Well, my motel crappy internet access just ate the long excerpts from some case reports of adverse effects, and I’m too tired to redo it.
Suffice it to say that they are, when they occur, soewhat akin to the eighth circle of hell.
I’d consider reserpine before fluphenazine.
Disagree. There is no indication that there was any effort to tranquilize the horse and no indication the horse was effected that way by that medication - it was alert, doing a GP test, not sleepy, tranquilized, inactive, sedated, quieter than usual, etc.
There is also no indication other drugs (tranquilizers) would help shivers. Drugs are not so interchangeable usually. Fluphenazine is not a tranquilizer, it is an antipsychotic. If at higher doses it makes people sleepy that doesn’t mean that is its action or its therapeutic effect. Blocking dopamine is a very special kind of drug and it even may be that other antipsychotics with even similar action, don’t do the same thing to shivers.
[QUOTE=ridgeback;4187494]
“There is also a question whether shivers is genetic or is genetically predisposed. Although not proven, it is suspected that there is some hereditary component.” The Horse magazine.
Some days are better than others for some shivers-affected horses. In general, this is considered a progressive, debilitating disease with a poor prognosis. Clinical signs eventually increase in frequency and severity, and muscle wasting and weakness worsen. The course of the disease can progress rapidly or take as long as 24 years to render a horse incapacitated. The Horse
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/QUOTE]
This is not the form of shivers that is commonly seen in European sporthorses. We don’t see that much of a progressive or even destructive pattern here and there are many (as in surprisingly many) successful FEI-competitors affected with the problem.
Whether or not Shivering is a reason to retire a horse from showing therefor should be in my opinion subject to a case by case evaluation.
That’s not the point. The point is that Fluphenazine was found in a horse at a competition and the rider has admitted she knew where it came from.
The point is also that while Dr. Stihl may have many nice meds in his trunk giving Fluphenazine to a horse 6 days prior to a competition without making sure the rider declares the administration was probably no good idea, can we agree on that (conspiracy and all aside)?
I expect this particular case to be of consequence in a greater meaning namely the somewhat paradox situation that little me in my practice isn’t even allowed to order tetanus vaccine from Holland if it happens to be unavailable here in Germany without going through an extensive application paperwork beforehand, let alone administer substances to my patients that aren’t approved for use in horses (there is a complicated cascade of rules involved even if you treat small animals exclusively…) while the Doping-popes of the world seem to freely walk around travelling over EU-borders on a regular basis with cars full of non-approved meds administering off label whatever they deem convenient and useful to horses that are as high on the monitoring level as you can get without ever having the slightest consequence to fear.
The same question should have come up years ago when Mrs. Salzgeber’s Rusty had that miracle-testosterone cream issue for sume hustle skin rash. Back then the media wasn’t on it to the degree it is today after all the Doping-related oopses in international equestrian sports. I therefor think the matter will have interesting effects and hopefully the level playing field will be established in more than just the sports aspect of things. There are many hard working colleagues out here who think it’s ridiculous to be fined for storing a box of mineral water in your medical rooms when on the other hand there are collegoids who engage themselves in international doping expertise and wander around unharmed of any professional consequence.
Back to shivering, I’ve always found it an interesting subject and found that literature bears little recent and substantial data. The Shiverers I have treated all responded to physiotherapeutic approaches to a degree and were clearly influenced by the horses present mental state (e.g. total mental relaxation vs. being bright alert or even tense from fear)
I could therefor relate to the idea of trying psychopharmaceuticals to alleviate symptoms. I would however suggest experimental use of a drug that has significant adverse effect potential in humans should be pursued in a morse scientific approach than to try it off label on a handful of patients in a ‘watch what happens’ assay…
Surely had the medication been declared …all would be fine?
isabell releases a statement…
http://www.eurodressage.com/news/dressage/germany/2009/werth-statement.html
“When asked for the settling time, Dr. Stihl told me that according to his experience six days are enough, but one could never be completely sure. So to be on the safe side we decided to let Whisper compete again on 30 May 2009 in Wiesbaden. I took this decision to the best of my knowledge. In spite of this, the FEI doping lab has now found traces of the forementioned substance. One reason may be that the lab has used new analyzing methods”.
I have read this paragraph over and over and I am rather perplexed…
“to be on the safe side we decided to let whisper compete”…(logic is flawed here)
“one reason may be that the lab used new analyzing methods”…(now that has to make you think)
Yes. Strange.
I wondered the same thing. 
Deja Vu
Same vet as Ulla’s.
“When asked for the settling time, Dr. Stihl told me that according to his experience, six days are enough, but one could never be completely sure. So, to be on the safe side, we decided to let Whisper compete again on May 30, 2009 in Wiesbaden. I took this decision to the best of my knowledge. In spite of this, the FEI doping lab has now found traces of said substance. One reason may be that the lab has used new analyzing methods.”
Honestly, are they as dumb as a stump or as dump as a post? This statement really begs the question. :rolleyes:
OK, even if they couldn’t find the number to the FEI folks to ask them what they thought, or they hadn’t had any reason to talk to anyone in the US who could clearly point them in the direction of the USEF D&M guidelines which clearly, IN WRITING recommends a 90 day non-showing period after the last administration of long acting drugs like reserpine or fluphen (yeah I get they are not subject to the USEF rules, but the point being is is you run afoul of USEF you most certainly run afoul of FEI), just perhaps they might have payed a teen tiny bit of attention to O’Connor’s loss of a gold medal.
Isabel, sweetie… he gave fluphen a good bit earlier than a mere week before his horse tested positive. This was all over the news, don’t you remember the great UPS or whatever it was that somone attempted to hijack/rob?
So even if you didn’t think to ask the FEI their thoughts on the matter (cynical people might think you knew you wouldn’t like the answer) there was more than enough evidence in the media and from your fellow competitors as to what the correct answer was (hint: not 6 days). Also if a lowly ammie rider who only has to deal with generous USEF rules knows that anything less than 90 days is a crapshoot, what does it say about the knowledge base of the you and your team? Not much, in my book.
Wow, it really is like BASEBALL. Round and round with drugs that aren’t supposed to show up because they mimic natural substances, drugs that are supposed to dissipate quickly and not test, then new testing methods, then drugs that are supposed to mask other drugs from showing up on tests. :no:
A few years back I went to a lecture given by a BN classical dressage trainer who does not compete. During the lecture, he said that without exception the top horses in equestrian sport are given performance enhancing drugs. I did not believe him.
That was a year before Rusty the aged gelding tested positive for too much testosterone.
Long before all the Olympic flap with the jumpers.
Long before the Big Brown let down at the Belmont after he went off his steroids.
What is one to believe? Really really sickening…
For those who don’t follow baseball, slugger Manny Ramirez was just suspended for having FEMALE hormones in his system. He claimed that he was being treated for erectile disfunction (so why not viagra or cialis???) The word is that the drug he was taking commonly MASKS STEROID USE.
So it gets very complicated. The drug that tests is not always “performance enhancing” but it can be another drug that may have a desireable side effect. Really tricky stuff.
to be on the safe side we decided to let whisper compete"…(logic is flawed here)
Come on. I think you have to recognize it’s a transation so a reasonable interpretation is that she says she was told 6 days should be enough for it to clear but to be on the safe side did not compete for 14? days.
“one reason may be that the lab used new analyzing methods”…(now that has to make you think)
Isn’t she saying there that perhaps according to prior tests the medication was not evident after X days but with new testing methods, smaller traces are being picked up for a longer period. She isn’t the first one to say this.
There’s no law against giving your horses medications at home under the advice of a vet. The question of how long you need to stop medication before it clears the horse’s system seems to be a moving target as testing methods change and pick up smaller and smaller traces of medications. I’m reading the same stuff everyone else is reading .
I don’t think it is all that confusing.
Wow, this is just like dressage judging:
Everyone reads the SAME WORDS and comes to different conclusions.
I’ve already said I believe Isabell, so that’s what I ‘see’ and ‘understand’ when I read the words.
Isabell is just doing what everybody does. She wants to help her horse solving a problem. She ask the vet to find a cure. She ask the vet how long does it take before I can start at competitions. The vet tells her 6 days after the medication. Isabelle thinks OK I give him 14 days. And now she is butchered down by her own organisation(s), her own fans etc…
What a world :mad:
Yup. That is the problem. If everybody does it, then it must be done in order to compete.
Body builders, baseball, horse racing.
It’s all big business. It’s ultimately all about $$$. Don’t be naive. :rolleyes:
I do think the testing in Europe is better now. I think there are plenty of North American based riders who would argue it is about time, since the testing on this side of the pond has been pretty damn sensitive for almost a decade. That said, we’ve been through TWO Olympics where testing has been very sensitive, and riders were even witness to a public display of how sensitive the tests were as it relates to this very same drug. Why would you think the test wasn’t going to catch up with you sooner or later? I mean at some point doesn’t common sense come into play here?
And really, I’m not sure I am in favor of zero tolerance, but this is one of those drugs that doesn’t really have a good reason to be in an active performance horse (setting aside ethical considerations about giving it at all, due to side effects that are horrific by all accounts) and just to add to it, there is a well documented history relating to this drug testing positive for a very long time after it is given. The USEF used to recommend 45 days between last administration/showing and moved it up to 90 days. I’m guessing that was because a few people legitimately followed the 45 day rule and STILL had positive tests. Two weeks is a giggle in light of all the evidence out there and I’m betting a call to the FEI would have given similar information.
I do find it interesting that someone said the horse could have shown legally if it had been declared. Does anyone know if this is fact? You sure couldn’t have shown in a USEF show 2 weeks after giving it, even with a D&M form.
There is no known medication to treat shivers. In relatively mild/early cases it does not noticeably affect performance but it does make shoeing the hind end difficult if not dangerous.
Having dealt with shivers, I can tell you that regular tranquillizers do help with the shoeing issues. If this horse is so bad that tranqs don’t work, it should not be shod behind…easy answer.
(And by the way…fluphenazine has been used for years to modify behavior in hyper horses and has been one of the leading causes of positive drug tests in the USA alone)
safety
As she points out , the drug makes the horse safe :yes:for vet, farrier:eek: and groom to work around the horse,:winkgrin: as well as to ride;
press release and press conference
She does not deny, in the press release, that the horse’ received the drug; only twas given e to the horse for a health/ safety reason; in the press conference the song iisnothing bad was done to the horses; what they received is nobodys’ business but, therider,:mad: trainer, owner, stable staffs’; She does distinguish betwen doping and deliberate :yes:medication; We heard much the same argument whenthe AHSA limited the level of NSAIDS a horse could re:eek:ceive; She does make a good point , also that the exchange of information about drugs needs to be :yes:expedited; in addition the testing has been refined to distinquish a far smaller ammount of a substance than in previous years
Everybody makes bad choices.
Here’s a scenario.
Horse won’t stand for shoer. Horse kicks shoer, knocks him over, scares everyone and himself.
Ask vet what can be given, agree they will try what is suggested, making sure that the vet gives a suggested withdrawal time.
Horse is given more than twice the withdrawal time to be on safe side.
Horse gets shown.
Was the horse tested to see if the drug was out of its system? I dont know, but I am guessing so.
As has been pointed out, it is height of show season, and everything is on the line–Aachen, Europeans, one’s whole career.
It makes no sense to risk all of that for a show/ horse that has nothing to do with points, standings, team,etc etc.
Here’s my question: Does anyone besides me think it is possible that someone, somewhere, told the lab to find something? to find anything?
I know my answer. I’ve already read it from statements put out by members of the FN. (German Federation).
I am sad for our sport.
[QUOTE=canyonoak;4188315]
Everybody makes bad choices.
Here’s a scenario.
Horse won’t stand for shoer. Horse kicks shoer, knocks him over, scares everyone and himself.
Ask vet what can be given, agree they will try what is suggested, making sure that the vet gives a suggested withdrawal time.
Horse is given more than twice the withdrawal time to be on safe side.
Horse gets shown.
Was the horse tested to see if the drug was out of its system? I dont know, but I am guessing so.
As has been pointed out, it is height of show season, and everything is on the line–Aachen, Europeans, one’s whole career.
It makes no sense to risk all of that for a show/ horse that has nothing to do with points, standings, team,etc etc.
Here’s my question: Does anyone besides me think it is possible that someone, somewhere, told the lab to find something? to find anything?
I know my answer. I’ve already read it from statements put out by members of the FN. (German Federation).
I am sad for our sport.[/QUOTE]
Or they didn’t think that product would test. How do we know for sure the horse has Shivers? :lol::lol: Conspiracy’s go both ways.
testinghas come a L O N G way!
In the Montreal Olympics the IOC had to be convinced :yes:that it was the horses who needed testing, not the riders!:lol:
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.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
