Jock Paget cleared by the FEI

clairebearnz

clairebearnz

Well-Known Member
Joined
23 January 2011
Messages
294
Visit site
"The FEI Tribunal has ruled that Jonathan Paget bears ‘No Fault or Negligence’ for the positive test based on its findings that the cause was the LesstressE product, that the reserpine in the product was the result of unforeseen contamination at the manufacturer, that Paget could not have known that the product was contaminated and that, given the precautions Paget had taken, he had the right to rely on the product and to expect it not to contain any prohibited substances."

http://www.nzequestrian.org.nz/teamnz/news/2014/august/pageted-cleared/

Good news for the Kiwi team and for Jock and all those involved.
 
Must be a huge relief for all concerned, but such a shame it took so longer to clear their names. I don't know the process involved but the racing authorities seemed much speedier in pinpointing the root of the problem when the Queen's horse tested positive for morphine!
 
I do wonder whether McNab and Paget would have a case against the supplement suppliers, Trinity Consultants. The supplement claims on their website to be free of substances prohibited by the FEI and yet seems to have been conclusively proved to be the source of the reserpine. McNab and Paget must have lost a huge amount of earnings in the time it took to clear their names so presumably they would be entitled to sue the supplier for damages?
 
If you read all the documents I would say it's not that cut and dry.

Odd things like the groom not naming the supposed supplement when questioned on routinely used supplements yet this supplement was claimed to have been used for at least a year. Jock and Kevin collecting the supplements to be sent off for testing from other users, no anti tamper on the supplements or seals which seems mad if being shipped off?, why in a batch test Kevin's and jocks reserpine came in so much higher than any others. If it's batch contamination it should be

I suggest people read Kevin's case first.
 
It could be a whole can of worms really. I heard from an extremely reliable source sometime back that the contamination came from a supplement. The manufacturers of the supplement had recently changed their supplier of one of the ingredients. So perhaps it could be that the supplement makers could sue their supplier.
 
Out of interest where can you read the docs?

As a logic lover, tis odd that two riders, with horses from same stables but different riders/yard, both tested positive for the same drug which was claimed to be from the same supplement.

Again I find it odd that groom didn't mention the use of this supplement either.

I really hope that Trinity don't get a backlash for this as well, although I would be interested to hear other batch results for this....................
 
Last edited:
How very unlucky for them to have that amazing series of unfortunate events. Truly a one a million chance, especially with all the clear tests before and after.

I'm with LEC. Nice for them, but odd.
 
LEC said:
Jock and Kevin collecting the supplements to be sent off for testing from other users, no anti tamper on the supplements or seals which seems mad if being shipped off?, why in a batch test Kevin's and jocks reserpine came in so much higher than any others. If it's batch contamination it should be

I suggest people read Kevin's case first.
Click to expand...

Jock and Kevin did not collect the bottles from other users themselves. Indeed, there was a carefully worked out 'arm's length' procedure used to collect the other riders' bottles for exactly this reason. The whole process was designed to ensure Jock and Kevin had nothing to do with the other bottles whatsoever.

Kev's Reserpine level came in higher than Jock's for two reasons: First, the sample from Kev's horse, Clifton Pinot, was taken immediately after his dressage test on the Friday, so he was sampled just a few hours after the last dose. In contrast, Jock's horse, Clifton Promise, was sampled at the end of competition on Sunday, over 48 hours after his last dose. The time difference would account for a significant difference in the levels. Second, Promise is very good at spitting things out he does not like, and apparently LesstressE is particularly unpalatable. So Promise may well have ingested a smaller quantity in the first place.
 
CE it is interesting that you have shown up on here . What everybody is forgetting is that even though Jock and Kevin have been cleared of intentionally administering a banned substance they were still guilty by your own admission of cheating. It is expressly stated in the FEI rules that the administration of any calmer is not allowed prior to competition. They do not need to be detectable or a banned substance ,just the use of is the offence. So maybe it is not clear cut and that would certainly account for the groom not mentioning this supplement.
I guess under the circumstances you wish you had not tried to get an advantage in this way!
 
popsdosh said:
CE it is interesting that you have shown up on here . What everybody is forgetting is that even though Jock and Kevin have been cleared of intentionally administering a banned substance they were still guilty by your own admission of cheating. It is expressly stated in the FEI rules that the administration of any calmer is not allowed prior to competition. They do not need to be detectable or a banned substance ,just the use of is the offence. So maybe it is not clear cut and that would certainly account for the groom not mentioning this supplement.
I guess under the circumstances you wish you had not tried to get an advantage in this way!
Click to expand...

I'd be interested if you could point me to the specific FEI that states, "the administration of any calmer is not allowed prior to competition". Don't you think the FEI Tribunal would have raised this rule, if it existed, during the months of correspondence and during the two-day Hearing in June? Please point me to the rule.
 
Clifton Eventers said:
I'd be interested if you could point me to the specific FEI that states, "the administration of any calmer is not allowed prior to competition". Don't you think the FEI Tribunal would have raised this rule, if it existed, during the months of correspondence and during the two-day Hearing in June? Please point me to the rule.
Click to expand...
Heres what you asked me to show you, the ruling came in in 2010 so I am surprised you were not aware of it. All NFs warned riders at the time but I guess most dont think it applies to them!
From the FEI regulations on clean sport.



Persons administering a herbal or so called natural product to a horse or pony for health reasons or to affect its performance, having been informed that the plant origin of its ingredients do not violate the FEI regulations, may have been misinformed.

The use of any herbal or natural product to affect the performance of a horse or pony in a calming (tranquilising) or an energising (stimulant) manner is expressly forbidden by FEI regulations. The use of a calming product during competition may also have important safety consequences.
 
Last edited:
BEF rulebook Annex E3 is also pretty specific. Although I suspect you know that already.

It's an interesting debate the neutraceuticals/supplement & potential to contravene rules. I sit on the fence in relation to that. Although I do think its a valid question to ask in relation to this case.
 
popsdosh said:
The use of any herbal or natural product to affect the performance of a horse or pony in a calming (tranquilising) or an energising (stimulant) manner is expressly forbidden by FEI regulations. The use of a calming product during competition may also have important safety consequences.
Click to expand...

You missed out the bit in the following paragraph that talks about the "use of a herbal or natural product may result in a positive test result". In other words, it's not a blanket ban on the use of anything that might be described as a 'calmer', but a ban on the use of any product that claims calming properties which results in a positive test.

I suggest you read para. 9.8 of the FEI Tribunal's Decision on Clifton Promise.
 
Clifton Eventers said:
You missed out the bit in the following paragraph that talks about the "use of a herbal or natural product may result in a positive test result". In other words, it's not a blanket ban on the use of anything that might be described as a 'calmer', but a ban on the use of any product that claims calming properties which results in a positive test.

I suggest you read para. 9.8 of the FEI Tribunal's Decision on Clifton Promise.
Click to expand...

You know the rules and you were cheating
This is copied from the FEI report on the case .

13.8 With regards to the question of Fault or Negligence, in line with one of its
previous decisions, case No 2009/25 CJS GAI FOREST, the Tribunal is of
the opinion that the prerequisite of No Fault or Negligence has to be
achievable and that therefore a “reasonableness test” has to be applied.
To start with the Tribunal understands that Equestrian sport on a high
level requires the use of supplements to properly care for such elite
horses. And in the Tribunal’s opinion the Persons Responsible should not
be the proper party to bear the risk of supplements contaminated at the
manufacturer’s level. The Tribunal however also believes that there has
to be a distinction between those supplements necessary for the welfare
of horses, and those supplements used on the horses with the mere
intention of improving their performance. With respect to the case at
hand, and based on the PR’s testimony during the Final Hearing, the
Tribunal believes that indeed, when using LesstressE the PR had the
intention to enhance the Horse’s performance as he had administered
the product in order to prevent the Horse from refusing its feed and
drinks, and from changing its metabolic function, especially around
competition times, when the Horse was stressed. The Tribunal however
believes that the fact that the PR had used the supplement for its
performance enhancing effect does not necessarily mean that he is ipso
facto barred from establishing the absence of fault or negligence. In
particular, in the case at hand, the PR did not know that the LesstressE
contained Reserpine. The question is whether he could or should hav

As you are well aware the FEI could only deal with the case at hand and not retrospectively the administration of a calmer.
By the way you are fully aware it is a blanket ban on any product administered to enhance performance this also includes products not on the banned list per se.
Anybody who reads the full report will come to their own conclusions and I suggest they do however you cannot say the report is saying both riders are sqeaky clean
 
Last edited:
popsdosh said:
You know the rules and you were cheating
Click to expand...

That's a pretty big accusation and arguably defamatory, particularly as it's not a conclusion reached by the FEI Tribunal, which is what I think we have to go on here, and not your opinion. Nowhere in its 36 page Decision does the FEI Tribunal even allude to equating the use of this product with "cheating."

They accept it was a horse welfare issue and they clearly state, the PR "… had administered the product in order to prevent the Horse from refusing its feed and drinks, and from changing its metabolic function, especially around competition times, when the Horse was stressed." The product was NOT administered "with the mere intention of improving their performance."
I don't know about you, but apart from the welfare of the horse, I would not like to ride around Burghley cross country on a horse that was dehydrated and had low blood sugar levels because it had not eaten or drunk for a couple of days.

I think if you were able to walk around the stables at a major event, ALL riders employ some method of ensuring their horses are in the best possible condition to face the arduous cross country phase. They would be negligent if they did not.

So, by your definition, all riders must be "cheating"?
 
I have not read the full report or indeed have a specific view on this case. However I would suggest that it is unwise for a 'connection' with the parties to engage in debate on a public forum such as this.
 
VRIN said:
I have not read the full report or indeed have a specific view on this case. However I would suggest that it is unwise for a 'connection' with the parties to engage in debate on a public forum such as this.
Click to expand...

Probably not, but I can understand why they would want to set the record straight, from their perspective.
 
Based on that info I am sure that close to 100% of horses should be eliminated at an FEI event.

Half for calmers and the other half for propel or similar products!
 
It's a bit of a grey area when it one to supplements really. Anything which claims to alter a horses way if going us banned, regardless of whether any of the ingredients would test positive as a banned substance.
Whether the supplement actually works on your horse is sort if irrelevent, it's the intention behind what your feeding.
But then there are a lot of things which can alter a horses way of going; tack, feed, routine...so where do you draw the line of bit at supplements ?
 
Presumably oats are fed to improve performance... Or any other feedstuff. Well fitting tack improves performance, as does correct shoeing as does ensuring adequate hydration. I would guess that quite a lot of the "legal" supposedly 1 shot calmers have more benefit for the rider's state of mind than that of the horse, even at top levels..
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top