Seems to me that either the products will not test positive under some US standard and not FEI or the product’s packaging is misleading.
heads will roll!
i find hard :winkgrin::winkgrin:to believe:mad: that someone did not look further look into its’ use
heads will:eek: roll!
Will not test. I think that says it all. There is no way that every substance used or ingested by an Olympian horse is not fully scrutinized by the vet. Shame on them for trying to stretch the rules.
similar to cayenne pepper, , it increases blood flow,ie., circulation to the area to which it is applied to It is used as a topical arthritis ointment in humans, and horses; it creates a burning sensation, do not get it near your eyes!, or, on sensitive areas; similar to putting gasoline on horses legs, in (the “old days” ) it makes horses super careful to NOT touch a pole
Sorry but it’s not the same at all. Equi Block does not equal gasoline in any way shape or form.
I’ve used the stuff quite a bit and it doesn’t cause sensitivty: it does the opposite. Even if it stings a bit when you put it on, that lasts 5-10 minutes max. Not even long enough to warm up. After that you’d have a horse with warm, fuzzy feeling legs which would not be too helpful as you started your course.
[QUOTE=bluemoonfarms;3463665]
Quote from http://www.chronofhorse.com/index.ph...82108080439110
"He commonly applies a topical substance called Equi-block to his horse’s back to loosen the muscles before working, he said. The label on the bottle he produced read, “Contains capsaicin—will not test.” "
Will not test. I think that says it all. There is no way that every substance used or ingested by an Olympian horse is not fully scrutinized by the vet. Shame on them for trying to stretch the rules.
I have contacted the USEF in the past to find out if certain supplements were legal to use. They were very helpful. When my horse showed in FEI Classes I even went as far as to by organic carrots for her. I was afraid of any chemicals that could have been sprayed on or used on them as they were growing.
It is another dark cloud on another Olympics. How sad.[/QUOTE]
BlueMoon, honestly, I can see how a lot of people would think that capsaican is only problematic if administered orally (which is why I was really irritated when that one FEI vet said it is NEVER given orally; that is wrong). Thus, a topical lotion that happens to contain capsaican, if it did not pass to the bloodstream, arguably is not performance enhancing and would “not test.” Frankly, as I am familiar with the oral forms of capsaican, I thought the ban was directed at those. But I also would have asked about it before using it as a cream, as I am aware that for example steroid creams can cause a positive result. I could also see how someone might interpret does “not test” as “not prohibited,” though as a lawyer obviously I do not equate the two. (Regardless, I do think that company has some answering to do about its representations, and I would highly suggest that the riders/owners involved get copies of anything evidencing that representation, before the company changes its website).
Regarding the rules, I realize that this substance is banned, so there is not much one can say about it. But, I do question the purpose of these rules. I would think they are intended to protect the welfare of the horse, as well as prevent anyone from having an unfair (read: artificially enhanced) advantage over one’s competitors. But honestly, I think the zero tolerance approach in some ways is far less humane to the horses than allowing some of these to be used in therapeutic doses, for example like some athletes might use advil or Bengay post-workout. I don’t mean that things should be used that can mask lameness, for example, but simply that there should be some allowance for certain non-performance-enhancing substances to be used on a horse that otherwise would be deemed fit to show.
I am sure many would be horrified to hear that years ago trainers routinely gave banamine to horses that were on stressful show schedules (doing so was legal at the time). It was not done to impact soundness, but rather to help prevent colic, and I am sure it also helped some of the older made horses feel better as well.
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=12550&nID=43&src=RA
“Although capsaicin “has always been considered illegal … the laboratories have only recently found ways to discover it,” Farrington said. “The specific test was introduced two years ago. This is the first time it has been discovered in sport horses. Previously, only one case in racing has been known.””
Equi-Block is going to have to spend some money in reprinting/packaging their labels. That said, I have never taken manufacture guarantees as the gospel, especially something as vague as “will not test”.
[QUOTE=canyonoak;3463630]
To test a horse AT the event, declare it negative–and then test it again and find it positive…seems ridiculous to me when the horse was using the Equi-Block at the time of BOTH tests. Especially when the entire point of the pre-test is to INFORM the PR (person Responsible) that the horse has a problem or not.
As Lynch points out–he has been using Equi-Block in his saddle area for over a year, being tested at event after event–as the horse has a solid competition record and enough wins to require fairly continuous testing.
What a farce!
Guess once again the FEI and WADA forgot that some people really can be innocent.
Well, that’s another career WADA has managed to sabotage-=-this time with the help of the FEI.[/QUOTE]
Excellent point. By the way, there is also the possibility of lab contamination. As I keep mentioning, that was a big issue in the Duke rape case, where they found upon examining the lab results that the tests were so sensitive that they even indicated that the lab technician’s DNA was on the alleged victim’s body – and we know he was not at that party. The problem is, that in this case, even if there was lab or sample contamination, it happens that a topical ointment was being used that did contain the prohibited substance. So whether by coincidence or by accuracy of the testing, they now have a "positive: result that can be matched up with prohibited conduct.
[QUOTE=Jane;3463856]
http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=12550&nID=43&src=RA
“Although capsaicin “has always been considered illegal … the laboratories have only recently found ways to discover it,” Farrington said. “The specific test was introduced two years ago. This is the first time it has been discovered in sport horses. Previously, only one case in racing has been known.””
[/QUOTE]
I do not think that is correct. It was at least 3 years ago that I researched whether Black as Knight, containing paprika, would be a problem, and found that paprika contains capsaicin, the prohibited substance, and I was aware at the time that it would test. In fact, I am fairly certain there are threads going back at least that early about capsaicin causing positive test results.
Equi-Block is going to have to spend some money in reprinting/packaging their labels. That said, I have never taken manufacture guarantees as the gospel, especially something as vague as “will not test”.
That company should be concerned about a lot more than the cost of putting new labels on their products. And there is nothing vague about the phrase “will not test” in terms of whether it will or will “not test.” What is vague is whether they intended to mean the product does not enter the bloodstream when administered topically or whether it simply does not do so in a dose sufficient to test positive. But their representation, “contains capsaicin, will not test,” is directly contrary to what occurred.
Capsaicin is a banned substance because it “can” be used nefariously as well at therapeutically. There’s currently no way to test whether the concentration in the horse’s blood stream is because someone used Equiblock, or because they were painting undiluted capsicum extract onto the horse’s cannon bones.
The rules are in place to protect the horse, and in that case must always look at the worst case scanario. I think you would all agree with that.
Anyone with half a brain and a computer, or indeed a USEF or FEI rule book, KNOWS it’s a banned substance. So why on earth be so frikkin’ stupid as to use it? Words fail me.
I believe that statement was referring to the specific test done by the HKJC.
That company should be concerned about a lot more than the cost of putting new labels on their products. And there is nothing vague about the phrase “will not test” in terms of whether it will or will “not test.” What is vague is whether they intended to mean the product does not enter the bloodstream when administered topically or whether it simply does not do so in a dose sufficient to test positive. But their representation, “contains capsaicin, will not test,” is directly contrary to what occurred.
My comment about the label was meant to be humorous. As for it being “vague”, I meant vague in the sense that it isn’t even a complete statement…you know, as in, “will not test…FOR WHAT?” 
Yankee Lawyer - What do you feel the probability is that all four positives were due to “lab contamination” ? Or any single positive? Do you really believe that the vets and others responsible for these horses care felt it was within the rules to use a banned substance as a topical ointment only and not to be ingested? What percentage of average people showing their horses do you think would find this true? You may not like the rules but they all are required to abide by them.
I agree it was the job of the competitors not to use any substance containing capsaicin. In particular, the Germans should be well aware that topical applications are not safe. (The other NFs involved have a lot less infrastructure to help with that.)
However, I’m not sure I agree that it should be banned at zero tolerance. And I’m sorry that with all the testing that goes on, that the same performance, same routine, got caught at the Olympics and not any time earlier.
The point of the drug testing rules is to prevent competitors from taking a competitive advantage by risking short-term or long-term harm to themselves or to their horses. So, you have to ask, what is the competitive advantage of this substance and what is the harm. There is the possibility of harm when it is used as an irritant, but do other measures in place (leg inspections etc) prevent that possibility? There is the possibility of harm if a lame horse can be passed as sound and if riding that horse will cause him harm - can capsaicin have that effect? I am not certain of the answer. It makes me wonder if the gymnasts and track and field athletes are eating a lot of spicy food and rubbing a lot of capsaicin creams on their various knees and ankles. Or if maybe they should start.
I was very disappointed in Melanie Smith-Taylor’s comments on the broadcast that implied that any/all of the four riders named must have used it as an irritant on the legs and thus deliberately caused cruelty to their horses. I think they showed poor management and judgement within the rule book, but it’s much more likely it was used for its painkilling properties. I am upset that she didn’t even mention capsaicin or how many common horsekeeping products contain it. It wasn’t fair to the riders and it wasn’t fair to the sport.
On a lighter note here is an attempt at humor directed at the Olympics and drug use:
[QUOTE=bluemoonfarms;3463887]
Yankee Lawyer - What do you feel the probability is that all four positives were due to “lab contamination” ? Or any single positive? Do you really believe that the vets and others responsible for these horses care felt it was within the rules to use a banned substance as a topical ointment only and not to be ingested? What percentage of average people showing their horses do you think would find this true? You may not like the rules but they all are required to abide by them.[/QUOTE]
Arguably, the fact that there were four positives rather than one makes it more likely there was lab contamination. What if ALL the samples came back positive – do you think contamination would be more or less likely? I have seen enough cases of lab contamination to think it is definitely a possibility. Does it matter in this case? Not really, given that we already have admitted conduct that is problematic – as I said, whether coincidental or not (though I am not sure that applies to ALL the riders; I think only some said they used Equi-block).
I don’t know what the vets and others thought about the rules. I was just saying that I could see how, to the extent some are saying they did not realize it was a problem when used topically, they may have assumed that it is only a problem if it enters the bloodstream, and thought it did not. I personally had never heard of it being a blistering agent (which btw if used that way would show up on the horse’s legs), and it never would have ocurred to me that it is sometimes used like that. But as I said, if it were me I would ask the proper authorities if I had any question about the substance BEFORE using it, and I would get a response from them in writing.
I am very much a rules-oriented person, and believe me, no one feels more strongly than I do that you have to comply with the rules. I think the rules could be a bit more clear, and my query about the purpose of the rules was referring to what, perhaps, should be done moving forward.
[QUOTE=poltroon;3463939]
I was very disappointed in Melanie Smith-Taylor’s comments on the broadcast that implied that any/all of the four riders named must have used it as an irritant on the legs and thus deliberately caused cruelty to their horses. I think they showed poor management and judgement within the rule book, but it’s much more likely it was used for its painkilling properties. I am upset that she didn’t even mention capsaicin or how many common horsekeeping products contain it. It wasn’t fair to the riders and it wasn’t fair to the sport.[/QUOTE]
I really think that was outrageous, and there was also an FEI vet who stated that the substance is NEVER given orally, only topically, which obviously is wrong. I could not believe my eyes when I saw that – the first thing I thought of was Black as Knight, silly as it may sound. Even I know that, and I am not a vet, obviously. It seriously makes you wonder if the FEI vets need more training regarding the prohibited substances list.
[QUOTE=poltroon;3463939]
I agree it was the job of the competitors not to use any substance containing capsaicin. In particular, the Germans should be well aware that topical applications are not safe. (The other NFs involved have a lot less infrastructure to help with that.)
However, I’m not sure I agree that it should be banned at zero tolerance. And I’m sorry that with all the testing that goes on, that the same performance, same routine, got caught at the Olympics and not any time earlier.
The point of the drug testing rules is to prevent competitors from taking a competitive advantage by risking short-term or long-term harm to themselves or to their horses. So, you have to ask, what is the competitive advantage of this substance and what is the harm. There is the possibility of harm when it is used as an irritant, but do other measures in place (leg inspections etc) prevent that possibility? There is the possibility of harm if a lame horse can be passed as sound and if riding that horse will cause him harm - can capsaicin have that effect? I am not certain of the answer. It makes me wonder if the gymnasts and track and field athletes are eating a lot of spicy food and rubbing a lot of capsaicin creams on their various knees and ankles. Or if maybe they should start.
I was very disappointed in Melanie Smith-Taylor’s comments on the broadcast that implied that any/all of the four riders named must have used it as an irritant on the legs and thus deliberately caused cruelty to their horses. I think they showed poor management and judgement within the rule book, but it’s much more likely it was used for its painkilling properties. I am upset that she didn’t even mention capsaicin or how many common horsekeeping products contain it. It wasn’t fair to the riders and it wasn’t fair to the sport.[/QUOTE]
I’m a little slow and just found out about what the jumpers call “burning”. The topic came up when capsaicin was mentioned.
Do any of you know what “burning” a horse is? I’m NOT in agreement with it but SOME jumpers do it and it might explain WHY FEI has it banned. It’s not very nice. They shave the horses legs as close to the skin as possible (with a 10 clipper blade) then they scrub the horses legs very hard with a stiff brush for about 5 minutes and then apply Equi-bloc. They wait a certain amount of time (not sure what amount) then they hose the leg down with COLD water. This burns the horse and especially when they put the boots on, if the horse hits a jump it hurts like hell and it causes them to pick their feet up more the next time they jump. So in a sense it’s a “performance enhancer”.
While watching the Individuals yesterday there were a few horses who in the team jumping round did not lift their feet as well as they did yesterday…made me wonder if they had been “burned”…
Anyway, just maybe an explanation as to why capsaicin is a banned substance…and also maybe HOW the horses had the “drug” in their systems.
Not horrified, but perhaps mildly amused, as flunixin will not prevent colic, and may, in fact, contribute to it if overused–see gastric ulcers and right dorsal colitis for details…
There are any number of pharmaceuticals used inappropriately.
[QUOTE=jse;3464091]
I’m a little slow and just found out about what the jumpers call “burning”. The topic came up when capsaicin was mentioned.
Do any of you know what “burning” a horse is? I’m NOT in agreement with it but many jumpers do it and it might explain WHY FEI has it banned. It’s not very nice. .[/QUOTE]
You just found out about "what the jumpers call ‘burning’ and yet now you are aware that supposedly “many jumpers do it”? I really have no idea who you people hang out with, but in my many, many years on the A circuit in the jumpers and hunters I never knew anyone who did this (I am sure some nefarious creature probably did, but no one among the trainers and riders I knew did). I also was aware that some trainers poled their hores, or jumped them over a tack rail, but that was not something I would say “many” did, again, it certainly was not done by the people I trained with.
I have no idea, obviously, of why or how the capsaicin was used for the horses at the Olympics (I will point out also that they are still awaiting the results of the B samples), but you guys really are quick to assume the worst about people.
Does anyone remember what happened to Meredith Michaels Beerbaum leading up to the 2004 Olympics? She was kept off the team because of a positive test, which she and the team members vigorously contested. Except they did not get the final results and a definitive decision until after the Olympics – when she was cleared of the allegations. That, to me, is really tragic, and on some level I really hope that no one was denied a chance to compete in the individual competition who should not have been.
I think the theory was that because it is typically given at the first signs of colic distress, giving it to ahorse at increased risk for colic was an effective prophylactic measure. This was a long time ago, though, when it was legal to give banamine (and at the time, bute) for competition.
[QUOTE=YankeeLawyer;3464169]
You just found out about "what the jumpers call ‘burning’ and yet now you are aware that supposedly “many jumpers do it”? I really have no idea who you people hang out with, but in my many, many years on the A circuit in the jumpers and hunters I never knew anyone who did this (I am sure some nefarious creature probably did, but no one among the trainers and riders I knew did). I also was aware that some trainers poled their hores, or jumped them over a tack rail, but that was not something I would say “many” did, again, it certainly was not done by the people I trained with.
I have no idea, obviously, of why or how the capsaicin was used for the horses at the Olympics (I will point out also that they are still awaiting the results of the B samples), but you guys really are quick to assume the worst about people.
Does anyone remember what happened to Meredith Michaels Beerbaum leading up to the 2004 Olympics? She was kept off the team because of a positive test, which she and the team members vigorously contested. Except they did not get the final results and a definitive decision until after the Olympics – when she was cleared of the allegations. That, to me, is really tragic, and on some level I really hope that no one was denied a chance to compete in the individual competition who should not have been.[/QUOTE]
You are mistaken. I was not trying to flame jumpers in my post. I am on your side in this matter, I was just using that as an example of why maybe the FEI has it banned. Because it can possibly be a performance enhancer.
I think if you read my previous posts I’m definitely against condemning jumpers or any group of equestrian people based on what I hear from others. The information I was given was from people who currently work for jumper trainers and they stated what they do with Equi-bloc on occasion when a horse is knocking rails. (“burning”)
I edited my post to say that SOME jumpers do this because it’s true, not all of them do it and from what I hear they don’t do it often. And I also edited the abuse part, because that’s just my opinion of this, and it should not reflect that jumpers are abusers. I believe show jumpers are the most taken care of animals and know not one that doesn’t live a happy life.
Extremes on both ends are never a good thing. I’ll happily sit here and tell you I think the current USEF rules allowing obscene amounts of dex and stacking of all but 2 particular NSAIDs is an idea taken too far to one extreme. And I’ll just as happily sit here and say that the FEI has found the other extreme and taken it too far. Neither seem to be particularly good for the horse at this point.
Amazingly enough we seem to have the ability to detect fairly minute levels of any substance we can test for. It is not a giant club we are using here, it is an instrument with finesse. This means we have the ability to identify trace and residual amounts, substances which are in no way affectig the performance of the horse at the time of competition. We wouldn’t even be the first to do this, many racing jurisdictions embraced this years ago. But if we are at the point where apparently no lab on the planet can detect a relatively benign substance like equi-block except THIS particular lab, and we are willing to kick a rider out of the individual finals, based on that… All I can say is it isn’t just politics that has entered the Silly Season.
Establish threshholds. Defend them scientifically as non-performance enhancing. Publish them for ALL the world to see. And report what levels were found when horses come up positive.
