I don’t see the problem with treating a colicking horse. Yes, you have to withdraw the animal from competition.
But wouldn’t that be commonsense any road–that a sick horse wouldn’t likely be ready to take on international level competition?
Yes, yes, damn shame, disappointment, etc., but if the welfare of the horse was the main concern, withdrawing from the competition and treating would seem like a no-brainer.
Yankee Lawyer and Ghazzu - I agree with both of you. That Authentic thing is unreal. To intentionally risk the life of a horse of that caliber for the Olympics? No way.
Don’t forget about Little Big Man’s colic at the Pan Am: http://special.equisearch.com/blog/horsehealth/2007/07/little-big-man-makes-big-comeback-at.html
Of course, in these instances the horses don’t go in the ring unless the team vet and chef think they are up to it. No one wants to field a sub-par horse and put either the horse or the team placings in danger. However, I certainly wouldn’t want to be put in a position where I had to choose between treating a horse for illness and letting down the team, the chef, the horse’s owner…if it’s your horse and you are riding for yourself that’s one thing, but the problem is way more complicated when other people are involved and the repercussions of your decision could be huge for everyone. That’s why I would like to see there be more options for emergency treatment, I think it would benefit the horses and make decisions clearer.
I don’t disagree. I’m one of those people. As a matter of fact, my horse is one of those horses. But the really important thing to remember here is - at least in the case of me, my horse, and by your description - you as well … we were not exactly fit for much other than PAYING ATTENTION TO THE IRRITATION. Can you see where this is not helpful when face with WC or olympic size jumps? We likes them aware and utterly focused when jumping through a triple the likes of some seen in those courses.
So yes, some horses undoubtedly do have a severe reaction to equi-block. No doubt. It’s just they probably aren’t very good at their jobs if it bothers them that much. I don’t think you make it to the top of the world standings on that kind of progam - I think you get a world class stopper, not a world class athlete, but that’s just my thoughts on the matter.
I don’t think this has been posted yet.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/olympicsNews/idUKPEK30997520080823
What a shame. 
Nor would I, but if the line were firmly drawn between “best for the team/owner/chef” and “best for the horse” it ought to be pretty clear, even if it were a real bitch to have to make the call.
[QUOTE=lauriep;3465959]
My take on Melanie’s statement wasn’t that it WAS being used for that, but that it COULD be, and that is why this substance was being tested for. As in, explaining to the general public why such a supposedly benign substance would be interesting to the testers.[/QUOTE]
In the broadcast that I heard, she didn’t mention that the substance was capsaicin; she said only that they had tested positive for a substance that is used to burn the horse’s legs to make them jump higher.
By the way, I remember quite a lot of lame horses 25 years ago sidelined with various forms of arthritis and navicular. I am not in quite the same situation as I was then, but I would say that we have a lot more options and that horses are sounder today. We have better footing and we have better options for treatment.
Of course, I lived in California, where we have always had minimal turnout and hard, dry ground and no grass pasture, so the horses never got any downtime here on the left coast. Perhaps the perspective from the East coast, with grass and snow, is different.
[QUOTE=Ghazzu;3469568]
Nor would I, but if the line were firmly drawn between “best for the team/owner/chef” and “best for the horse” it ought to be pretty clear, even if it were a real bitch to have to make the call.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. If I am ever fortunate enough to own a horse of that caliber, the rider darn well better put the horse’s welfare first or he/she won’t know what has hit him/her. I can’t believe there is even any question about this.
Maybe I missed this in the thread somewhere, but has there been any sort of definitive explanation as to how a topically applied product can end up in the blood stream?
And just how is it that a company whose product contains an ingredient that is on the banned list can claim it “will not test”. That seems like a very dangerous claim to make.
And how it can be acceptable to have such different testing standards. If I were Mr. Lynch I would want a B sample from the voluntary testing tested at the HK lab. If it also tested postive I would be Very Pissed Off Indeed.
I appreciate that in these types of regulatory frameworks tribunals like the FEI will apply “absolute liability” (i.e. your intent is irrelevant) otherwise enforcing anything would be chaos.
However, I think the competitor needs to able to rely on the fact that any lab used by the FEI would produce the same results. I am no scientist, so for all I know that is impossible, but if that is the case then the drug regulations need some serious re-thinking.
Is this actually what she said??? What a ridiculously inflammatory, irresponsible and dumb@ss thing to say. Don’t list any of the normal reasons it could have been used, pick the most out there, snowballs-chance-in-hell one that viewers will remember and just talk about that.
If that’s really what she said, someone should fire her for being an idiot. :no:
[QUOTE=Mozart;3471078]
Maybe I missed this in the thread somewhere, but has there been any sort of definitive explanation as to how a topically applied product can end up in the blood stream?
And just how is it that a company whose product contains an ingredient that is on the banned list can claim it “will not test”. That seems like a very dangerous claim to make.
And how it can be acceptable to have such different testing standards. If I were Mr. Lynch I would want a B sample from the voluntary testing tested at the HK lab. If it also tested postive I would be Very Pissed Off Indeed.
I appreciate that in these types of regulatory frameworks tribunals like the FEI will apply “absolute liability” (i.e. your intent is irrelevant) otherwise enforcing anything would be chaos.
However, I think the competitor needs to able to rely on the fact that any lab used by the FEI would produce the same results. I am no scientist, so for all I know that is impossible, but if that is the case then the drug regulations need some serious re-thinking.[/QUOTE]
The skin is a permeable barrier; if you put sunscreen on your skin compounds in the sunscreen do enter your bloodstream.
I agree that there are still a lot of questions to be answered about drug-testing in equine events.
[QUOTE=flshgordon;3471705]
Is this actually what she said??? What a ridiculously inflammatory, irresponsible and dumb@ss thing to say. Don’t list any of the normal reasons it could have been used, pick the most out there, snowballs-chance-in-hell one that viewers will remember and just talk about that.
If that’s really what she said, someone should fire her for being an idiot. :no:[/QUOTE]
I won’t say she’s an idiot, but that is what she said. Not that it could be used for that or that it might be used for that, but that it is. With no mention of the other ways people use it therapeutically in linaments and what not. The average viewer would take away from the broadcast that the only use for capsaican is so that riders can intentionally cause pain to their horses.
Perhaps NBC edited other comments?
[QUOTE=Mozart;3471078]
However, I think the competitor needs to able to rely on the fact that any lab used by the FEI would produce the same results. I am no scientist, so for all I know that is impossible, but if that is the case then the drug regulations need some serious re-thinking.[/QUOTE]
The Hong Kong laboratory is reputed to be the most sensitive in the world and the only one that can detect capsaicin to this level of sensitivity. There are some good articles on the other thread.
I personally think it is problematic that all the labs have different thresholds of sensitivity. If I were in charge I might elect to have a behind the scenes threshold for positive from the better labs, and monitor the low levels as data/intelligence.
The way she said it, between all the other comments, I would bet that virtually no non-horse person would be able to figure out what she meant. I barely caught it and was listening carefully. The instance I heard, she named it and said either it “could” be used or “was” used to sensitize the skin to make them jump higher.
After you, counselor. :yes::winkgrin:
That’s what I heard as well.
Actually, Laurie, the very next day I was approached by no less than 5 completely non-horsey lawyers at my office who asked me point blank if a lot of people cheated by using capsaicin to burn their horses legs, and they asked me what capsaicin was. I was really surprised that any of these people were following the equestrian coverage at all, and some said they watched because they always see photos of my horses at work and were curious about the sport (others talk about their kids :)). I did explain the various possible uses of it, but the impression they had gotten was that it was only used for burning.
[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3462392]
Hey Ridgeback - -this must be a complete lie, as we know a groom would never do such a thing.[/QUOTE]
Yep it must be:lol:
Jse writes, YankeeLawyer - Ridgeback is full of herself isn’t she?
I didn’t even go back and read her responses to what I wrote in the McLain thread yesterday cause it wasn’t even worth it."
:lol::lol::lol::lol:hmmmm now who is full of themselves…:lol::lol:
