What is Capsaicin?

[DMK]

Cboylen - no, I didn’t find anything relating to those substance, but for the sake of brevity, when you walk that horse in the FEI tent you are officially starting your withdrawal phase.

Ghazzu, I totally agree. There are some things that never need to be there, but between wraplast, equi-block, black as knight, magic hoof and heating up legs, it sure loooks like the FEI stepped in a pile of something with this latest kerfluffle!

Of course on the issue of chemical wrapping, thanks to the TWH folks, we have pretty good machine technology that identifies the problem at the source and the moment. It truly begs the question WHY didn’t they use it if they felt like there was an issue with rapping? My secret suspicion is someone at the HK lab who was justifiably proud of their lab’s detecting abilities got all excited and said “oooh, you don’t need that! I have a test!” and then everyone got all excited about the science in the way that geeks do (I’m totally guilty) and then when the Law of Unintended Consequences made a guest appearance no one paid any attention when she sat down at the table and settled in. She’s sneaky like that. No one ever notices her until the party is well and truly rocking.

But hey, that’s just me speculating.

[YankeeLawyer]

@DMK;3479603

then when the Law of Unintended Consequences made a guest appearance no one paid any attention when she sat down at the table and settled in. She’s sneaky like that. No one ever notices her until the party is well and truly rocking.

Lawyers notice ; ). Unfortunately, sometimes people won’t listen until the most egregious examples of unfairness materialize.

[DMK]

So do compliance people, unfortunately (or fortunately now that I am in product development and OUT of compliance) they tend to keep those types out of the room while brilliant decisions are hatched.

But to be fair, the BEST people I have ever seen for catching unintended consequences before they happen are almost never the chiefs or their lawyers. It’s almost always some indian sitting in the back of the room that knows more shit about the process and all the participants than the lawyers or chiefs could ever dream about (although they usually fancy they know quite a bit). Anyone who has ever worked in corporate america knows I speak truth to power.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=DMK;3479679]
So do compliance people, unfortunately (or fortunately now that I am in product development and OUT of compliance) they tend to keep those types out of the room while brilliant decisions are hatched.

But to be fair, the BEST people I have ever seen for catching unintended consequences before they happen are almost never the chiefs or their lawyers. It’s almost always some indian sitting in the back of the room that knows more shit about the process and all the participants than the lawyers or chiefs could ever dream about (although they usually fancy they know quite a bit). Anyone who has ever worked in corporate america knows I speak truth to power. :D[/QUOTE]

Then they need to hire better lawyers ;). And yes, it is important to listen to the people who actually are in the frontlines in terms of manufacture, etc.

[DMK]

Lawyers are like everything else, there’s good ones, bad ones, lazy ones, motivated ones, useful ones and useless ones. The day you sit back and wait for your lawyers (good or otherwise) to tell you about the unintended consequences or your best plan of action, is the day they start the death watch on your company. It’s about teamwork and participation from everyone, not waiting for one person or department to spoon feed you the answer. As soon as one department is called on for that role they get a case of a big head and a overindulged sense of power. That never ends well for all involved, least of all the lawyers (see Shakespeare ). Balance, baby, balance and harmony.

Don’t limit yourself to manufacturing - there’s process everywhere, and limiting it to manufacture ignores the vast majority of bidness - service and technology. So much detailed process going on there it would make your head spin. I once had a flow chart of a contract installation process that could give Lockheed Martin a run for their money on complicated! :lol:

OK, I digress. Unless of course the FEI has fallen into that trap. Here’s suspecting it has.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=DMK;3479747]
Lawyers are like everything else, there’s good ones, bad ones, lazy ones, motivated ones, useful ones and useless ones. The day you sit back and wait for your lawyers (good or otherwise) to tell you about the unintended consequences or your best plan of action, is the day they start the death watch on your company. It’s about teamwork and participation from everyone, not waiting for one person or department to spoon feed you the answer. As soon as one department is called on for that role they get a case of a big head and a overindulged sense of power. That never ends well for all involved, least of all the lawyers (see Shakespeare ). Balance, baby, balance and harmony.

Don’t limit yourself to manufacturing - there’s process everywhere, and limiting it to manufacture ignores the vast majority of bidness - service and technology. So much detailed process going on there it would make your head spin. I once had a flow chart of a contract installation process that could give Lockheed Martin a run for their money on complicated! :lol:

OK, I digress. Unless of course the FEI has fallen into that trap. Here’s suspecting it has. ;)[/QUOTE]

I wasn’t suggesting that anyone wait around for others to do the job they should be doing on a daily basis, or that people should only look to manufacture (I said manufature referring to something referenced in your posts, and said etc to indicate including but not limited to).

But some people have expertise in identifying things like unintended consequences and other risk management issues, and such people are not always in-house. And yes, there are excellent and sucky lawyers out there, and everything in between. I am blessed to work with outstanding colleagues.

Anyway, I was mostly referring to the FEI regulations and my and others’ earlier, exhaustive posts about some of the shortcomings of that system and possible ugly scenarios resulting from it, which were poo-pooed by a number of posters.

[War_Admiral]

Is it really only me who finds the FEI drug rules infinitely more legible/comprehensible than the USEF ones? :lol: They’re written in plain English, not the “this horse was designed by a committee of lawyers and came out a humpbacked camel” legalese of the USEF rules.

I don’t show at rated shows much anymore, but I know when I do, I start going over the USEF D&M rules and what’s in my OTC meds cupboard with a fine-toothed comb MONTHS in advance - and despite doing that, usually a lot more times than once, invariably I end up having to get on the phone w/ USEF to check on the ingredients of one supplement/medication or another.

By contrast the FEI rules seem pretty straightforward, to me. Though I agree w/ DMK that the site is poorly designed.

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=War Admiral;3479799]

By contrast the FEI rules seem pretty straightforward, to me. Though I agree w/ DMK that the site is poorly designed.[/QUOTE]

Given that they can reasonably be construed to ban any substance under the sun including the sun itself, as I have explained exhaustively elsewhere, I do not think they give adequate notice to competitors of what may be banned.

In any event, the proof is in the pudding. Some maintain there is a real cheating problem out there. Do you think the FEI rules and enforcement procedures are catching or deterring those people, or primarily those who inadvertently came into contact with a substance that arguably may or may not be banned?

[Mozart]

@Ghazzu;3478645

Science says “yes”.

Well then there is no reason for it to be there under the current rules.

Quite frankly, I think the ones that should be really embarassed are the team vets that did not ask (presumably) their riders to put on the table everything they have put in or on their horses. Per published sources, Lynch had Equi-Block right there in plain view. Come on.

However, I do agree on the point that serious re-thinking of the rules is in order. I think the FEI is catching the wrong fish.

[War_Admiral]

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3479832]
I do not think they give adequate notice to competitors of what may be banned. [/QUOTE]

Sorry, I disagree. I think they’re way clearer than the USEF rules. And it’s clearly the responsibility of the rider to know what s/he is putting on a horse. I was one of the first to line up at the gate when Equi-Block first came out, and trust me, it came (in those days, not sure about now) with a brochure of about the size of 12 trifold PAGES of fine print talking about the appropriate uses, side-effects, and what exactly it contained/was tested for. If the Capsaicin Clique failed to READ that, and research accordingly with their respective national NGBs and the FEI, it’s hardly the FEI’s problem.

Now: as to whether the FEI testing procedures for this Games were out of whack, I can’t really address that with any expertise and neither can anyone else here. But that’s really a separate issue from whether or not the RULES are unclear. I don’t think they are.

[DMK]

@War Admiral;3479799

I don’t show at rated shows much anymore, but I know when I do, I start going over the USEF D&M rules and what’s in my OTC meds cupboard with a fine-toothed comb MONTHS in advance - and despite doing that, usually a lot more times than once, invariably I end up having to get on the phone w/ USEF to check on the ingredients of one supplement/medication or another.

But at least you DO have a) a list to start with and b) a number to call.

Meanwhile we can’t even establish if there is a withdrawal time for Legend/Adequan other than you better not bring a needle and syringe into the FEI tent. Does this mean the withdrawal time is 24 hours at some FEI competitions and longer at the olympics. I don’t know, do you?

Should you have known capsaican is banned? It seems pretty obvious to those of us who have the luxury of the USEF guidelines, it’s named as a specific prohibited substance. I don’t need to cast value judgmenets on HOW it is used, I just know not to use it. But if the FEI “rules” reason you can’t use it is for its hypersensitivity properties, does it absolutely follow that the person using it to keep a horse from chewing on his bandages or as a topical pain deadener can FAIRLY connect those dots? Sorry, I just don’t see it.

[Mozart]

@DMK;3480085

But at least you DO have a) a list to start with and b) a number to call.

Meanwhile we can’t even establish if there is a withdrawal time for Legend/Adequan other than you better not bring a needle and syringe into the FEI tent. Does this mean the withdrawal time is 24 hours at some FEI competitions and longer at the olympics. I don’t know, do you?

Should you have known capsaican is banned? It seems pretty obvious to those of us who have the luxury of the USEF guidelines, it’s named as a specific prohibited substance. I don’t need to cast value judgmenets on HOW it is used, I just know not to use it. But if the FEI “rules” reason you can’t use it is for its hypersensitivity properties, does it absolutely follow that the person using it to keep a horse from chewing on his bandages or as a topical pain deadener can FAIRLY connect those dots? Sorry, I just don’t see it.

However, I just want to point out again, it is also a pain killer and therefore is banned as a Class A medication. I agree that a chemical test for hypsensitization is not the best route to go, but having it in your horse is also a breach re: rules regarding pain killer. When you (i.e. team vet) read the regs, you have to read the preamble too.

[DMK]

In reading the Class A language, I would be interested from a purely medical and legal structure perspective to see how easily capsaican fits into the defined categories, because I don’t think it sounds like the chemical pathway could necessarily be a local anesthetic (the more obvious choice) if you read what science (or wikipedia, anyway ) says about that specific terminology. If you are arguing this in a lawsuit, is it clearly prohibited? If it acts it much the same way as more intense cold or heat does, to overfire/overstimulate the nerve receptors until they more or less shut down (as others have described in these pages) how does that fit in? What general description can you give it that doesn’t exclude other allowed treatments? Do you win this argument legally?

I’m not sure if it does or does not fall in place on that list, but how f’in difficult would it have been to LIST it is the main point. Would have given the WrapLast crew a fighting chance, don’t you think?

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=War Admiral;3480036]
Sorry, I disagree. I think they’re way clearer than the USEF rules. And it’s clearly the responsibility of the rider to know what s/he is putting on a horse. I was one of the first to line up at the gate when Equi-Block first came out, and trust me, it came (in those days, not sure about now) with a brochure of about the size of 12 trifold PAGES of fine print talking about the appropriate uses, side-effects, and what exactly it contained/was tested for. If the Capsaicin Clique failed to READ that, and research accordingly with their respective national NGBs and the FEI, it’s hardly the FEI’s problem.

Now: as to whether the FEI testing procedures for this Games were out of whack, I can’t really address that with any expertise and neither can anyone else here. But that’s really a separate issue from whether or not the RULES are unclear. I don’t think they are.[/QUOTE]

War Admiral, fyi, the USEF rules explicitly ban capsaicin. The FEI rules do not.

[War_Admiral]

[QUOTE=DMK;3480085]

I don’t need to cast value judgmenets on HOW it is used, I just know not to use it. But if the FEI “rules” reason you can’t use it is for its hypersensitivity properties, does it absolutely follow that the person using it to keep a horse from chewing on his bandages or as a topical pain deadener can FAIRLY connect those dots? Sorry, I just don’t see it.[/QUOTE]

Well, the FEI doesn’t (from my reading) cast any value judgments about it either. My construction of the FEI rules is that if something is on their Equine Prohibited List, it’s ON it. Period. I don’t see any value judgments contained in the FEI rules.

What I do see is a pretty dang specific directive, in the preamble to the FEI EADMC rules (see the “Scope” paragraph), stating that (1) those rules must be construed in conjunction w/ the FEI Statutes/Regs, FEI Vet Regs, and the Equine Prohibited Substances List and (2) it is the responsibility of the Treating Vet, the Responsible Person (i.e. rider), and EACH NGB to ensure competitor compliance. Seems pretty obvious to me that each country’s NGB has some responsibility for ensuring competitor awareness/compliance, but maybe I’m missing something??

Now: If the FEI is being unresponsive to questions in advance from team vets or from the respective NGBs, maybe that is where the system is really broken. I just don’t know. But it’s interesting to me that Article 4.4 of the EADMC rules does in fact provide for therapeutic use with FEI permission - so IMO there really was not much excuse UNLESS the FEI was unresponsive to queries.

[War_Admiral]

[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3480216]
War Admiral, fyi, the USEF rules explicitly ban capsaicin. The FEI rules do not.[/QUOTE]

Quite. I understand this. But if you buy an OTC product with THAT many warning labels plastered all over it - prolly not too bad of an idea to check w/ your team vet and your NGB before you go taking it to the Olympics, no??

[YankeeLawyer]

[QUOTE=War Admiral;3480248]
Quite. I understand this. But if you buy an OTC product with THAT many warning labels plastered all over it - prolly not too bad of an idea to check w/ your team vet and your NGB before you go taking it to the Olympics, no??[/QUOTE]

What I would do and others do is probably different.

And Equi-block is just one example. Not all 4 showjumping riders used that, btw. I think the discussion has highlighted issues that, while perhaps not illustrated by these facts, could be a real problem at some point.

[Mozart]

@DMK;3480175

In reading the Class A language, I would be interested from a purely medical and legal structure perspective to see how easily capsaican fits into the defined categories, because I don’t think it sounds like the chemical pathway could necessarily be a local anesthetic (the more obvious choice) if you read what science (or wikipedia, anyway ) says about that specific terminology. If you are arguing this in a lawsuit, is it clearly prohibited? If it acts it much the same way as more intense cold or heat does, to overfire/overstimulate the nerve receptors until they more or less shut down (as others have described in these pages) how does that fit in? What general description can you give it that doesn’t exclude other allowed treatments? Do you win this argument legally?

I’m not sure if it does or does not fall in place on that list, but how f’in difficult would it have been to LIST it is the main point. Would have given the WrapLast crew a fighting chance, don’t you think?

Well, I could very happily argue that it is an “agent that could improve performance by relieving pain”

Not that I wish ill on the show jumpers. But to me, it looks like they are hooped.

(disclaimer: I am not their laywer or the FEI’s lawyer…just an interested one ;))

[DMK]

War Admiral - where would Wrap Last, Magic Cushion and Black as Knight fall in regards to the FEI guidelines versus the USEF guidelines? Because you can still call yourself “Norway” and possibly be losing a medal.

And honestly, I think when 4 different countries, one of which most certainly does have the resources to bring along the technical experts (vat vif them practically owning ze FEI) shows up in the spotlight… well, Houston, we HAVE a problem and it’s the same one we had after Athens. Also, hearing about the (unsubstantiated) reports of the FEI vet quitting 11 days before the olympics due to concerns about the drug testing process makes me think I might not be alone with my thoughts.

Mozart, I agree they are screwed, but “ice” fits your description nicely as well.

[YankeeLawyer]

@Mozart;3480285

Well, I could very happily argue that it is an “agent that could improve performance by relieving pain”

Of course you can. In fact, I can make a compelling argument that virtually ANY substance falls within one or more of their broad categories of substances. THAT is a big part of the problem.

I read the rules. I read labels. I research things thoroughly. I am fairly well-versed in various types of medications, lotions, and potions, and their effects. I medicate my horses myself, and to the extent possible, handle feed as well at shows. And yet, I am not going to pretend that what happened to some of these riders could not ever happen to me, and I am not going to pretend that everyone out there is just a big idiot and the FEI rules are so clear. These riders and horses are the best in the world. Their teams are the best in the world. Of course, sometimes people make mistakes, and sometimes such mistakes could have been avoided with more diligence. But truly, I have a hard time thinking ALL those people are sloppy or dumb.