calls each time as to whether one person’s excuse is better than another’s. And generally, you will get more fair and consistent results with outright bans than the case-by-case approach; the more rigid rule necessarily treats everyone the same, and all competitors theoretically know in advance which side of the rule they are on.[/QUOTE]

I do agree. I have always been under the impression that you can’t use anything at all. I would have been scared to even take the stuff in my suitcase much less to the barn and put it on the horse. I have always thought the rules were EXTREMELY strict and always best to ask and get permission rather than assume anything.

#265

Just to clarify, I was explaining why the FEI does what they do. I don’t think brightline rules are best for the welfare of the horses, though, and wish they would come up with a better way of regulating the sport.

#266

Err, what happened to all the other fabbo technology-driven tests they were going to use at Hong Kong?

For instance, thermography–which, it seems to me, would be a much more useful way to check which horses’ LEGS have perhaps been tampered with…? AS opposed to yet another lab test measuring some incremental metabolite of some substance,etc etc.

Yah, I really really think it helps the image of horse sport to have the horse federation basically calling its own athletes guilty until somehow proven innocent.

Oh wait–they’ve removed even the possibility of being innocent.

And the concept of offering a pre event drug test, giving a negative report–and THEN demanding another drug test and finding the horse positive …am I the only person who finds this devious and unfair?

Surely if the FEI suspected capsaicin use, it is not much of a stretch to have tested for it in the pre-event drug test? (I know this has been stated before, by me as well as others, but it seems worthy of a repeat anyway).

Somehow, I think the few dollars that would add to the drug test would be WAY cheaper than the fallout from all this publicity, not to mention the lawyer fees and costly damage done to the sport, to reputations, to the irrevocable loss of a chance to compete in the medal finals, etc etc etc.

Jessica Kuerten must be laughing with tears in her eyes, at this point.

#267

I don’t believe the Tennessee Walking Horse people actually INTEND to blister and cause wounds. They intend to make the horse’s skin irritated, so the boots and chains touching them make them pick up their legs higher. They want them a bit “sore”, not blistered/open sores. When they get blisters, it is more of an oops, but one that in the past has been overlooked.

I don’t see a difference, except for that over the years, they have become complacent about it, and used more agressive things which are more likely to cause an “oops” open wound. If you turn a blind eye to “minor cheating” you become an enabler, and don’t be upset when the “training methods” get worse.

What ever happened to having a horse be ridden as their natural talent and non-abusive training allows? :frowning:

#268

[QUOTE=Fairview Horse Center;3467957]
I don’t believe the Tennessee Walking Horse people actually INTEND to blister and cause wounds. They intend to make the horse’s skin irritated, so the boots and chains touching them make them pick up their legs higher. They want them a bit “sore”, not blistered/open sores. When they get blisters, it is more of an oops, but one that in the past has been overlooked.

I don’t see a difference, except for that over the years, they have become complacent about it, and used more agressive things which are more likely to cause an “oops” open wound. If you turn a blind eye to “minor cheating” you become an enabler, and don’t be upset when the “training methods” get worse.

What ever happened to having a horse be ridden as their natural talent and non-abusive training allows? :([/QUOTE]

First of all, I never said anything about what the TWH people intend as far as blistering goes. I was distinguishing use of a substance with the effect of actually blistering, injuring, or otherwise causing pain to the horse for the purpose of enhancing performance with use of the same or other methods for therapeutic or benign purposes. (And as far TWH abuses, at least the worst examples of those are so horrific that they really are not analogous to anything we are discussing here). I do not condone cheating in any form. As I said, that approach would not fly in my barn because I believe in complying with the rules, and I also believe that if you don’t like the rules, you find a way to get them changed rather than cheat.

But I am not going to lump someone who uses Equiblock to relieve muscle fatigue with someone who schools a horse with a pitchfork (NOT that I have ever seen that, but it was referenced in a Jean Slaughter Doty fictitious novel I read when I was a kid). The consequences may very well be the same – a rule violation is a rule violation. But I do not believe the FEI rules are in the best interest of the horses as currently written. I DO think horses should be permitted some therapeutic medications – not ones that would render an otherwise lame horse fit to show, but ones that would make a horse that would pass the vet check more comfortable.

As for levels of abuses, we ALL make distinctions by virtue of the fact we ride, jump, and show these horses at all. Many would argue that showjumping is per se cruel. Afterall, it does require a certain amount of physical exertion, and definitely poses an increased risk of injury over simply grazing in a paddock. And I am sure if asked, at least half the horses in my barn would vote for carrots, pats, and unlimited turnout over hopping on a van, getting gussied up, and jumping a course or cantering around in 20 meter circles.

#269

I have no problem with giving a horse a bit of bute to keep an older guy comfortable. If a 9 year old needs it, I would seriously change what their job is. Banamine is another story, as it will definitely cover up a chronically lame horse.

Since many reports of Equiblock are so different in the reactions, and it seems to be fairly common for soring type training, the possibility of abuse is there. A drug test can’t tell if it was used to improve circulation to the back, or to make the horse’s skin irritated to jump more carefully. I totally agree that it needs to be a zero tolerance for that type substance.

As for the poling, I would also find another job for a horse with a poor jumping style, rather than try to sharpen them up using those methods.

#270

[QUOTE=Fairview Horse Center;3468092]
A drug test can’t tell if it was used to improve circulation to the back, or to make the horse’s skin irritated to jump more carefully. [/QUOTE]

Just out of curiosity, what is thermography supposed to test? Wouldn’t that pick up heat in the legs? My saddle fitter uses some kind of thermography to detect pressure points from saddles.

RE the bute issue, I see your point but think it is a little unfair to draw age distinctions. For example (assuming the rules were revised), would it be less appropriate to give bute to a 9 year old showing GP than to a 15 year old that is showing in the 3 ft children’s hunters and is in light training (and has never been in anything more than relatively light training). Is that 9 year old somehow inherently less sound than the other? I would doubt it.

#271

Thermography is intended to pick up abnormal heat on horses’ legs. I don’t know if they used it in Hong Kong, but it would certainly have put this particular group of cases to rest as far as intent.

#272

[QUOTE=lauriep;3468178]
Thermography is intended to pick up abnormal heat on horses’ legs. I don’t know if they used it in Hong Kong, but it would certainly have put this particular group of cases to rest as far as intent.[/QUOTE]

I have no idea - no one does except the riders and their people - of what the intent was, but for drug testing purposes it doesn’t matter. The rules are strict liability. If the horses tested positive, they’re qualified regardless of the intent. I suppose if the riders wanted to protect their reputations they could have perhaps requested the thermography but hindsight is 20-20. I agree with those who have said nothing is black-and-white in real life, but the rules are. And I think they are a little Draconian.

#273

[QUOTE=Spoilsport;3468206]
I have no idea - no one does except the riders and their people - of what the intent was, but for drug testing purposes it doesn’t matter. The rules are strict liability. If the horses tested positive, they’re qualified regardless of the intent. I suppose if the riders wanted to protect their reputations they could have perhaps requested the thermography but hindsight is 20-20. I agree with those who have said nothing is black-and-white in real life, but the rules are. And I think they are a little Draconian.[/QUOTE]

I don’t think anyone was suggesting that intent would be a factor in whether the particular instances at the Olympics constitute violations. Rather, we were more broadly discussing how the FEI might in the future be able to do some linedrawing to allow a substance to be used for some purposes but not others.

Also, in terms of preserving the riders’ reputations (and that of the sport generally), I do think that it is helpful if they have tests that pinpoint the way something was used. Even though it may nonetheless be a violation, I think people feel differently about someone who tries to game the system and/or intentionally harms the horse than they do about someone who makes a mistake related to therapeutic uses of a substance – even if the mistake was dumb or whatever.

#274

[QUOTE=Fairview Horse Center;3468092]
I have no problem with giving a horse a bit of bute to keep an older guy comfortable. If a 9 year old needs it, I would seriously change what their job is. Banamine is another story, as it will definitely cover up a chronically lame horse. [/QUOTE]

Gosh I am not even 30 yet and require a certain amount of tylenol and advil to get through comfortably. Does that mean I should retire now? That is one of the most ridiculous and ignorant statements I have heard. Giving a horse a mild non steroidal anti inflammatory does not constitute a serious job change. God forbid we want the animals to feel good each and every day. I for one don’t want them waking up with a sore neck or sore back like I do everyday. I think a normal dose of either bute or banamine 12 hours prior to showing (just as our governing body allows) is acceptable practice without warranting a career change for the horses. It certainly does not take a lame horse and make it sound. Sure it might be a different scenario if they could walk around all night and stretch their legs, but they are locked in a 12 x 12 stall at a horse show. Lets get some perspective please.

#275

http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=10896

<<The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) recently approved new measures to ensure the legs of high-level jumping horses are not being intentionally sensitized to pain in order to provide a competitive advantage. Beginning in 2008, official veterinarians will be employing heat-sensing equipment and examining legs for evidence of this abuse. >>

#276

So what do you think the odds are of the FEI (or anyone) being able to write rules that can distinguish between “dumb” mistakes and intentional cheating?

If you write “grey” rules for this grey world, you will get grey results. No one will have any idea who is dumb and who is cheating. Heck, you likely won’t catch anyone.

I don’t like the zero tolerance rules. But they seem to be necessary at the moment. How it works now (at least in the last 4 years or so) is to catch everything (at least those who are tested) and punish, but absolve of intent, those who were “dumb”. Certainly this isn’t the best case, but it isn’t the worst either. I am interested in the policies you all would propose that wouldn’t cause more problems than they solve. And FWIW, I think the current USEF policy does cause more problems than it solves.

Maybe we should be looking at those who tested clean? It seems it can be done. Are these horses not receiving the care they deserve? Or are they just better suited for this level of competition?

SCFarm

#277

Um, Wow. Maybe we should be looking at that. Maybe if our horses weren’t living in a 9 x 10 show stall 6 days a week, they wouldn’t need NSAIDs. Or Ulcergard. Or the dozen other things we give them to keep them “healthy” in today’s show circuit?

25 years ago we had a fraction of the crap we have now, and somehow horses managed to stay healthy and sound. Of course they didn’t live on the road and competed a fraction of the time they do now. Come on, isn’t this getting beyond ridiculous?

No one can afford this anymore. And I am not talking about the money. This is all starting to come to a head. Starting with eventing, but it’s coming on all of us. Wake up and smell the coffee.

SCFarm

#278

I’ve never heard that Banamine can cover up a chronic, serious lameness any more than Bute will. Is that true?

And a question for jumper riders - what do you think of the this burning thing?? I admit I’d heard of it as a reference to something that went on in the 70’s with gasoline but I never saw it. The closest thing I saw to it was a groom stabled next to me getting a horse ready for a GP and splashing rubbing alcohol on his legs. The horse had a cricket score that night. Thinking of the horses I showed, I imagine that if I’d put something caustic on their legs before riding they would have been so distracted by and focused on the irritation that they would have lost rideability and been prone to going through jumps or stopping. As focused and rideable as jumpers have to be, it seems like a counterproductive thing to do.

[quote=canyonoak;3468368]http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=10896

<<The Fédération Equestre Internationale (FEI) recently approved new measures to ensure the legs of high-level jumping horses are not being intentionally sensitized to pain in order to provide a competitive advantage. Beginning in 2008, official veterinarians will be employing heat-sensing equipment and examining legs for evidence of this abuse. >>
[/quote]

So that should mean that the Olympic horses were scanned. It was pointed out in the doping thread that EquiBlock contains 0.025% capsaicin. That sounds like such a tiiiiny amount, and doubly so since it’s a topical. How did enough get into the bloodstreams of more than 25% of the horses tested to come up positive? Something just doesn’t sit right about those results.

#279

[QUOTE=CoolMeadows;3468433]
I’ve never heard that Banamine can cover up a chronic, serious lameness any more than Bute will. Is that true?

And a question for jumper riders - what do you think of the this burning thing?? I admit I’d heard of it as a reference to something that went on in the 70’s with gasoline but I never saw it. The closest thing I saw to it was a groom stabled next to me getting a horse ready for a GP and splashing rubbing alcohol on his legs. The horse had a cricket score that night. Thinking of the horses I showed, I imagine that if I’d put something caustic on their legs before riding they would have been so distracted by and focused on the irritation that they would have lost rideability and been prone to going through jumps or stopping. As focused and rideable as jumpers have to be, it seems like a counterproductive thing to do.[/QUOTE]

Burning still goes on, more than anyone thinks. Just not with gasoline.
I personally have never seen it done, but have spoken with people personally (friends, people who HAVE and are currently working on the jumper circuit) about it here recently that say “Where have you been??? Everyone has done this…”
Counter productive? or not? That. Is. The. Question.
Just a quote from someone on another BB about this burning method:
"You put it on the horses shins. Add a little water before you leave the barn and head to the ring… and get the fire extinguisher ready… those legs are HOT, HOT, HOT!!! Makes them very sensitive so the horses jump cleaner. "

#280

[QUOTE=LLDM;3468416]
Um, Wow. Maybe we should be looking at that. Maybe if our horses weren’t living in a 9 x 10 show stall 6 days a week, they wouldn’t need NSAIDs. Or Ulcergard. Or the dozen other things we give them to keep them “healthy” in today’s show circuit?

25 years ago we had a fraction of the crap we have now, and somehow horses managed to stay healthy and sound. Of course they didn’t live on the road and competed a fraction of the time they do now. Come on, isn’t this getting beyond ridiculous?

No one can afford this anymore. And I am not talking about the money. This is all starting to come to a head. Starting with eventing, but it’s coming on all of us. Wake up and smell the coffee.

SCFarm[/QUOTE]

If you don’t like it don’t show. You can put an end to it very quickly. I do for one think horses are entitled to have a normal dose of something comparative to tylenol or advil when they jump 6 rounds at the olympics in the course of a week. And yes, they are standing around in stalls, not moving around all that much. Wake up and smell the coffee? what are you talking about? Things are not as they were 20 years ago. People do sometimes go overboard with “the care” of their horses, but there are just as many people showing their horses 15 times a year as there are 52. You can’t condemn the whole crowd. I think you missed the point in its entirety.

Get your Digital Subscription here - only $21.95 / year

Subscribe here
See gift options

Sign up to our monthly newsletter!

By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.

Copyright © 2023 The Chronicle of the Horse