Menu

Stay in Touch
Sign up for ENews
Subscribe Now

Unlimited access >

Menu

What is Capsaicin?

Archives 2018 World Equestrian Games
#361

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;3476648]
Personally, I’m with the folks who would like to see minimum thresholds vs. any detectable level, at least for some things. But right now, it is what it is. Follow the rules, get nailed, or don’t play in their sandbox.[/QUOTE]

I like this too :smiley: !!! The rules may suck (I’ve already said I think they are draconian) but they’re the rules.

The flip side of “why would they test for such a harmless substance?” is “why is so hard to become familiar with the rules and not use this harmless substance during the Olympics?” I mean, really, if it’s such an innocuous substance, how much difference could it have made not to use it?

An Oldenburg Mom is right on. It’s not just about drugs. How about the dressage rider who forgot to drop the whip before going into a GP test (I can’t remember where, but it recently happened), or the eventer who was DQ-d for the “too heavy” boots, or the showjumper who went through the starting flag twice?

#362

[QUOTE=Oldenburg Mom;3476664]
This is a great expression for a LOT of horse-show situations, e.g., those that complain about rules, closing deadlines, judges, facilities, etc. etc. etc. If you want to play with the big boys, guess what? There needs to be a level playing field so you care competing equally. You don’t like it? Don’t go.

Ghazzu, mind if I steal your line for my signature? Of course, I’ll give you credit…[/QUOTE]

I completely agree that one must abide by the rules. With respect to the FEI regulations, however, the drafting is poor and could be made more clear – even if the FEI never wants to make any substantive change from its zero tolerance policy. In addition, the only way to IMPROVE things is to discuss pros and cons and consider ways that things might be made better, and then pursue whatever process is available to effectuate change. I do not agree that people, when confronted with shortcomings in a system, should just shrug and say oh well, it has always been that way. Sure, while it is that way, they have to abide by the rules in place, like it or not. But that does not mean that it is wrong to try to change the system.

#363

[QUOTE=Spoilsport;3476914]

An Oldenburg Mom is right on. It’s not just about drugs. How about the dressage rider who forgot to drop the whip before going into a GP test (I can’t remember where, butecently happened), or the eventer who was DQ-d for the “too heavy” boots, or the showjumper who went through the starting flag twice?[/QUOTE]

I am not familiar with the specific wording of the whip rules, but as for the boots (Phillip Dutton) and the double-crossing of the start line (Bettina), the rules they violated were clear cut, plain as day, and although unfortunate (a major bummer), there is no question in my mind that they should have been DQ’d. I do not believe that the FEI regulations clearly prohibit capsaicin, and discussed this at some length on the other thread so I am not going to repeat the reasons here. If people think I am advocating breaking the rules, or sitting around and whining about things and not taking action, they have completely missed my point.

One other thing. I really cannot stand that the instant an A sample comes back positive, people immediately condemn that competitor and label him/her a cheater (e.g., Germany making Ahlmann repay all Olympics-related expenses for his horse). That is only the first step in the FEI’s process. They DO at least have some process in place to investigate and adjudicate these issues. So I really wish people would at least recognize when investigations are still pending, and at least wait until appeals are exhausted before condemning the competitors.

#364

so do you feel it is appropriate to send all these people home, and not allow them to finish the comp?.. I just feel it very odd that all these horses tested to the same substance…vergng on entrapment?..If a b sample came back negative, what on earth would happen to the results of the comp?

#365

I wouldn’t consider it entrapment if someone used something prohibited simply because they didn’t think they’d get caught.

Truly. I was aghasted at the reaction of the BNTs the year that the (then) AHSA nailed so many of them for reserpine.
Not ashamed so much as outraged they weren’t told it now tested…

As far as the immediate suspension, I’d guess that TPTB decided it was the lesser of two evils from their perspective–preferable to awarding a gold medal and then having to rescind it, and having the resulting bad PR, as well as depriving the final winner of their chance to stand on the top of the podium…

Again, I’m perfectly willing to believe that those people caought in this mess were using capscacin for it’s beneficial effects, and not to hypersensitize. That still doesn’t make it “legal”.
Same way Beerbaum wasn’t using the steroid cream with nefarious intent.
He got DQed any road.

#366

Ghazzu: In your opinion, is capsaicin a pain-reliever? Because if so, it is prohibited as a Medication Class A under the clearly stated rules.

Let’s forget the hyper-sensitization issue for the moment. Is it a pain-reliever?

#367

Science says “yes”.

#368

I really don’t understand why you think the words “zero tolerance” are not clear. Using any substance that could gain an advantage in performance is NOT legal. If they were not trying to gain an advantage in some form then they wouldn’t need to use it, now would they?

The fact is “they” thought it wouldn’t test. And they were caught. Just because you got away with it once, doesn’t mean it was legal to use.

Would I prefer the legal use to substances that make a horse more comfortable, of course. But the moment you allow some substance you open the door for abuse of that substance.

They only way to keep the playing field as even as possible is a zero tolerance policy.

We can “wouldn’t it be nice…” all day, but that fact is they make the rules and we have to play by them, or don’t play.

I would prefer to have a zero tolerance policy and know that we are all treated the same, then have the powers that be make rules or bend rules, just because you are so and so.

#369

Be my guest. :smiley:

#370

Adequan, legend anyone? Perfectly legal, but with withdrawal times. Those withdrawal times just do not negate the performace advantage those drugs bring to the table. Zero tolerance does not mean that no drugs are ever used to gain an advantage in performance. That is simply not true and misleading to say as much. And we aren’t even disussing the more sophisitacated therapy machines or even shockwave therapy, which is a hell of a lot more effective than some OTC equi-block. You can wish that it’s a black and white issue, but wishin’ just don’t make it so.

Look, capsaican is clearly listed as prohibited from a USEF perspective, but as far as we know, no such general guidance exists in print for the FEI. If you were a USEF member and you realize the USEF rules are more generous than FEI guidelines, you come with a ready made advantage to know it was not the smartest idea to think that a very dilute level of topical capsaican that had never tested positive before was not going to test positive someday. But if you are from another country, what exactly is your guideline? That same substance in a supplement makes the coat back. Under what pipe dream are shiny black coats considered performance enhancing?

Without some sort of clear guidelines and rule methodology on the part of the FEI, it has become abundantly clear that this ends up feeling like a game of gotcha than any real attempt to make it a fairly adjudicated rule that is clearly understood by all, otherwise we wouldn’t keep finding ourrselves starring in the same bad movie every 4 years. Sure, yes capsaican is banned, but the point most everyone here is making is maybe it’s time for the FEI to put on their big boy pants and take some accountability for a process that seems to be poorly understood by everybody involved? At some point, THAT burden ceases to be solely on the competitors and starts looking a lot more like piss poor rule structure or interpretation or execution or something on the part of the governing body.

THe BEST hope for a level playing field is a well written rule, fair and consistant adjudication of that rule, a universal standard for testing and some type of sunshine requirement on these cases (meaning publish the details of the case at some point). Without that it seems like there’s very little fair about this playing field

#371

Say you’re fielding an FEI squad.
You hire professional coaches.
You hire excellent sportsmedicine-oriented equine veterinarians.
Both are, presumably, able to read the rulebook.
Both know that they compete under a no foreign substances rule.

Don’t you think they’d have the basic sense to look at every list that is published, be it FEI or USEF, or hell, the WWF to see what substances might cause problems?

If not, there are a lot of people that should probably lose their jobs.

#372

… and yet WHY can’t the FEI do its competitors the small favor of well written, accessible understandable rules?

Maybe they should have the basic sense to find those USEF guidelines which judging by the sheer number of questions about Rx on this BB, said guidelines are still a well kept secret, but the point is, WHY? I imagine it costs no small amount to play in the FEI’s sandbox if one is to judge by the USEF fees I pay every year, so WHY shouldn’t competitors expect a small degree of service out of them in something as baseline as the rules?

But I do agree, someone should be considered inept at their job, I’m just not sure it is entirely on the competitors’ side. :smiley:

#373

[QUOTE=DMK;3478746]
Adequan, legend anyone? Perfectly legal, but with withdrawal times. Those withdrawal times just do not negate the performace advantage those drugs bring to the table. Zero tolerance does not mean that no drugs are ever used to gain an advantage in performance. That is simply not true and misleading to say as much. And we aren’t even disussing the more sophisitacated therapy machines or even shockwave therapy, which is a hell of a lot more effective than some OTC equi-block. You can wish that it’s a black and white issue, but wishin’ just don’t make it so.

Look, capsaican is clearly listed as prohibited from a USEF perspective, but as far as we know, no such general guidance exists in print for the FEI. If you were a USEF member and you realize the USEF rules are more generous than FEI guidelines, you come with a ready made advantage to know it was not the smartest idea to think that a very dilute level of topical capsaican that had never tested positive before was not going to test positive someday. But if you are from another country, what exactly is your guideline? That same substance in a supplement makes the coat back. Under what pipe dream are shiny black coats considered performance enhancing?

Without some sort of clear guidelines and rule methodology on the part of the FEI, it has become abundantly clear that this ends up feeling like a game of gotcha than any real attempt to make it a fairly adjudicated rule that is clearly understood by all, otherwise we wouldn’t keep finding ourrselves starring in the same bad movie every 4 years. Sure, yes capsaican is banned, but the point most everyone here is making is maybe it’s time for the FEI to put on their big boy pants and take some accountability for a process that seems to be poorly understood by everybody involved? At some point, THAT burden ceases to be solely on the competitors and starts looking a lot more like piss poor rule structure or interpretation or execution or something on the part of the governing body.

THe BEST hope for a level playing field is a well written rule, fair and consistant adjudication of that rule, a universal standard for testing and some type of sunshine requirement on these cases (meaning publish the details of the case at some point). Without that it seems like there’s very little fair about this playing field[/QUOTE]

Good post, DMK.

#374

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;3478795]
Say you’re fielding an FEI squad.
You hire professional coaches.
You hire excellent sportsmedicine-oriented equine veterinarians.
Both are, presumably, able to read the rulebook.
Both know that they compete under a no foreign substances rule.

Don’t you think they’d have the basic sense to look at every list that is published, be it FEI or USEF, or hell, the WWF to see what substances might cause problems?

If not, there are a lot of people that should probably lose their jobs.[/QUOTE]

Ghazzu, respectfully, they need to read the rules that are governing the competition in which they are competing and abide by those. It would actually be impossible, in some instances, to comply with all rules of multiple federations because inevitably there will be some conflict between the rules. And just how many languages are the competitors and their connections supposed to speak fluently in order to read all these foreign regulations?

In addition, there is the problem that technically ANY substance can be deemed prohibited because of the way the FEI rules are drafted. ANY substance. Not just topical creams, lotions, potions, or cocktails. In the specific instances at the recent Olympics, yes, at least 2 riders knowingly used a cream that contained something that might be considered banned under the rules (and it is the FEI’s position that it is). But that does not take away from the fact that they could also have gotten flagged for feeding their horses something as innocuous as menthol peppermints. Menthol is just as much a pain-relieving substance as capsaicin. Or feed containing magnesium (a calmant). Or hay containing traces of lavender or chamomile.

There is also the issue that withdrawal times vary from horse to horse.

Finally, even if you were to read every rule ever published in any language since the dawn of time, and give your horses only fresh air and sunshine (but not sunburn, because that would be a hypersensitizing agent), you STILL could be found to have violated the rules because of some transfer from a stall, another horse, a third party, or some unfortunate scenario like that involving Mythilus.

Being vigilant is the minimum to be expected of competitors, to be sure, but all the vigilance in the world is not going to keep you 100% safe from a finding that you violated the rules.

For these reasons, the phrase “zero tolerance” is rather meaningless. It just means the FEI reserves the right to find a violation for any of the listed banned substances, as well as essentially anything else they feel like, regardless of whether they gave adequate notice of the prohibition in advance.

#375

Adequan, legend anyone? Perfectly legal, but with withdrawal times. Those withdrawal times just do not negate the performace advantage those drugs bring to the table. Zero tolerance does not mean that no drugs are ever used to gain an advantage in performance. That is simply not true and misleading to say as much. And we aren’t even disussing the more sophisitacated therapy machines or even shockwave therapy, which is a hell of a lot more effective than some OTC equi-block.

Question that is relatively unrelated to the subject, but I’ve had enough of searching the exceedingly slow, oddly phrased, and ill-arranged FEI site these week: did you find actual withdrawal times for Adequan and Legend? I thought the only indication was that you couldn’t give them during the actual competition, which I figured relates more to the ban on needles than anything. But I know there are parts of the FEI site into which I may have not ventured. Shockwave I do know may not be given closer than five days before the start of a competition.

#376

[QUOTE=CBoylen;3479208]
Question that is relatively unrelated to the subject, but I’ve had enough of searching the exceedingly slow, oddly phrased, and ill-arranged FEI site these week: did you find actual withdrawal times for Adequan and Legend? I thought the only indication was that you couldn’t give them during the actual competition, which I figured relates more to the ban on needles than anything. But I know there are parts of the FEI site into which I may have not ventured. Shockwave I do know may not be given closer than five days before the start of a competition.[/QUOTE]

CBoylen, I am not sure what the active ingredients are of those products but this appears to be the most recently updated chart showing withdrawal times of the substances for which the FEI provides that info:

Detection times (updated June 2008):
http://www.fei.org/Athletes_AND_Horses/Medication_Control_AND_Antidoping/Horses/Documents/Detection%20Times%20website%2005062008.pdf

Here is a link to a June 2008 Press Release re the Medicine Box:

http://www.fei.org/Athletes_AND_Horses/Medication_Control_AND_Antidoping/Horses/Documents/Medication%20Box%20website%205%20June%202008.pdf

And here is a link to more links with drug reg info:

http://www.fei.org/Athletes_AND_Horses/Medication_Control_AND_Antidoping/Horses/Pages/Information.aspx

#377

IMHO, part of the problem is that scientists can now detect incredibly small amounts of a chemical compound. If the definition of “positive” is any amount it’s going to get to the point where almost everyone/every horse is positive for something. Somewhat, but not exactly, like the fact that something like 80% of dollar bills contain traces of cocaine (source: Snopes), much of which apparently comes not from direct contact with the chemical, but via indirect contact (contaminated dollar bill goes thru sorting machine; subsequent dollar bills thru machine become contaminated).

Then there is the issue of Lab A which can detect molecule X at yyy level, whereas lab B can detect molecule X at only 10 times yyy level. If samples, even from different events, go to both labs is this really a level playing field?

One solution to both issues is to establish thresholds, much like USEF has done. They can be low, but should not be lower (at a minimum) than the lowest level detectable at any of the available labs.

#378

[QUOTE=Peggy;3479273]
IMHO, part of the problem is that scientists can now detect incredibly small amounts of a chemical compound. [/QUOTE]

Yes, and imagine how difficult it is to control 100% a horse’s environment at a horse show.

#379

I think this is the crux of the matter. We’re now able to determine pee in the ocean.

However, there are some substances, which there is absolutely no legitimate reason to be using up close to a competition, that I wouldn’t be too upset to see prohibited in any amount whatsoever(fluphenazine and reserpine come to mind as examples here). Others, with a prior D&M report similar to USEF, trace amounts wouldn’t bother me.

But I’m not holding my breath for this–coming up with what constitutes trace amounts with no therapeutic effect is going to be a long, expensive, and likely ugly process.

#380

[QUOTE=Ghazzu;3479528]
I think this is the crux of the matter. We’re now able to determine pee in the ocean.

However, there are some substances, which there is absolutely no legitimate reason to be using up close to a competition, that I wouldn’t be too upset to see prohibited in any amount whatsoever(fluphenazine and reserpine come to mind as examples here). Others, with a prior D&M report similar to USEF, trace amounts wouldn’t bother me.

But I’m not holding my breath for this–coming up with what constitutes trace amounts with no therapeutic effect is going to be a long, expensive, and likely ugly process.[/QUOTE]

I agree. I think it would be particularly difficult also because different horses metabolize things differently.

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