Denis Lynch, full interview

I agree with luretia's comments

It makes me laugh that footballers such as Rooney and Beckhan get given numbing pain releive jabs in toes before important football matches so they can play and are not branded cheats.

The horses are athletes so will get strains and knocks at the shows which need minor treatment, just like other sports and if the best product contains a small amount of a 'banned substance' that is not going to be a major performing enhancement so be it as long as it is not abused. I sometimes wonder if all this drug testing has become to stringent and is actually causing more suffering for the horse. Cheating is one thing and must be stamped out but welfare must surely be another consideration.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.



[/ QUOTE ]


Firstly, I think you'll find that a) I have not labelled anyone a dope cheat (apart from Dwaine Chambers, who is a dope cheat), and b) that I have specifically stated that I don't wish to accuse anyone in this case as it is not proven. I hardly think that is defamatory, especially as the rider in quesiton has admitted to using a product containing a banned substance.

Secondly, I am not comparing the effects of whatever was applied to DLs horse to the effects seen by Dwaine Chambers from his doping, I was making the point that saying you've been using it all year and not tested positive means you are clean is not an argument for proving your innocence.

Thirdly, at what point have I mentioned it being applied to the legs??! Pain relef is what I've been discussing and that is a very different kettle of fish from application to the legs which would presumably hypersensitise them and be a form of chemical rapping?

Fourthly, no, I don't think we need give back the bronze - I've also stated elsewhere that I see no problem with massaging, icing, walking out or in fact using anything under the sun which does not contain a banned substance to improve the welfare of the horse - the fact remains that PE did not test positive for a banned substance and DLs horse did. If PEs groom spent all night rubbing goose fat and getting rabbits to jump on PE and it worked then great!

I'll say it again, I don't want to label anyone in this case guilty as nothing is proven, but I maintain that to use something known to contain a banned substance is more than a little naieve, even if it has never shown up on tests before, you are still levaing yourself wide open to being caught and labelled potentially as something you are not - especially if you know the FEI won't tell you if they've suddenly managed to develop a more sensitive test for the product.
 
PMSL..........
smile.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
The horses are athletes so will get strains and knocks at the shows which need minor treatment, just like other sports and if the best product contains a small amount of a 'banned substance' that is not going to be a major performing enhancement so be it as long as it is not abused. I sometimes wonder if all this drug testing has become to stringent and is actually causing more suffering for the horse. Cheating is one thing and must be stamped out but welfare must surely be another consideration.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that - but where do you draw the line? Surely in the situation you're describing the rider could apply to the FEI for 'theraputic use' - an exemption which allows you to use an otherwise banned substance?
 
I agree with The Voice.

The way I see it, Equiblock is used to warm muscles - and a horse that is doing such a great job bloody deserves spa like treatments to keep them in tip top condition. IMHO there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with using a product to keep a horse as comfortable as possible, so long as it is not a performance enhancing treatment. As Gonetofrance said, performance enabling surely should be applauded, as it proves that the rider/groom/owner are doing their utmost to keep their athlete in tip top shape.

Jumping those courses, let's face it, I reckon ALL the horses would have a few aches and pains, as would most of the riders, because it is all about stretching the horses capabilities.

Which leads me on to this....is capsicum banned for athletes too? And if it is not, then surely that is grossly unfair!

I think that the tests are getting too specific.
 
I think the problem with allowing small doses is that like the current test for drivers and alcohol is that no one would know where they stand with people guessing on whether they would be tipped over the legal limit. With an outright ban then there are only two outcomes negative or positive.

I believe the FEI is correct in its judgement of being over cautious as long term it will reap the benefits from being tough. I am friends with a top class international athlete and he knows its more than his life is worth to test positive. The sanctions placed on horses testing positive are incredibly minor to compared to humans. Cian O Connor and Jessica Keurten have been out competing pretty regularly despite failing so in the long term scheme of things it makes no difference to test positive it just affects the competition at the time.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I agree with The Voice.

The way I see it, Equiblock is used to warm muscles - and a horse that is doing such a great job bloody deserves spa like treatments to keep them in tip top condition. IMHO there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with using a product to keep a horse as comfortable as possible, so long as it is not a performance enhancing treatment. As Gonetofrance said, performance enabling surely should be applauded, as it proves that the rider/groom/owner are doing their utmost to keep their athlete in tip top shape.

Jumping those courses, let's face it, I reckon ALL the horses would have a few aches and pains, as would most of the riders, because it is all about stretching the horses capabilities.

Which leads me on to this....is capsicum banned for athletes too? And if it is not, then surely that is grossly unfair!

I think that the tests are getting too specific.

[/ QUOTE ]

I completely agree with this, and have no issue with it at all, the only problem is that for whatever reason the FEI have banned a substance contained in EquiBlock. So either it is performance enhancing (unlikely) or it can be used in a more sinister way (which we know to be true). Thus presumably for the welfare of those animals whose owners/riders would use it in such a way as to compromise welfare, the FEI has banned it, meaning that those people who'd use it to enhance welfare are left unable to use it - and if they do, they risk being caught and being suspended.

What now? It's transdermal and the test uses blood/urine, so you couldn't prove which way it was used. So which group of horses do you compromise? Or do you put it on the 'theraputic' list which means riders can apply for an exemption if they really think it helps that much? The latter seems to me to be the way to go - and perhaps people should start lobbying the FEI for this.

This is totally different argument from the one which says if you know a substance is on the banned list, using a product with it in is a bit silly.
 
and i think that is right where the drug is 'enhancing' but they are supposing that is the case with this one. unfortunately its much clearer with humans they know what they are doing with their bodies, if they are ill they can say so.
with horses i think the FEI are getting slightly too hysterical. some things are very useful therepuetically and some conditions can be treated so the horse can compete and complete without detriment. i think there should be thresh holds for some. the boot check is a good thing and the thermal imager would be if they actually did it, but this wholesale ban on virtualy everything is not so good.
 
[ QUOTE ]
and i think that is right where the drug is 'enhancing' but they are supposing that is the case with this one. unfortunately its much clearer with humans they know what they are doing with their bodies, if they are ill they can say so.
with horses i think the FEI are getting slightly too hysterical. some things are very useful therepuetically and some conditions can be treated so the horse can compete and complete without detriment. i think there should be thresh holds for some. the boot check is a good thing and the thermal imager would be if they actually did it, but this wholesale ban on virtualy everything is not so good.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the trouble with thresholds, certainly in this case, is that because it is transdermal you'd have the same issue with not knowing whether the horse had got enough into its bloodstram to be a problem as I guess the amount applied and the location of application, not to mention the skin of each horse etc would mean the rate of absorption was altered?

Why has no-one asked to use this under the theraputic exemption? It would seem the ideal solution to me? It would be easy to swab/thermal image the legs of anyone with a theraputic exemption because there would be a small number of them and you'd know who they are. Maybe you could pass the suggestion on?
 
i am writing an article on the subject as it happens which will be seen by persons in high places.....!
and by the way both Parkmore Ed and peppermill benfitted from theraputic exemptions/vet treatments at the games (unless peppermill wasnt treated for his alleged slight tie-up).....by some of the arguments on here they should have been withdrawn before that if they were not 'fit to compete'
 
[ QUOTE ]
i am writing an article on the subject as it happens which will be seen by persons in high places.....!
and by the way both Parkmore Ed and peppermill benfitted from theraputic exemptions/vet treatments at the games (unless peppermill wasnt treated for his alleged slight tie-up).....by some of the arguments on here they should have been withdrawn before that if they were not 'fit to compete'

[/ QUOTE ]

You should only withdraw (IMO) if you can only get the horse fit to compete by using a banned substance for which you cannot get a theraputic exemption. I have no problem at all with people doing things by the book like that, seems perfectly fair and reasonable to me.
 
I've read all this with interest and one small thing I'd like to point out as some people seem to be getting confused is the reason the susbstance is banned is that it can have hypersensitisation and pain relieving effects... however DL clearly stated that he used it to warm up the horses back to make them looser not as a pain relieving agent. So the arguments about the horse possibly being in pain etc don't really hold.

At the end of the day, there is a MASSIVE support team out there including vets etc and everything should have been checked for banned substances. I know other's have said it, but if I was competing at that level everything that went near my horse (or myself for that matter) would be double checked just in case. I know it says that it doesn't test but is it really worth risking an olypmic medal rather than doing your homework? I truly don't believe that DL deliberately cheated, but I do believe that ignorance is no excuse.
 
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ooh, law not science
grin.gif
finally something I know about - absolutely nothing DD said would qualify as defamatory
smile.gif
 
The "calmer" discussion is actually an interesting sidebar. Calmers definitely go against the "spirit of the law" - they chemically alter the horse's performance - but not the "letter of the law" because there is currently no way of testing for them. (The drug Cian O'Connor was done for is a "calmer" if you want to get right down to it.) So they're "okay" because you can't get caught?

Before Regumate was taken off the banned list people simply got mares spayed. Now the worry is people use it on stallions but there's no way of knowing. But is messing with a horse's hormones in order to changes its behaviour "performance enhancing" or not? If the horse doesn't pay attention without drugs is that something riders should be able to change? Only if they're substances that occur in the horse naturally? These things are never simple . . .

Of course this has nothing to do with the current situation. Just musing.
smile.gif
 
Are you refering to the drug known as Modicate - this is what Cian O Connor used in the 2004 Games ? It was widely used until prior to Cian 's test - thank God they got it then and now the pepper stuff.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are you refering to the drug known as Modicate - this is what Cian O Connor used in the 2004 Games ? It was widely used until prior to Cian 's test - thank God they got it then and now the pepper stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

No idea of the brand name..........the drugs were Fluphenazine and Zuclophentixol .... if it was that widely used, did others test positive for it?
 
[ QUOTE ]
Are you refering to the drug known as Modicate - this is what Cian O Connor used in the 2004 Games ? It was widely used until prior to Cian 's test - thank God they got it then and now the pepper stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

and unfortunately this 'pepper stuff' is not a 'drug' but a naturallyoccuring substance found in a great many products, plants and foodstuffs and so consequently if you are going to test for it and disqualify people when you find it you need to be damn sure where it came from. repeating myself once again, if the thermal imaging had been implented as had been didscussed by the FEI then ther wouldnt be an issue. a hot spot would show up BEFORE the horse jumped and prompt further investigation at least.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top