Denis Lynch, full interview

[skewbaldpony]

[ QUOTE ]
.....And it specifically says it contains Capsaicin which is on the banned list.

[/ QUOTE ]

which is another, and very valid, issue.
At the risk of being told to shut up and sweep,

I would expect the groom to pick it up.
Perhaps he's one of those who doesn't believe grooms reading things

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agents which could influence performance by relieving pain

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your emphasis may be wrong, though. I would say it is which could influence performance by relieving pain.

Like bute, which could influence performance via its pain relieving properties, as opposed to a linament or rub, for example which, while having pain relieving properties, could not, I don't think, influence performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't understand your point at all. If it has pain relieving properties, then surely it could influence performance? I don't see why it being a linament/rub means it wouldn't influence performance? If that were true then all those pain relief gels on the market would not work.....

Do you mean that it only has pain relieving properties if used in a specific place? Because the fact that it is transdermal would seem to negate that arguement?

 

[lucretia]

but i think its pain relief like asparin or jockeys joy would be in a human. you wouldnt expect an athlete to perhaps perform as well if they had a headache, nor would you be expecting them to withdraw, nor would anyone think it unreasonable if they took an asparin for it BUT THEY COULD ASK. with the horses obviously they cant do that so you try to make sure the horses is 110%, the sort of pain Equiblock is designed for no matter how many claims its makes on the pot, is the sort of small headache, bit stiff in the morning things that most horses and humans are pone to from time to time.
and as denis said if they only tested 15 and four were positive how many other people thought as he did. neither his horse or Tony Hansen were in need of any sort of fix as far as i could see both had voluntarily tested clean on arrival, both had jumped superbly (one rail and a few time penalties between them in six rounds of jumping), tony's is a snow white grey that will have had its legs clipped almost bald (as showjumpers do) so any significant inflamation on its legs would have been apparent the second the stewards remove the boots after it had jumped (FEI rule and standard practise at FEI shows now all levels) and to make te product work as a sensitiser you have to use a fairly concentrated potion, often mixed wit DMSO, very shortly before jumping or the effect wears off. that is why i cannot believe Denis is lying about this. he is not showjumpings most pleasant character but i spent a week in a barn with the irish team in zagreb last year at a nations cup where they HAD to finish first or second to get ireland back into the super league and i can tell you that even with that pressure, i never saw denis groom (his horses were next to and opposit mine/, apply anything to them stronger that the usual washes and braces anyone uses during competition. to be fair the girl was so busy she barely hd time to tack up let alone spend time concocting things and the only time i ever saw denis in the barn was when he was about to ride. considering the grooms had rooms off site, fair distance away, you were sort of stuck atthe stables til you had done you last check, so not much opportunity for wickedness particularly right befoore a class. these barns are not big, you cant help seeing or hearing what is going on around you.

 

[Gonetofrance]

At the risk of repeating myself

From the statement;

But Lynch claims that \"the FEI moved the goalposts\" for the Beijing
Games. \"How can a horse test negative all year and then test positive
when I\'ve changed nothing? That\'s the question. I didn\'t change anything,
I did nothing different (for the Games), why change anything when I was
doing the same thing all year and winning?\"

 

[Bossanova]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agents which could influence performance by relieving pain

[/ QUOTE ]

I think your emphasis may be wrong, though. I would say it is which could influence performance by relieving pain.

Like bute, which could influence performance via its pain relieving properties, as opposed to a linament or rub, for example which, while having pain relieving properties, could not, I don't think, influence performance.

[/ QUOTE ]

But thats just not true- of course performance is affected by ANY sort of pain. How could it not be

The point of this stuff is to alleviate back pain- I'd have thought a bit of back pain in a showjumper is quite a big deal.

 

[skewbaldpony]

I can quite see your point that on one level I'm talking rubbish, yes of course pain relief can influence performance, a good talking to can influence performance in a human, can't it? Feed influences performance.
What I think I'm trying to say is that, surely, influencing performance by taking best care of strains and stresses, can't be legislated against?
The entire job of the team caring for and producing the horse is to influence its performance! Where do you draw the line?
Horse jumps on day one, and is then cared for and looked after to optimise its performance on day two, surely.
What are the FEI actually aiming to do with the list of banned substances?
What is the stated aim of drug testing?

Is the aim to stop a person gaining an unfair advantage over others by use of performance enhancing substances?

If so, does using sudocream to preven sore heels come into that category?

If so, is it better to let the horse develop sore heels?

If so, why?

 

[lucretia]

trust me boss a horse with back pain does not jump three virtually clear rounds over 1.60 if its back is hurting it and .25 of the sustance in a topical rub is hardly going to aliviate anything. might get you bucked off if you apply the linanment then sadlle up on top of it, a point no one has mentioned yet.....

 

[skewbaldpony]

[ QUOTE ]
but i think its pain relief like asparin or jockeys joy would be in a human. you wouldnt expect an athlete to perhaps perform as well if they had a headache, nor would you be expecting them to withdraw, nor would anyone think it unreasonable if they took an asparin for it BUT THEY COULD ASK. with the horses obviously they cant do that so you try to make sure the horses is 110%, the sort of pain Equiblock is designed for no matter how many claims its makes on the pot, is the sort of small headache, bit stiff in the morning things that most horses and humans are pone to from time to time.


[/ QUOTE ]

see, that's what I meant to say

 

[lucretia]

great minds and all skewbald!

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]
But thats just not true- of course performance is affected by ANY sort of pain. How could it not be

The point of this stuff is to alleviate back pain- I'd have thought a bit of back pain in a showjumper is quite a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! That was what I was meaning.

 

[weevil]

[ QUOTE ]
At the risk of repeating myself

From the statement;

But Lynch claims that \"the FEI moved the goalposts\" for the Beijing
Games. \"How can a horse test negative all year and then test positive
when I\'ve changed nothing? That\'s the question. I didn\'t change anything,
I did nothing different (for the Games), why change anything when I was
doing the same thing all year and winning?\"

[/ QUOTE ]
Because the rider may have changed nothing but if they developed a more sensitive test to detect the presence of a banned substance then the horse would test positive. Developing a better test is not moving the goalposts.

 

[skewbaldpony]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But thats just not true- of course performance is affected by ANY sort of pain. How could it not be

The point of this stuff is to alleviate back pain- I'd have thought a bit of back pain in a showjumper is quite a big deal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! That was what I was meaning.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, so in this circumstance, could you say how you feel the rider should proceed,

a) give the horse a back rub, and withdraw it.

b) not give the back rub, and compete it.

c) not give the back rub and withdraw it.

since

d) give the back rub (which may alleviate the pain completely) and competing it, results in a positive drug test.

By this I mean, morally how do you think he should proceed, and therefore, the outcome the FEI's policy should be aiming for -

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]

Because the rider may have changed nothing but if they developed a more sensitive test to detect the presence of a banned substance then the horse would test positive. Developing a better test is not moving the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or to put it another way, imagine this is Dwaine Chambers (or any other dope cheat athlete) speaking:

I've done nothing wrong, I've tested clean all year, nothing has changed in my routine, how can I test clean all year, be at the peak of my performance winning everything and then be accused of being a dope cheat? Why would I dope when I've been winning all year and never tested positive? Why would I change my routine?

The obvious answer is that you were a dope cheat all year, that's why you were winning, now the test is more sensitive and you've been caught out. I agree with DrWeevil - developing a more sensitive test for a banned substance isn't moving the goal posts - a banned substance is banned whether or not you can dope test for it! Look at EPO and cycling, it was banned long before the UCI found a way of testing for it...

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, so in this circumstance, could you say how you feel the rider should proceed,

a) give the horse a back rub, and withdraw it.

b) not give the back rub, and compete it.

c) not give the back rub and withdraw it.

since

d) give the back rub (which may alleviate the pain completely) and competing it, results in a positive drug test.

By this I mean, morally how do you think he should proceed, and therefore, the outcome the FEI's policy should be aiming for -

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the degree of the problem - I don't think there is a hard and fast answer to this surely? Animal welfare should come first, but equally if the horse can compete without there being a welfare issue, which unless you are the rider you aren't in a position to judge IMO, then there is no reason not to go with b, otherwise it should be a or c.

The reason you can't judge is that I doubt very much that he (or anyone else) has done a controlled test on the horse, looking at level of performance and pain-response chemicals in the blood to determine whether or not this product is helping, or the action of the massage to apply it is helping,or whether the whole thing is a load of rubbish and he's wasting his money buying and applying the stuff in the first place and its as useful (scientifically speaking) as his lucky socks are.

So there may be no welfare issue at all in proceeding with course b, or proceeeding with b2 which is give the hrose a back rub with no topical application of product and compete it.

Equally, the enhancement/help he's seen the product give in the past may also be totally unrelated to the actual use of the product and be complete coincidence, so all it's ever been doing is helping him psychologically. He just thinks it is making a difference. Hence again course b would be fine with me!

There's also a big difference between a horse which can't clear the jumps without the product being used, and a horse with the equivalent of a headache....again the first is a welfare issue and they should withdraw and treat, the second really isn't - for example a minor cut will hurt, but it might not affect performance, so no need to treat or withdraw - there are degrees of pain and much as I wouldn't say a bramble scratch woudl require medication/non competing in a human, equally, I don't see why a horse shouldn't be competed with a similar injury and no intervention, but I also wouldn't say the horse is in no pain at all. Hence it isn't black and white as your choices make out.

 

[Gonetofrance]

[ QUOTE ]

Because the rider may have changed nothing but if they developed a more sensitive test to detect the presence of a banned substance then the horse would test positive. Developing a better test is not moving the goalposts.

[/ QUOTE ]

That viewpoint depends on the degrees of banned substance required to fail a test. If the use of that product has the levels of the substance below the level they were testing for, and then suddenly they have discovered trials that detect more than previously, I do consider that to be moving the goalposts.
It has been detectable for a while, according to what I've read, so it must be a different process of testing.
At any rate, I am defending him against being called a cheat, and being on the same level of culpability as C O'C.
I guess that at the moment this now boils down to the fairness of the situation. It's a bit of a ****er when you think you are doing everything correctly, only to find the testing has changed.

 

[skewbaldpony]

really useful and thoughtful answer until the last line - why 'as your choices make out'?
Other than the one I missed but you picked up which is to give the horse a back rub without any topical application and then compete, which is fair enough, I am not 'making out' anything.
I put out a range of options, to open a debate on what was morally the preferred outcome, and your answer was a good one, why turn it into an accusation?

 

[dieseldog]

If they didn't think the product worked they wouldn't use it, as SC has pointed it they probably don't know why it works. It ingredients have been banned by the FEI - so they think it works. As someone else said the horse had all been jumping clear all week with the product applied so it looks like it works.

If you are using it it is because you think your horse is in some sort of pain and you think that by using this product you are going to get some some of advantage do you think that that is keeping with the olympic spirit.

4 out of 15 horses tested positive - the other horses were managing to compete without it.

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]
really useful and thoughtful answer until the last line - why 'as your choices make out'?
Other than the one I missed but you picked up which is to give the horse a back rub without any topical application and then compete, which is fair enough, I am not 'making out' anything.
I put out a range of options, to open a debate on what was morally the preferred outcome, and your answer was a good one, why turn it into an accusation?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wasn't meant to be accusatory, sorry

Perhaps I should have put 'the choices'? Nothing personal meant or implied as far as I was concerned....

 

[skewbaldpony]

OK.

Seems to me to be at least three different questions being asked - did he use a banned substance? why is it banned? If something is banned for one use, should it be banned if, incidentally, it crops up in other uses?
What therapies are OK between rounds/days of competing?
How realistic are we all being?
Has he just been caught out?!

 

[Gonetofrance]

I think it just boils down to whether we want him to be guilty or not.........

 

[weevil]

[ QUOTE ]
That viewpoint depends on the degrees of banned substance required to fail a test.


[/ QUOTE ]
I would say that if a substance is banned then it is banned and unless the rules allow a certain level (and even if they did in this case it would be very hard to judge the dose of capsaicin administered to a horse via a skin product) then it shouldn't be used. I am not saying that Denis Lynch deliberately "cheated" but if you chose to use a product which quite clearly states that it conatins an active ingredient which is on the list of banned substances then you have to accept responsibility when they develop a test which can detect it.
I am not saying that this is the same thing but for years athletes have been using performance enhancing drugs which can't be detected but that doesn't mean that they are legal...

 

[dieseldog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think it just boils down to whether we want him to be guilty or not.........

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think anyone wants him to be guilty, and I don't think anyone will ever know if he was or not. Yes he was guilty as he tested positive, yes he applied the drug to give himself an advantage, but did he think or was he advised that it was OK to do that and he wasn't actually cheating. Who knows.

 

[Gonetofrance]

See, I'm not sure about this giving himself an advantage bit. At the moment products like Nupafeed are OK to use, but that is adding magnesium as a calmer, so are people who use that giving themselves an advantage, because not all horses need it, or just doing what helps their horse?
I know at the moment they don't test for magnesium, or at least not in sufficient levels, but what is the difference in a rider using that for their horse's requirements, when other riders use equiblock for their horses' requirements because it didn't test (until now) either?

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]
See, I'm not sure about this giving himself an advantage bit. At the moment products like Nupafeed are OK to use, but that is adding magnesium as a calmer, so are people who use that giving themselves an advantage, because not all horses need it, or just doing what helps their horse?
I know at the moment they don't test for magnesium, or at least not in sufficient levels, but what is the difference in a rider using that for their horse's requirements, when other riders use equiblock for their horses' requirements because it didn't test (until now) either?

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that magnesium isn't on the list of banned substances, capsaicin is. End of as far as I'm concerned. If they add magnesium to the list of banned substances, then anyone who uses nupafeed or karma or whatever else with it in is leaving themselves open to being caught by testing and labelled a cheat, even though for years they were using it perfectly legally. If riders think it is that much of an issue then presumably they will lobby the FEI to get magnesium added to the banned list.

I think there is a slight difference too because I suspect (though don't know and this is speculation) that the reason why magnesium works on some horses (after all it doesn't work on all of them) is because those horses are deficient in it in the first place. If that's true not only are you unlikely to be able to test for it, but it is also simply getting the nutrition right for that horse, and arguably the horse is not having its performance enhanced, it is just performing to its true ability, in the same way an underfed horse who is fed correct energy levels will see an improvement in performance.

Also, because nupafeed etc are not banned, anyone can use them and the playing field is level, where a substance is on the banned list the playing field is not level because *honest* riders will not use it, and *dishonest* riders have an advantage. (I don't wish to label anyone in this case as cheating because that is as yet unproven).

 

[lucretia]

do you know some of the santimonious posts on here make me sick. saying DL was a 'dope cheat' at anytime is disgusting until there is more evidence and saying a 'dope cheat all year' is well out of order and actually defamatory.

comparing a product that is at best the equine equivalent to an aspirin to the Dwaine Chambers case shows only the ignorance of the person that made it. we are all trying to do the best for our horses including DL.

as for this below

""If they didn't think the product worked they wouldn't use it, as SC has pointed it they probably don't know why it works. It ingredients have been banned by the FEI - so they think it works. As someone else said the horse had all been jumping clear all week with the product applied so it looks like it works.

If you are using it it is because you think your horse is in some sort of pain and you think that by using this product you are going to get some some of advantage do you think that that is keeping with the olympic spirit.

4 out of 15 horses tested positive - the other horses were managing to compete without it.''''

What do you mean by 'it works'? the product used by DL is not banned, one of the ingredients is. Nobody said the horse has beenJUMPING all week with the product applied, so where did that come from? In the statement it says that latinus has already been tested clean on arrival. Also after he won in Dohar and 12 other places this year at least half a dozen of which were since the new test was devised. and that smug comment about all the others managing without it well they only tested 15 out of nearly 80 horses. One from each nation competing. that sadly means by the law of averages there were probably more like 20 using some sort of banned substance if they had tested them all. and chances are one of ours would have been in there if the strike rate is 25%.
no one said the horse was in pain, it would have been used as preventative. Please let me explain this again carefully so EVERYONE understands. this substance has an immediate effect on the skin. horse or human. the effect does not last long. most products containing it do not recommend bandaging over the top of it because some preparations may blister if you do. You would be extremely stupid to give it a back rub soon enough before to affect its performance and then out a saddle on top of it. the heat ad sweat mixed in would do no good at all, you would probably rub the skin raw. To be effective on the legs as a sensitiser, again you have to put it on very soon before the class. Do you think there are no stewrds etc in the stables?
The FEI are not required to let the riders know that new tests have started being used. there are threshold levels for some substances. Consequently there was not much reason for DL to stop using the stuff. its not that he thought the stuff wouldnt test so he could carry on, the bottle said it wouldnt test so he could just as easily believed that the FEI had tested it and found that substance well below thresholds that actually inflence a performance and so therefore 'safe' to use.
also get off the high horses about if it was sore it shouldnt have competed. perhaps we should give back our team bronze because parkmore ed was extremely sore after xc. on the commentary tucker said jackie had been working all night. perhaps next time on of you event types get a knock xc you will just withdraw as you finish? never mind trying to get the horse right. would you not ride if you had a headache? Would you withdraw form a three day because you were a little stiff? of course not, you would take an asprin and get on with it.
The horse cannot tell us how it feels. Thata why alot of what we do at events/shows is to prevent as much as cure. But i can tell you (AGAIN) that you might get a horse to jump ONE round of 1.60 if it was sore and you did all manner of nasty things to it too get it in the ring, but certainly not three (or as good as). Have some of you actually seen the size up close of a championship show jump course? Do any of you really think a horse with a sore back is going to make those spreads?
i believe he made a mistake, for what ever reason, and that if the B sample proves positive he should be disqualified as ignorance is no defence. But i think he had too much too lose by deliberate cheating, we dont know the drug levels yet and even if we did has anyone studied wheter the horses were also tested for dehydration at the times as even a small amount of that wil concentrate the blood somewhat and there fore the sample. If this test is so new is it absolutely accurate? and why didnt the FEI test the rest before making the results public with that high a percentage of positives. and why didnt they implement the use of a thermal imager in the boot check area. that would have solved the problem once and for all. that sunstance works by creating uncreased bloodflow, therefore heat.

 

[dieseldog]

If it didn't improve his horses performance he wouldn't have used it. Why waste money on a product that contains a banned substance if you didn't think it gave you more chance of wining - ie an advantage?

Isn't magnesioum naturally occuring in green foods and grains? You would need to ban horses eating grass and anything else to stop them testing positive for it. Also excess magnesium in the blood is filtered out by the kidneys so as SC suggests you probably can't feed too much to make a difference unless there was a defiency to start with.

 

[lucretia]

and i would have to say that all competitive riders are trying to improve the performance of their horses. couldbe wrong of course.....

 

[dieseldog]

[ QUOTE ]
and i would have to say that all competitive riders are trying to improve the performance of their horses. couldbe wrong of course.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are but within the rules.

 

[weevil]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
and i would have to say that all competitive riders are trying to improve the performance of their horses. couldbe wrong of course.....

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course they are but within the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]
Exactly, just as all athletes try to improve their performance, but some of them do this within the rules and others use performance-enhancing drugs...

 

[lucretia]

and as i keep saying, yawn, we actually dont know if the levels of this were enough to 'enhance' anything. to be technically correct this is a 'banned substance' and like a great deal of those i suspect that chronic use of an amount large enough to do make any sort of diffence would end up doing anything but enhance performance. seen the state of the legs on some ex showjumpers?
again this does not make it right but hardly makes denis lynch any worst than Phillip Dutton who used boots slightly too heavy. he had also used the product for at least two years and i dont see anyone on this forum using the sort of terminolgy about him as has been used about DL.