FEI to allow horses to compete on bute!

Can't believe this news!!! there is strong feeling at the FEI against this, so I don't understand how it got passed. They're even talking about challenging this decision legally.

Where are the guidelines, how can someone judge 'how much' is enough or too much on a competition day?? Where is the horses welfare in all this??

As is often the very sad case, this law being passed will be open to massive abuse by some, with the horse as the victim!!

I would not want to compete against the person working in next to me knowing their horse was on bute.
 
I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say
wink.gif
) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded.
 
The vet check for the show jumpers at HOYS had a trot up - it was in the outdoor warm up (temporary school in part of the NEC car park) on the Wednesday evening.
 
TD I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

I have always been of the thought if my horse has to have a bute to compete then he WILL NOT compete.
However, after years with an older horse who was stiff due to arthritus a tiny bit of bute made his life a lot easier just like me taking an ibuprofen for back pain or headaches.
A lot of us couldnt function comfortably without taking some sort of pain killer so why is it any different for a horse?

Im sure the FEI arent saying stuff the poor neddie with 2-4 sachets of bute. And in any case any horse who has severe pain would still be lame.
You only have to see how lame a horse is with a foot absess (not life threatening) but damn painful even with many grams of bute inside them.

There are many horses even younger ones whose careers suffer due to arthritic pain maybe this would mean the can too can still be competitive without breaking any rules?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say
wink.gif
) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree with you! Thanks for saving me having to put it into words!
grin.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
but surely it would have to depend on the weight of the horse/pony
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, possibly they have more details in the document? No idea.

I think the standard dose of bute is 2-4 grams per day, per 1,000 pounds (about 450 kilos). So 1 gram would be the standard dose for a very small pony, for anything else it would be well below the standard dose.
 
I think one potentially inflammatory (sorry
wink.gif
) issue is the description of bute and similar substances as "pain killers". Interestingly, this is a UK thing as far as I can tell. Such substances in North America are called, even in common language, NSAIDs or anti-inflammatories. "Pain killer" means something heavy duty and narcotic, such as morphine or Demerol - things that actually stop you hurting when you're really hurt.

"Pain killer" carries the connotation that it stops the subject from feeling any pain - take an ibuprofen for a broken arm and see how well that works.
smile.gif


I'm not just being pedantic (okay, a little bit pedantic) I think it really is part of the debate. If we're talking about stopping any kind of "help" for expected stiffness/soreness ON PRINCIPLE then it also has to address icing, acupuncture etc. If the goal is not to allow horses to compete when they've had any treatment leading up to or during a competition then that's one thing, but we already allow this. But if we allow those things and a small dose of NSAID is a proven, low risk way to do similar, then what, exactly, is the debate about?
 
IMHO setting aside (just for a moment) the question of how one feels about the use (or not) of NSAIDS - the whole procedure of this vote was flawed.
The FEI has shot not just itself but horse sport in the foot by introducing such a step with scant prior consultation at a time when drugs in sport is topping the agenda in a highly inflammable and emotional way. If it is the case that some NFs at the General Assembly did not have sufficient information to make a considered decision on this key issue then this is further evidence of the fundamentally wrong way the FEI seems to think it can conduct business. Disgraceful.
And did I just see that Princess High-handed has refused to entertain the idea of a reballot? No surprise there then....
 
Typical Princess Haya! Always totally convinced that she is right and no-one else has any worthwhile opinion.

Whilst a case could be made for a low level dosage, particularly after XC to ease any aches or minor stiffness, it does unfortunately open the door to abuse by administering bigger doses to get an otherwise lame horse through to the next SJ round, or the SJ in a three day.

This is a major leap back in horse welfare.

We will see a lot more horses sustaining serious or permanent injury or incapacity as a result of this idiotic decision.
 
[ QUOTE ]
What else is on this "progressive list" - is it published anywhere?

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't find the entire list anywhere, which is bizarre as you would imagine these things would be pre-publicised, but found this reference:

"The latter [the progressive list] does not prohibit phenylbutazone (up to 8 mcg/ml in plasma or serum), three times the level tolerated in the 1980s before the ban, salicyclic acid (up to 750mcg/ml in urine and up to 6.5 mcg/ml in plasma or serum) and flunixin (up to 500 mcg/ml in plasma or serum,) so long as those substances are not detected in a horse's sample above the prescribed limits noted and are used in isolation and not combined.

The progressive list also sanctions acetycysteine, dichloroacetate (lactanase), and isoxuprine."

Source:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersp...anned-list.html
 
regardless of your opinion on the actual rule change, it's way out of line with the FEI Statutes since this was dropped onto the NFs just days before the vote in an obvious attempt to circumvent the appropriate level of discussion:
"5. Amendments to the Sport Rules
5.2 All National Federations must be given at least six weeks to review a draft of the revised Sport Rules or proposed modifications and propose any amendments thereto. The final draft must be sent to the National Federations no later than four weeks before the General Assembly."
 
[ QUOTE ]
regardless of your opinion on the actual rule change,

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean QR, because I don't have an opinion on the rule change other than agreeing with you!
 
That is my point too arden. And as someone pointed out earlier (QR so can't see who - sorry) there isn't really enough info available to form an opinion. This hasn't been discussed or debated in any great depth, as far as I can see. Surely the guidelines should have been set and the proposal publicised before it went to vote? That is what I have a problem with. The FEI doing things unprofessionally, as per.
 
Regardless of which side of the debate one supports, we can all agree it's yet another example of the FEI being in a complete operational mess.

Incidentally, some of you will probably remember that the Duke of Edinburgh said that he used to take bute himself for his arthritis.
 
QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off!
tongue.gif


One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh
tongue.gif
 
The argument about bute raged around eventing. It was completeley "normal" for people to give horses bute at the end of the cross country day
"just in case" but it annoyed people who felt that their completely sound horse was beaten by a horse that couldn't have completed if it hadn't had a pain killer. So bute was banned.

I think it should remain banned for exactly the same reasons.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Completely agree with Tabledancer, she's saved me having to type out along reply though
smile.gif
tongue.gif
tongue.gif
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise!

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too. Thanks Tabledancer!
 
Well I personally would never compete a horse that needed to be treated with bute. Might be my heritage with Sweden strongly supporting the nought percent tolerance line and the "if you treat, don't compete" line. But clearly quite a few of you UK eventers on here feel differently - so I guess you are in luck...! Lets hope the sport doesn't suffer too much from this though, both in terms of media/publicity, but obviously above all, when it comes to animal wellfare.
 
[ QUOTE ]
I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say
wink.gif
) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded.

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with this.
If someone is going to cheat or attempt to compete a horse that shouldnt be out at shows due to ill health or lameness issues,they will whatever the rule book says.
But for the riders with an older horse who is fine and sound at home,but gets still traveling,a low dose of bute will allow them to compete on an even footing.
There is an argument for it in some cases/circumstances,but it should have had a hell of a lot of more discussion before being passed.
 
[ QUOTE ]
QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off!
tongue.gif


One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is a big difference because if you have a bad pain in say your knee, you could say how much it hurts...the horse can't.

How long does bute stay in the system? so are you saying that if a horse was entered to compete say on the Saturday and five days previous to that he needed a bute (1) for a sore somewhere....would that 1 bute still be detected in the system in a blood test on the Saturday?

I don't know so perhaps someone could tell me.? this is a genuine need to know question to try and understand what the FEI are trying to achieve.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off!
tongue.gif


One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh
tongue.gif


[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is a big difference because if you have a bad pain in say your knee, you could say how much it hurts...the horse can't.

How long does bute stay in the system? so are you saying that if a horse was entered to compete say on the Saturday and five days previous to that he needed a bute (1) for a sore somewhere....would that 1 bute still be detected in the system in a blood test on the Saturday?

I don't know so perhaps someone could tell me.? this is a genuine need to know question to try and understand what the FEI are trying to achieve.

[/ QUOTE ]

In answer to your question - yes
For this reason, I also agree with Tabledancer.
If your horse knocks himself, small cut, pulled shoes you might give him a couple of days of bute ( & obviously wouldn't compete him at that point) however, once he's over this, the question I always have is how long before there is no residue left in their system.

With this rule, which is the equivalent to 1 sachet being given 24 hours before, you know that as long as it has been a couple of days there would be no danger of failing a dope test. The same applies if medicated feed buckets get mixed up (we have a separate medication feed bucket for this reason) If there was a trace, it wouldn't be enough to fail a dope test on.

That's how I read this rule & thus feel it prevents horses failing a dope test for unintentional reasons. Not for people to be able to compete lame horses as 1 sachet of bute will not make a lame horse sound.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top