FEI statement re first doping hearing

completely but i would think that the defence for the accused has mentioned a few of the points mentioned on here, like the stuff is as common as salt, why didnt they test the rest when so many from such a small smple were positive etc etc
 
If you really want some interesting reading follow the link to the FEI site and look through some of the other Tribunal decisions. If you think those are only situations under FEI rules and figure how many more there must be under the various NF rules . . . it's hardly a rare thing to get a rule or medication violation. Which puts the Olympic thing into a bit more perspective - not so much rare as merely well publicised.

Interesting that the argument for the first two seems to be exactly as argued in our other thread, that the intended use of a substance is pertinent. They have been accused not just of having their horses test positive, but of having used the substance to sensitise the horse rather than for the horse's comfort. (Which may still be against the rules but carries a different penalty and certainly a different public connotation.) So it's not just that they are being accused, it's what they're being accused of.

Also the point that the horses have been tested before while being treated with the preparation and passed so they assumed it was okay. Not as dumb as it sounds, they could have assumed they were within margin of error or, even more likely, the substance was not passed into the bloodstream in sufficient amounts when used for the purposes directed.

I guess you could argue positive is positive but there seem to be some very grey areas . . . at the very least, as the science gets better, the rules have to change with it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top