Michael Whitaker guilty of doping

Oh dear. Shame that it happened because of a mix up! Does that mean someone else's horse would have been doped?
confused.gif
 
[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean someone else's horse would have been doped?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ] If you read the article carefully you will see that the drug (commonly known as Regumate) is allowed to be used in mares only. Michael seems to be claiming the Regumate was intended for one of his mares but was fed to the stallion by mistake.
 
The story would be a heck of a lot more interesting if anyone had found out whether or not any of the mares Michael presumably had at the show have the medical dispensation for using regumate or not. The article simply says he has applied in the past to use it on some of his mares, which tells us nothing about whether the groom was in charge of any mares which can legally be given regumate or not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does that mean someone else's horse would have been doped?
confused.gif


[/ QUOTE ] If you read the article carefully you will see that the drug (commonly known as Regumate) is allowed to be used in mares only. Michael seems to be claiming the Regumate was intended for one of his mares but was fed to the stallion by mistake.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oop, missed that
blush.gif
Thanks for pointing it out
smile.gif
 
As per you first sentence of the story, I think you missed out the word 'inadvertently' or 'found' in your headline. You make out like he has actually killed someone.

This is a really minor offence, it was a mistake and both he and the groom have paid the price. But hey lets just blow it proportion so that everybody thinks that the only reason horses perform is because they are drugged up.

i can't wait to see the picture of a top horse doing a line of coke!
 
This is another interesting and controversial case- one of many that have been 'resolved' since I started my project on doping in equestrian sport.

Here we have another typical example where it appears that the 'person responsible' isn't really responsible. I understand that the rider should have some responsibility but at the end of the day it just isn't feasible for them to oversee everything that their horse touches/ ingests/ is given as medication.

The rules really need clarifying and not just one person can be held accountable every time a mix up like this happens. At least educate the riders so they have every chance of avoiding positive tests so that anyone who didn't intentionally set out to give their horse and unfair advantage is tried fairly.

Obviously one can't give riders the benefit of the doubt all the time, but there has to be a better way than banning every rider whose horse has a slightest trace of a 'performance enhancing' drug even if they were nowhere near it when the doping occurred [e.g. Sheik Mohammed]. The grooms may lose their jobs but it is the rider who gets banned and whose reputation suffers.
 
Here we have another typical example where it appears that the 'person responsible' isn't really responsible. I understand that the rider should have some responsibility but at the end of the day it just isn't feasible for them to oversee everything that their horse touches/ ingests/ is given as medication. [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]


Thats no different to any management job in any sphere of business, you are accountable for the actions of your staff. Period. You take the rewards, you take the flak / responsibility if it goes pear shaped. Besides he must have an army of head girls etc and knowledgeable grooms - how could something so silly happen ?

I would have more sympathy if he had not been caught out before, an H & H article highlighted the same sort of incident when his groom inadvertently gave the wrong injection to a valuable horse rendering it useless and that ended up in the courts.

Anyway whats happened has happened and Michael will bounce back.
 
I think I would give the "must have mixed up" story more credence if the substance had been found in a gelding's system. The fact that it was "inadvertently" given to a horse that just happened to possibly get a benefit from it makes me suspicious I'm afraid

Plus - read that groom's statement carefully. Notice how the whole thing is couched in "must have done" "can't remember" terms which allow her to put the "it was just a mix up" defence in without actually risking perjuring herself by stating ANYTHING as a definite fact
 
As the FEI has found MW guilty does anyone else feel that the length of ban (approx 6 months) is somewhat light punishment by their own standards. I was of the belief that due to trying to stamp out any form of doping a 2yr ban was the norm, Somewhere in my dim wit brain I also recall having to appeal to the IOC with regards to Olympic selection. Anyone have any thoughts are am I imagining this?
 
None of us obviously know the full case but if the facts proved that it was totally accidental, with absolutely no performance enhancement, then the FEI may have actually used some common sense (heaven forbid) in the legnth of the ban and used it as a slap wrist to be more careful in the future. It would have cost MW quite a bit in competition prize money and his place on the team.

With doping I think there are different cases between cheating and lack of common sense (accidental). Any grey area then they should be given a longer ban and then go to appeal if the rider feels they have case.

I think that the FEI have actually got a very difficult job to do with regards to situations like this and drugs results in general.
 
I agree that it is a difficult job. However it would be far easier & look more transparent to all if they gave the full facts ie: Was MW competing at La Baule with a mare that had the medication approved by the veterinary panel? If that is indeed the case then we all see a clear picture. Then we need consistency in the penalties handed out. It is the only way forward for a governing body to get respect. BTW this is not intended as a dig at MW. Just the system & in particular the FEI.
 
It's a tough one.

But when I worked for a top SJ anything that had medication in it's feed we had special coloured buckets for it.

So that nothing did accidently get given the wrong feed, that was still competing.
 
After looking at the post someone put in Stable Yard yesterday on the forum about feeding horse different food items, there was a list of what would show up in a dope test. I was amazed to find things like chocolate would show positive results. I really think in the vast number of cases the positive dope test result in a result of humun error with treats/feed and not deliberate especially if riders/owners know there horses are likely to be tested or there is a chance that a random dope test may be given to their horses or them.
 
The University of Guelph in Canada published a paper withing the last few years that proved there was no truth in the old wives tale that feeding stallions reumate made them easier to handle, unless the horse was less than two tears old where i believe (without looking right now) that there was a trend towards slightly more feminine behaviour but no outright results.
I doubt MW reads scientific papers and so may well believe the old tale but it was a trace. Like most of the horses in the Olympic scandal. Not enough to enhance anything and no evidence the substance either does enhance performance or cause suffering which surely is what the FEI is trying to eradicate?
As someone above said so many things test these days it is getting ridiculous especially since threshold levels were abolished. In the case of Regumate in mares it must be given over a period of time to have an effect, consequently no point in giving it to a stallion ONCE even if it were true it makes them 'easier'. hence in a dope test it would hardly show up as a trace if it were being used for that purpose. It is the same with capsicum (sp?). To 'sensitise' a horses legs (and i have not yet found a scientific paper proving it does.....) you need to use it in fairly significant amounts immediately before a horse jumps. Therefore in a dope test (generally performed as after a horse has competed be unlikely to show up as a miniscule trace (in the case of the Norwegian horse anyway) if used for that purpose, let alone any other evidence that it is easily picked up from a great many sourses and I hear the Hong Kong authorities have not yet provided the details of the product used as an anti wood chew/preservative in the Olympic stables thus far, hence why Tony Andre hansens case is still outstanding.
Hopefully the new commision will sort things out, but i do believe the rider has to be the person responsible for all the reasons LEC mentions and also because otherwise any positives will always be fobbed off onto the grooms shoulders. As a former international groom, that would be a disaster for many of them and I am surprised that the British Grooms Assocoation has not publically condemmed that recent suggestion.
 
[ QUOTE ]

Thats no different to any management job in any sphere of business, you are accountable for the actions of your staff. Period. You take the rewards, you take the flak / responsibility if it goes pear shaped. Besides he must have an army of head girls etc and knowledgeable grooms - how could something so silly happen ?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that everyone involved with horses at this kind of level should receive as much information and education as possible and tips to avoid these kind of mix ups. It is a terrible shame that riders and horses suffer.

Thankfully the drug did not have any adverse effects for Tackery, but what if a mix up such as this had more serious consequences for the horse? Never mind the competition, what about the horse's welfare? I'm not involved in top level competition but it's and don't profess to have much knowledge of the subject, it's just a thought. Maybe someone with more experience can dispel my fears?
 
To me the excuse is similar to top athletes saying they accidentally took some cough medicine that had a banned substance in it. Total tosh as someone at the top of their game they would harldy be using cough medicine and if they did they would check the ingredients.

Its just a shame the groom has become the scape goat.
 
Hasn't anybody else ever accidentally chucked a scoop of the wrong mix, or wrong suppliment into the wrong bucket at some time or another? It is easily done when putting together feeds for half a dozen horses, let alone however many there would be on his yard. I for one, have realised as soon as I have chucked something in a feed that it was the bucket next to the one it should have gone in, and scooped it back out. What if this had been the case, but a small amount of powder/liquid had remained? What if, heaven forbid, the groom made an innocent mistake and didn't realise it?

Very difficult decsion for the FEI to make.
 
Yes I think we all have, but if someone's reputation and career were riding on it, I would ensure that firstly I never did it and that I had measure's in place to make sure no one else did.
 
I slightly think that everyone is getting the issue mixed up especially the person who wrote the headline at the top of this post.
MW has been found guilty of a presenting a horse which tested positive for TRACE of a substance which actually is allowed in mares as long as declared and further more has been PROVEN to have absolutely no effect on mature geldins or stallions.
This was a mistake, for whatever reason, not testing posoitve for bute or ACP for gods sake. It was not performance enhancing and certainly not 'doping' in the way the term has come to be used in recent years.
as it happens personally i never feed regumatte in feeds and now you know one reason, which is that it is very sticky and hard to remove from utensils (bowls/stirring spoons) and the other is that it is nessecary for the mare to recieve the whole dose or it will not work.
Everyone including the FEI needs to get a grip on the medication issue as it is out of hand and you barely treat a scratched knee these days. Far better of course to let a scratch become an infected wound for example isnt it........
 
I colour coordinate my buckets so that this doesn't happen. Regardless of whether it was intention or accident... the horse was given an illegal, potentially performance enhancing drug. So the price should be paid either way. If this happened to me I would have sacked the groom for being such a careless idiot, but accepted the fact that what happened happened, and would just stick out the ban. I still think that whilst the groom (I dont know her) may not have been the brightest spark... she would have had to have been a COMPLETE imbecile to mix up the feeds. I've met some half-wits in my life that work on stableyards, but even the dimmest one could remember which feed went to which horse. Michael will be back in action soon enough anyway... end of October I think? I don't think the ban has really damaged his career beyond repair.
 
[ QUOTE ]
Hasn't anybody else ever accidentally chucked a scoop of the wrong mix, or wrong suppliment into the wrong bucket at some time or another? It is easily done when putting together feeds for half a dozen horses, let alone however many there would be on his yard. I for one, have realised as soon as I have chucked something in a feed that it was the bucket next to the one it should have gone in, and scooped it back out. What if this had been the case, but a small amount of powder/liquid had remained? What if, heaven forbid, the groom made an innocent mistake and didn't realise it?

Very difficult decsion for the FEI to make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can't say I have ever done this... mixed feeds up... seriously... it is not rocket science!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
I slightly think that everyone is getting the issue mixed up especially the person who wrote the headline at the top of this post.
MW has been found guilty of a presenting a horse which tested positive for TRACE of a substance which actually is allowed in mares as long as declared and further more has been PROVEN to have absolutely no effect on mature geldins or stallions.
This was a mistake, for whatever reason, not testing posoitve for bute or ACP for gods sake. It was not performance enhancing and certainly not 'doping' in the way the term has come to be used in recent years.
as it happens personally i never feed regumatte in feeds and now you know one reason, which is that it is very sticky and hard to remove from utensils (bowls/stirring spoons) and the other is that it is nessecary for the mare to recieve the whole dose or it will not work.
Everyone including the FEI needs to get a grip on the medication issue as it is out of hand and you barely treat a scratched knee these days. Far better of course to let a scratch become an infected wound for example isnt it........

[/ QUOTE ]

It would potentially have a very good calming effect on a stallion
 
I agree, how it happened is not really the issue since if you got let off for it being a mistake then anyone who did it would say it was a mistake. And you can not have one rule for one person and a different one for someone else as that would runin the credibility of the whole sport.
 
Are your posts actually serious?

I'm very glad you haven't ever accidentally chucked a scoop of the wrong something or other in to a horse's feed: I don't know your situation, how many feeds you make for how many different horses per day, and how much experience you have, but I see that I am not alone anwyay.

Has it ever been proven what constituted a trace? Could the horse have SNIFFED the "Dope" and still got a trace into his system?

I find this whole situation very sad.
 
I find it somewhat sadder that a top competitor thinks he can get away with blaming the groom.

I used to work in an international yard and every bucket was colour coded as were the head collars of the horses so the head collars and buckets matched and as those that compete will know this goes on for months before the competition too, so the chances of muddling feeds is highly unlikely.

and actually the kind of person given the responsibility of feeding top competition horses would never ever have "accidentally chucked a scoop of the wrong something or other in to a horse's feed"
every single top rider and their grooms know exactly to the minute what is on the list and what isnt.
Blaming the groom is a really sh*tty thing to do.
 
Whilst I have no intention of trying to be pedantic, I feel I have to disagree with your argument backed with the various facts you have highlighted. I do not pretend for one moment to have a scientific mind that easily understands the articles. However I do feel that all these reports were researching the substance used on stallions with regards to it's effect regarding re production rather than any effect on a stallion that is in top line competition. There are some interesting points in all of the findings, but I think that at very best all articles went down the same path with the research regarding sperm count, testes size, behaviour with a tease mare etc. It also does state at usual dose rate their was a minimal change in behaviour & testosterone levels even after 30 day. but reversed in approx 60 days. I think must people would agree that when competing at this level any margin of improvement can only be a bonus. The winner of any class might only be 100th of a second quicker. That tiny margin is the difference between winning & an also ran. Also, I would be interested to hear exactly what amount of substance was found, maybe you already know? H&H I seem to remember quotes "laced" (I take that with a pinch of salt) As I said in a previous post the FEI will have all the information documented. They choose to keep it to themself. This is what I find infuriating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top