lucretia
Well-Known Member
oh and i havent been able to post links to the other studies as they all request subscriptions but i know they did one at Guelph in canada and a couple in the USA
Michael Whitaker may be banned from riding in Olympics
- Thread starter Puppy
- Start date
sjstar23
Well-Known Member
Side Effects--Stallions
An off-label use of Regu-Mate is to calm stallions down. According to Dr. Bob Judd, DVM, it can also cause fertility problems and should not be used
An off-label use of Regu-Mate is to calm stallions down. According to Dr. Bob Judd, DVM, it can also cause fertility problems and should not be used
mle22
Well-Known Member
I respect the points both of you (Lucretia and Pootleperkin) make, however that is not how things are, the regulatory bodies have taken the 'simplistic' view, and as it stands, if a horse or an athlete has a banned substance in their system they are guilty. It may not be right or fair but I can understand this view point, as anything else is open to professional abuse and could be seen as not objective. If I get caught drink driving, I'm still guilty, even if I say it was the sherry trifle and I didn't know it would put me over the limit! Lucretia - yes humans can make their own decisions, but top class horse athletes have humans to make those decisions for them and ask vets what they can safely use - so I don't really understand that point. It is very negligent to allow a banned substance into a horse's food, you can call it an accident and I'm sure it probably was - but it still shouldn't have happened. Surely a top yard where this is of such vital importance should not have allowed it to happen in the first place.
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
Lucretia, thank you for making such excellent points and clarifying what went on in Michael Whitaker's case.
As part of my project I am using this as a Case Study because Michael Whitaker is so high profile, and his ban form Olympic competition highlights how ridiculous some laws can be.
The FEI accepted that this was 'accidental doping' [my term not theirs] because the horse's feed bucket had been mixed up with one intended for a mare [Portofino] who had been administered Altrenogest.
Although Michael argued that Altrenogest should be classified as 'Medication' and not 'Doping', it was found that 'there is no therapeutic use for altrenogest in male horses in competition' and therefore the drug had to be classed as doping.
However, I think that the relatively lenient fine and understanding stance taken by the tribunal show that they did not see the substance as something administered to intentionally enhance performance.
In my opinion, banning Michael from future Olympic Games is ridiculous because this is a one-off and accidental occurrence where a drug [that is not proven to enhance the stallion's performance] was detected.
By comparison, Dwain Chambers, by his own admission, took THG for at least 18months and believed that after he served his ban it was unfair for him to be banned from competing in the Olympics.
As part of my project I am using this as a Case Study because Michael Whitaker is so high profile, and his ban form Olympic competition highlights how ridiculous some laws can be.
The FEI accepted that this was 'accidental doping' [my term not theirs] because the horse's feed bucket had been mixed up with one intended for a mare [Portofino] who had been administered Altrenogest.
Although Michael argued that Altrenogest should be classified as 'Medication' and not 'Doping', it was found that 'there is no therapeutic use for altrenogest in male horses in competition' and therefore the drug had to be classed as doping.
However, I think that the relatively lenient fine and understanding stance taken by the tribunal show that they did not see the substance as something administered to intentionally enhance performance.
In my opinion, banning Michael from future Olympic Games is ridiculous because this is a one-off and accidental occurrence where a drug [that is not proven to enhance the stallion's performance] was detected.
By comparison, Dwain Chambers, by his own admission, took THG for at least 18months and believed that after he served his ban it was unfair for him to be banned from competing in the Olympics.
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
The official report can be found here: it clarifies everything and explains why the drug was considered 'doping'.
http://www.fei.org/Athletes_AND_Horses/Medication_Control_AND_Antidoping/Horses/Pages/Decisions.aspx
Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere but as this seems to be a hot topic I thought it may be of interest to some people.
http://www.fei.org/Athletes_AND_Horses/Medication_Control_AND_Antidoping/Horses/Pages/Decisions.aspx
Sorry if this has been posted elsewhere but as this seems to be a hot topic I thought it may be of interest to some people.
lucretia
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Side Effects--Stallions
An off-label use of Regu-Mate is to calm stallions down. According to Dr. Bob Judd, DVM, it can also cause fertility problems and should not be used
[/ QUOTE ]
yes so we have been told but this has been proven scientifically to pretty much be an old wives tale once the stallion is older than 2 or three years and that even in those cases must be adminstered continuously for at least 30 days.
I would be very interted to see the reference for any study since 2003 that contradicts this as i have not been able to find one.
Side Effects--Stallions
An off-label use of Regu-Mate is to calm stallions down. According to Dr. Bob Judd, DVM, it can also cause fertility problems and should not be used
[/ QUOTE ]
yes so we have been told but this has been proven scientifically to pretty much be an old wives tale once the stallion is older than 2 or three years and that even in those cases must be adminstered continuously for at least 30 days.
I would be very interted to see the reference for any study since 2003 that contradicts this as i have not been able to find one.
lucretia
Well-Known Member
MoyaL, I am not really understanding how you cant see the difference between horse and humans. Yes horses have grooms and riders but it is ridiculous to apply the same standards to both. apart from anything else a horse is many times the size of a human. therefore if a human tests positive for the steroid in sudocream, well I still dont think it would be performance enhancing but there obviously are other steroids but in the same concentration as found in a horse?
It is a joke really that you cannot use an excellent horse product like Dermobion becauseof the effect the corti steroid in it has on humans. As i said before the medication rules are written for HUMANs with an added codicil refering to FEI rules. That is the difference. if a horse tests positive for bute oe some other nasty, I am 100% in agreement it must be punished, which is why no horse could be sedated for clipping within a certain prior to the Olympics so there were no mix ups over clearance times.
and as i also said before, i find it hard to understand this attiude to what i would call first aid products when pinch boots are still allowed.
It is a joke really that you cannot use an excellent horse product like Dermobion becauseof the effect the corti steroid in it has on humans. As i said before the medication rules are written for HUMANs with an added codicil refering to FEI rules. That is the difference. if a horse tests positive for bute oe some other nasty, I am 100% in agreement it must be punished, which is why no horse could be sedated for clipping within a certain prior to the Olympics so there were no mix ups over clearance times.
and as i also said before, i find it hard to understand this attiude to what i would call first aid products when pinch boots are still allowed.
mle22
Well-Known Member
Believe it or not, I actually can see the difference between humans and horses, but quite simply it is the responsibility of the riders and grooms to ensure that the horse does not have anything prohibited in its system, irrespective of whether the rule is wrong or not - it is still the rule. That is the point I am trying to make,
lucretia
Well-Known Member
thanks blackhorse. I see the FEI did cling to the argument that the product can be used to calm stallions but that the British Horse Racing Board thinks it has no use in these cases.
I slightly suspected that this substance is still on the prohibited lists from its days as prohibited for mares also and it seems that is the case. Most interesting though. Good luck with your project by the way.
I slightly suspected that this substance is still on the prohibited lists from its days as prohibited for mares also and it seems that is the case. Most interesting though. Good luck with your project by the way.
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
Thanks Lucretia. I seem to have chosen a very influential time to do a project on doping but it is most interesting to see how the FEI regulate drugs and medication in horses.
After reading the report it seems to me that the FEI were almost clutching at straws in their assertion that Altrenogest is considered 'doping'. I get the feeling that some clarification/ reclassification may occur in light of this case- there is always room for improvement and amendment in the rules as testing and research continues to advance.
After reading the report it seems to me that the FEI were almost clutching at straws in their assertion that Altrenogest is considered 'doping'. I get the feeling that some clarification/ reclassification may occur in light of this case- there is always room for improvement and amendment in the rules as testing and research continues to advance.
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Believe it or not, I actually can see the difference between humans and horses, but quite simply it is the responsibility of the riders and grooms to ensure that the horse does not have anything prohibited in its system, irrespective of whether the rule is wrong or not - it is still the rule. That is the point I am trying to make,
[/ QUOTE ]
You make an interesting point, but the rules almost need to be broken and tested before they can be improved and made effective. Almost every case highlights some clause or classification that requires amending or updating and it is through these cases that the rules can develop until they become as effective as possible. I am by no means condoning the breach of rules, merely suggesting that inevitably the rules will be broken, perhaps completely by accident.
The sport will never be 100% drug free because the rules are continually in development and testing is constantly advancing. Similarly, there will always be new variations of drugs which may be around for some time before they can be tested for and classed as 'prohibited'. Additionally, there will never be any definite clearance times for drugs because every horse is different, and thus there will be cases where the traces of a legal out-of-competition will still be present in the horse [e.g. sedative administered by vet before an examination/ treatment].
Believe it or not, I actually can see the difference between humans and horses, but quite simply it is the responsibility of the riders and grooms to ensure that the horse does not have anything prohibited in its system, irrespective of whether the rule is wrong or not - it is still the rule. That is the point I am trying to make,
[/ QUOTE ]
You make an interesting point, but the rules almost need to be broken and tested before they can be improved and made effective. Almost every case highlights some clause or classification that requires amending or updating and it is through these cases that the rules can develop until they become as effective as possible. I am by no means condoning the breach of rules, merely suggesting that inevitably the rules will be broken, perhaps completely by accident.
The sport will never be 100% drug free because the rules are continually in development and testing is constantly advancing. Similarly, there will always be new variations of drugs which may be around for some time before they can be tested for and classed as 'prohibited'. Additionally, there will never be any definite clearance times for drugs because every horse is different, and thus there will be cases where the traces of a legal out-of-competition will still be present in the horse [e.g. sedative administered by vet before an examination/ treatment].
mle22
Well-Known Member
I totally see what you are saying, and it is a very interesting problem. Pepole are so ingenious at inventing new ways of cheating through drugs and with the money involved in the horses and the sport, the temptation will be there for some. I'm not suggesting that this case was anything but accidental, or that some of the rules may not need to be changed, but a zero tolerence policy will always be necessary, even if that does at times lead to situations which on the face of it seem unfair.
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
Zero Tolerance is, in my opinion, too harsh a rule to be applied across the board. However, I agree that it is the only way to go until, if ever, the organisations who police the use of drugs and medication can develop new ways of testing and determining trace levels in order to keep up with the rapid development of drugs.
Pootleperkin made a good point by suggesting that a specially developed panel which includes scientists and vets as well as the usual committee members should have some ruling each case. Whether or not this would be viable due to costs is another matter entirely, but if the FEI really want to clean up equestrianism for good then they will have to make these kind of investments.
Over the last few years the number of horses tested has steadily increased whilst the percentage of positive tests has decreased so evidently the FEI are doing the right thing by continuing to enforce the rules and justly punish anyone who breaks them.
Michael Whitaker's four month ban is reasonable enough but his ban from future Olympic competition is absurd. The BOA, the BEF and the FEI should make a joint decision regarding his future participation in the events because the BOA are not an equestrian association and shouldn't implement a devastating ban like this without some consideration of the circumstances.
Pootleperkin made a good point by suggesting that a specially developed panel which includes scientists and vets as well as the usual committee members should have some ruling each case. Whether or not this would be viable due to costs is another matter entirely, but if the FEI really want to clean up equestrianism for good then they will have to make these kind of investments.
Over the last few years the number of horses tested has steadily increased whilst the percentage of positive tests has decreased so evidently the FEI are doing the right thing by continuing to enforce the rules and justly punish anyone who breaks them.
Michael Whitaker's four month ban is reasonable enough but his ban from future Olympic competition is absurd. The BOA, the BEF and the FEI should make a joint decision regarding his future participation in the events because the BOA are not an equestrian association and shouldn't implement a devastating ban like this without some consideration of the circumstances.
FRESHMAN
Well-Known Member
As of yet I have not seen an Olympic ban in equestrian sports be carried out in full. BUT I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The last one I can remember I think was Tim Stockdale. After a year or so (or just before the next Olympics the rider pleads to have the ban lifted & if memory serves me right the IOC says "Oh, OK then" Carry on!
Onyxia
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
As of yet I have not seen an Olympic ban in equestrian sports be carried out in full. BUT I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The last one I can remember I think was Tim Stockdale. After a year or so (or just before the next Olympics the rider pleads to have the ban lifted & if memory serves me right the IOC says "Oh, OK then" Carry on!
[/ QUOTE ]
If a bann is given it needs to be enforced,or whats the point?
IF the FEI thought a case was deliberate doping I can see the argument for banning the rider from the next Olympics,or a life ban if a rider is found to be guilty of doping more then once-but a lifetime ban for ONE offence that seems to have come from a mistake?
Far too harsh.
The confusion over data from studies on this thread shows a clear need for the FEI to conduct their own research into the use of drugs for clarity and I really do feel if a drug isnused for treatment of or prevention of injury(or indeed if a banned substance is found in a drug used for treatment of injury) the when,where,why and how becomes soo important.
Steriods found because you are a chaet needs to incur a life ban.
Steriods found because you teated a cut with sudocrem should be allowed.
As of yet I have not seen an Olympic ban in equestrian sports be carried out in full. BUT I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. The last one I can remember I think was Tim Stockdale. After a year or so (or just before the next Olympics the rider pleads to have the ban lifted & if memory serves me right the IOC says "Oh, OK then" Carry on!
[/ QUOTE ]
If a bann is given it needs to be enforced,or whats the point?
IF the FEI thought a case was deliberate doping I can see the argument for banning the rider from the next Olympics,or a life ban if a rider is found to be guilty of doping more then once-but a lifetime ban for ONE offence that seems to have come from a mistake?
Far too harsh.
The confusion over data from studies on this thread shows a clear need for the FEI to conduct their own research into the use of drugs for clarity and I really do feel if a drug isnused for treatment of or prevention of injury(or indeed if a banned substance is found in a drug used for treatment of injury) the when,where,why and how becomes soo important.
Steriods found because you are a chaet needs to incur a life ban.
Steriods found because you teated a cut with sudocrem should be allowed.
Booboos
Well-Known Member
Setting aside the question of the effect of the substance for a moment, surely the fact that the administration of the substance was accidental is really relevant, isn't it?
We seem to think so in other cases:
For example, suppose I genuinely leave a store without having paid for an item, we would surely say that I was not as morally responsible as having stolen it. Or supose I break your beloved vase by accident, it would not be the same as breaking your vase on purpose.
What is objectionable about doping is that the rider seeks to gain an unfair advantage over others and cheat. If the substance is administered accidentally it may still lead to an unfair advantage so it is right to disregard these results and even impose a small penalty for the carelessness, but surely this is entirely different from intending to cheat. Intending to cheat should carry a heavy penalty, such as a ban from the Olympics, but accidentally doing so is not the same.
We seem to think so in other cases:
For example, suppose I genuinely leave a store without having paid for an item, we would surely say that I was not as morally responsible as having stolen it. Or supose I break your beloved vase by accident, it would not be the same as breaking your vase on purpose.
What is objectionable about doping is that the rider seeks to gain an unfair advantage over others and cheat. If the substance is administered accidentally it may still lead to an unfair advantage so it is right to disregard these results and even impose a small penalty for the carelessness, but surely this is entirely different from intending to cheat. Intending to cheat should carry a heavy penalty, such as a ban from the Olympics, but accidentally doing so is not the same.
YorksG
Over the hill and far awa
....but surely if someone is prepared to cheat, then they will say the substance was administered by accident! Also what if the rider/groom, believed that the substance would be effective (even if that is not the case) should the person be banned for their intent?
brighteyes
Pooh-Bah
<font color="blue"> Steroids found because you teated a cut with sudocrem should be allowed.
</font>
Trouble is, wounds might be created by the unscrupulous to apply steroid cream to - and that is where the problem lies.
I really don't know the answer while money is a factor - either the winning of it or the enhancement of a person or animal's earning/worth.
Consciously and artificially trying to positively or negatively affect the outcome of any competition is cheating.
</font>
Trouble is, wounds might be created by the unscrupulous to apply steroid cream to - and that is where the problem lies.
I really don't know the answer while money is a factor - either the winning of it or the enhancement of a person or animal's earning/worth.
Consciously and artificially trying to positively or negatively affect the outcome of any competition is cheating.
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
....but surely if someone is prepared to cheat, then they will say the substance was administered by accident! Also what if the rider/groom, believed that the substance would be effective (even if that is not the case) should the person be banned for their intent?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well as with all cases the authorities need to make a reasonable judgement about someone's motive. In this case they did accept that the substance was accidentally administered but they seem to be punishing as if it was intentional.
The second part of the question is very interesting. In my opinion yes! If a rider gives a horse a substance which he, falsely, believes will enhance the horse's performance then he is guilty of cheating even though the horse's performance was not enhanced. It would be difficult to find evidence of this though in practice!
....but surely if someone is prepared to cheat, then they will say the substance was administered by accident! Also what if the rider/groom, believed that the substance would be effective (even if that is not the case) should the person be banned for their intent?
[/ QUOTE ]
Well as with all cases the authorities need to make a reasonable judgement about someone's motive. In this case they did accept that the substance was accidentally administered but they seem to be punishing as if it was intentional.
The second part of the question is very interesting. In my opinion yes! If a rider gives a horse a substance which he, falsely, believes will enhance the horse's performance then he is guilty of cheating even though the horse's performance was not enhanced. It would be difficult to find evidence of this though in practice!
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
The trouble is with equestrian sport is that the humans are not generally medicating themselves, but the horses instead.
Athletes in other sports are punished for have a banned substance in their system because there is no way of definitively proving why or how the drug got there and what the true intent was. Therefore, the very presence of the prohibited substance becomes the 'crime'.
However, with horses there is a much greater margin for error- horses are vastly different from one another and many of the prohibited substances can be found in common the first aid kit [e.g. Sudocrem] or in contaminated feed.
Other athletes have only themselves to worry about, they often have an extensive support team of doctor, trainer, physio etc. behind them. Riders on the other hand are responsible for many people and many horses and so cannot be judged by the same rules. Therein lies the problem- the BOA are in charge of every Olympic sport, however the rules they make cannot be applied to every sport in the same way.
Athletes in other sports are punished for have a banned substance in their system because there is no way of definitively proving why or how the drug got there and what the true intent was. Therefore, the very presence of the prohibited substance becomes the 'crime'.
However, with horses there is a much greater margin for error- horses are vastly different from one another and many of the prohibited substances can be found in common the first aid kit [e.g. Sudocrem] or in contaminated feed.
Other athletes have only themselves to worry about, they often have an extensive support team of doctor, trainer, physio etc. behind them. Riders on the other hand are responsible for many people and many horses and so cannot be judged by the same rules. Therein lies the problem- the BOA are in charge of every Olympic sport, however the rules they make cannot be applied to every sport in the same way.
FRESHMAN
Well-Known Member
Unfortunately it is still classed as negligence. ie: It should not happen. As an example regardless of the situation & on a far smaller scale, I am a YO if one evening I am walking my dogs on my land & I see some boundary fencing down I could rightly think I will get that sorted first thing in the morning as my liveries will not turn out till (lets say) 10.am Assume that a. Next morning I was ill. or b. due to extenuating circumstances, maybe a car break down on a school run or even I simply forgot & lost track of time. Horse gets out, causes damage to himself or others or property. I am liable because I was negligent. It is a point in law.
OOps not directed to booboos or any one in particular
OOps not directed to booboos or any one in particular
VRIN
Well-Known Member
"
an athlete or individual, who can establish before an appeals panel that, on the balance of probabilities, his or her offence was minor or committed without fault or negligence or that there were mitigating circumstances may be declared eligible for selection".
Surely given the comments about 'trace' and no known benefits etc... it shouldn't be too hard for him to prove his case
Surely given the comments about 'trace' and no known benefits etc... it shouldn't be too hard for him to prove his case
Booboos
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
" an athlete or individual, who can establish before an appeals panel that, on the balance of probabilities, his or her offence was minor or committed without fault or negligence or that there were mitigating circumstances may be declared eligible for selection".
Surely given the comments about 'trace' and no known benefits etc... it shouldn't be too hard for him to prove his case
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this kind of quote from the regs does indicate that they are NOT applying strict liability unlike Freshman's fence example.
" an athlete or individual, who can establish before an appeals panel that, on the balance of probabilities, his or her offence was minor or committed without fault or negligence or that there were mitigating circumstances may be declared eligible for selection".
Surely given the comments about 'trace' and no known benefits etc... it shouldn't be too hard for him to prove his case
[/ QUOTE ]
I think this kind of quote from the regs does indicate that they are NOT applying strict liability unlike Freshman's fence example.
FRESHMAN
Well-Known Member
MW was found guilty of doping by negligence. I have not seen any statements from any governing body that states "Trace" H&H News team actually stated "Laced" Which is why I asked that surely if a horse had been given a full dose only the day before testing (as admitted) then surely that would be more than a "trace"? Surely a trace is when a contaminated bucket has not been washed properly.
Mid
Well-Known Member
Wait so Amy Tryon, whose thoughtless action led to the death of a horse, gets a very short ban, yet Michael Whitaker gets a fine, and is banned from the Olympics FOR LIFE, due to his horse being given the wrong feed, in a one-off mistake by his groom??
Doesn't seem to add up to me.
Doesn't seem to add up to me.
blackhorse09
Well-Known Member
You are make a good point Freshman, there was no official reference to a 'trace' or 'lace', both of these terms have only been used by the press.
From the official report I gathered that the horse had enough Altrenogest in his system to show up as a positive sample, but not enough to suggest he had been administered the Regu-mate on more than one occasion.
Three independent scientists, Dr Higgins, Prof Tobin and Dr Bonnaire all testified that it was plausible that the concentration of the drug detected was from a single accidental application just before the test.
This makes sense as the feed mix up is presumed to have happened hours before the test so the substance would be in the horse's system but there wasn't enough there to enhance performance [studies have shown that to significantly affect the behaviour of a mature stallion the drug must be administered over a long period of time, i.e. several months].
From the official report I gathered that the horse had enough Altrenogest in his system to show up as a positive sample, but not enough to suggest he had been administered the Regu-mate on more than one occasion.
Three independent scientists, Dr Higgins, Prof Tobin and Dr Bonnaire all testified that it was plausible that the concentration of the drug detected was from a single accidental application just before the test.
This makes sense as the feed mix up is presumed to have happened hours before the test so the substance would be in the horse's system but there wasn't enough there to enhance performance [studies have shown that to significantly affect the behaviour of a mature stallion the drug must be administered over a long period of time, i.e. several months].
Booboos
Well-Known Member
OK so it seems that:
- there was only one administration of the drug
- it was insufficient to enhance performance
- it was accidentally administered
- the mistake was made by the groom
and they still want to bann him from the Olympics????
What would they want to do to a rider who had intentionally administered a long course of a performance enhancing drug? Capital punishment???
- there was only one administration of the drug
- it was insufficient to enhance performance
- it was accidentally administered
- the mistake was made by the groom
and they still want to bann him from the Olympics????
What would they want to do to a rider who had intentionally administered a long course of a performance enhancing drug? Capital punishment???
Rambo
Well-Known Member
It should be noted that the potential Olympic ban has nothing to do with the FEI, BSJA or anyone else involved in horse sport. It is merely a policy of the British Olympic Association that any person involved in an Olympic sport who is subsequently found guilty of a doping offence shall be banned from representing Team GBR at any subsequent Olympic games. There is a good appeals process in place and i would guess that based on previous casees MW has a pretty good chance of his appeal being successful. Let's wait and see...