Myth or Truth. Polo mints contain banned substance?

ester said:
Well it's calcium based- so will only make a difference if horse otherwise deficient like mag ones.
Click to expand...

But her intent, from that endorsement, is clear that she is feeding it to calm the horse. Under Pops and Tarrs definition of the rules that is clearly cheating.
 
what defines a calmer though? I think it can be very much different to feeding non- heating feed sometimes.

I supplement my boy with both calcium and magnesium (and a few other things) base on an analysis of my hay/grazing.. I am certainly not using it as a calmer as that is the opposite to what I'd need.

It is only because CCC is marketed as such.. there are other similar supplements advertised as general mineral supps so are they then ok?

Right confusing isn't it!

ETA yeah dd - confusing ;) so long as you don't write down your intent on the internet is that ok? :D
 
siennamum said:
That's irrelevant though. The point is, it is a calmer, and so Laura is cheating (well according to the great and good of H&HO)
Click to expand...

Actually, if you had read the full discussion, we said that the FEI statement implies that all calmers are banned, but that we questioned how you would argue a case for treating a dietary deficiency. Although, in theory, by using a product to calm a horse you are breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the rules.

So magnesium and calcium based 'calmers' that act to improve dietary balance rather than calmers that try to artificially relax the horse (I know valerian is banned but other 'natural' products claim to have the same effect) are a real grey area - not irrelevant like you've said as it is the only argument that they also are not illegal, and will probably be the defence of any manufacturer or in the case a rider was ever queried.

And since you can't really test for magnesium or calcium, a calmer fed daily in the feed will be very hard for the FEI to pick up. A syringe of calmer before competing however would probably get picked up on fairly sharply and I would be surprised if you saw any at high levels.
 
Last edited:
Well even top riders clearly state they use calmers online, so they really, really need to read this thread to understand the error of their ways, give back their rosettes and realise how bad they have been.

As for Bach Rescue Remedy - work of the devil!!!
 
Ester - I'm with you on this, I have no idea where you draw the line, I just think it is wrong for people to say that riders are deliberately breaking the rules with their 'intent' when they are feeding products that are being openly endorsed by top riders who are competing at Olympic level. I think if you take it to the extreme you should not feed anything to your horse that changes its nature.
 
khalswitz said:
Actually, if you had read the full discussion, we said that the FEI statement implies that all calmers are banned, but that we questioned how you would argue a case for treating a dietary deficiency. Although, in theory, by using a product to calm a horse you are breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the rules.

So magnesium and calcium based 'calmers' that act to improve dietary balance rather than calmers that try to artificially relax the horse (I know valerian is banned but other 'natural' products claim to have the same effect) are a real grey area - not irrelevant like you've said as it is the only argument that they also are not illegal, and will probably be the defence of any manufacturer or in the case a rider was ever queried.

And since you can't really test for magnesium or calcium, a calmer fed daily in the feed will be very hard for the FEI to pick up. A syringe of calmer before competing however would probably get picked up on fairly sharply and I would be surprised if you saw any at high levels.
Click to expand...

Actually!! I have read the whole thread & it hasn't made your backpeddling any more comprehensible.
 
khalswitz said:
Actually, if you had read the full discussion, we said that the FEI statement implies that all calmers are banned, but that we questioned how you would argue a case for treating a dietary deficiency. Although, in theory, by using a product to calm a horse you are breaking the spirit, if not the letter of the rules.

So magnesium and calcium based 'calmers' that act to improve dietary balance rather than calmers that try to artificially relax the horse (I know valerian is banned but other 'natural' products claim to have the same effect) are a real grey area - not irrelevant like you've said as it is the only argument that they also are not illegal, and will probably be the defence of any manufacturer or in the case a rider was ever queried.

And since you can't really test for magnesium or calcium, a calmer fed daily in the feed will be very hard for the FEI to pick up. A syringe of calmer before competing however would probably get picked up on fairly sharply and I would be surprised if you saw any at high levels.
Click to expand...

So even though a calmer is called a calmer by the manufacturers, they are not really calmers
 
dieseldog said:
But her intent, from that endorsement, is clear that she is feeding it to calm the horse. Under Pops and Tarrs definition of the rules that is clearly cheating.
Click to expand...

No need to get snarky. It's not 'our' definition. Popdosh quoted the relevant rule, correct? You might make a case for something like magnesium, or calcium, or a particular feed as they contain the essential building blocks of life and optimising nutrition. They don't test because they contain substances that are in horses anyway. Once you get into say, camomile, then the intent is pretty clear isn't it?

Although, technically, if you're going to use the reasoning that only the insertion of a non naturally occurring substance 'counts' then withholding water and blood doping are okay, too.

As to why it's 'okay' for Laura, you would have to ask her or the FEI. :)

No one, here or in real life, is under the impression people are going to stop using calmers. People are virtually addicted to them, if you believe forums! ;) I'm genuinely interested though, how are they different than using acepromazine or, for that matter reserpine? Why is one okay and the other not? Because one is on a list and another isn't? Because one has proven testing and the other only anecdotal evidence.

The fact is, people are always going to make their own choices and draw the line where they see fit. It's not about what a random company - with a vested interest - or a top rider says is okay, it's what YOU believe is best for you. If the goal is to not fail a test then that's relatively easily done!
 
dieseldog said:
So even though a calmer is called a calmer by the manufacturers, they are not really calmers
Click to expand...

That would be marketing. :)

I have to say, I'd never heard of 'calmers' until I moved here.

No one is accusing anyone of anything. I presume the 'top riders' have read the relevant rules and feel comfortable that they are well within the rules. And I assume that anyone else competing has done likewise.
 
TarrSteps said:
The fact is, people are always going to make their own choices and draw the line where they see fit. It's not about what a random company - with a vested interest - or a top rider says is okay, it's what YOU believe is best for you. If the goal is to not fail a test then that's relatively easily done!
Click to expand...

Surely the goal is simply to do the best you can, within the rules........ Which is all most calmers - and polos allow you to do. In this thread it seems you and others are either misinterpreting the ruling, or the industry and top tiers of the sport are corrupt and cheating is widespread.
 
Btw, someone said to me the other day that using an ear hat is a more obvious and significant form of 'cheating' than calmers. I thought that was interesting reasoning. Then I put a hat on the horse and went off to have a peaceful ride in a howling gale. :)

On a personal note, I'm not bothered one jot by what other people do or don't do. But I think it's an interesting discussion worth having, especially when our sporting equipment has a pulse.
 
siennamum said:
Surely the goal is simply to do the best you can, within the rules........ Which is all most calmers - and polos allow you to do. In this thread it seems you and others are either misinterpreting the ruling, or the industry and top tiers of the sport are corrupt and cheating is widespread.
Click to expand...

I'm curious, how do you interpret the specific wording? I'm not being smart, genuinely curious as to where you feel the rule, as it is written, draws the line? (Not by what people actually do. People cheat. Hands up those of us who have never broken the speed limit or taken a pen home from the office! :D)
 
TarrSteps said:
No need to get snarky. It's not 'our' definition. Popdosh quoted the relevant rule, correct? You might make a case for something like magnesium, or calcium, or a particular feed as they contain the essential building blocks of life and optimising nutrition. They don't test because they contain substances that are in horses anyway. Once you get into say, camomile, then the intent is pretty clear isn't it?

Although, technically, if you're going to use the reasoning that only the insertion of a non naturally occurring substance 'counts' then withholding water and blood doping are okay, too.

As to why it's 'okay' for Laura, you would have to ask her or the FEI. :)

No one, here or in real life, is under the impression people are going to stop using calmers. People are virtually addicted to them, if you believe forums! ;) I'm genuinely interested though, how are they different than using acepromazine or, for that matter reserpine? Why is one okay and the other not? Because one is on a list and another isn't? Because one has proven testing and the other only anecdotal evidence.

The fact is, people are always going to make their own choices and draw the line where they see fit. It's not about what a random company - with a vested interest - or a top rider says is okay, it's what YOU believe is best for you. If the goal is to not fail a test then that's relatively easily done!
Click to expand...

I am insulted by your first point, didn't realise i had got 'snarky' I thought we were having a debate, although thanks for the heads up that you are obviously snarked by trying to turn the thread around to character basing me.

I am confused by your 2nd point, not sure where I have used that reasoning, don't even understand what you are trying to say.

It is obviously fine for Laura to feed her calmer as she still has her gold medal, I don't understand why it is fine for her to feed it, with the intent of calming her horse, even if it is by changing its mineral levels, and it is not fine for average joe rider to do the same, with the same product.

I haven't said anyone should stop feeding calmers, you have said that it is breaking FEI rules. I think it is fine to feed one calmer compared to another as one says it doesn't contain FEI banned substances and the other is a FEI banned substance.

It is about what a random company says as they are marketing these products as not containing FEI banned substances, not every rider is a scientist, I don't think HHO is a representative sample of the riding community.

And Jock Paget would most certainly disagree with your final sentence.
 
siennamum said:
Actually!! I have read the whole thread & it hasn't made your backpeddling any more comprehensible.
Click to expand...

How is it back peddling? Would you like me to quote the exact posts where we discussed whether meeting dietary deficiencies would count as a substance used to 'calm', and where we quoted the rules that the FEI have stating that any substance used to calm or excite is forbidden? It's called referencing if the point has previously been made. I'm not changing my point at all - it's all there in black and green if you would actually take a minute.
 
Out of interest, found this on the BE website:

"I have spoken to Nuprafeed for a definative answer on this as there must be thousands of people using similar stuff on their horses. I will post their response (as they asked me to do this) as some people are obviously alarming others.....


Hi Claire,

DO NOT WORRY!!! It is not banned, it has past all the appropriate screenings
and is used all the time by our international riders. It is legal on every
continent, not only under our governing bodies. And you do not have to worry
about threshold levels because it is completely legal regardless of the
quantity given.

It is not in any way a drug or a manipulative substance, it works because it
allows the horses' nervous and adrenaline system to function normally and is
actually very good for them.

Thank you for making us aware of the comments, if you could reply to the
thread with this response we would be very grateful!

Kind Regards,

For and on behalf of Nupafeed UK
Jemma

Tel: 01438 861 900
Fax: 01438 861 122
Email: jemma@nupafeed.net
Web: www.nupafeed.co.uk


and a follow up.......


Hello again!!

I have had a chance to have a look at the thread and the confusion comes
from various changes in product classification. We are having a similar
nightmare with our labels at the moment and it is coming mostly from
complying with EU legislation. I think the problem is that they have to
tighten up on controlling drugs and the hazy ground between supplements and
drugs, unfortunately this filters down into very trivial matters with true
nutritional supplements.

As the thread mentions, you are OK because it is something that is natural,
it actually only works because they are getting less than they need in their
diet, not because it is exerting any sort of sedative effect on the body.
And you definitely would not fail a dope test from using it.

Kind Regards,

For and on behalf of Nupafeed UK
Jemma

Tel: 01438 861 900
Fax: 01438 861 122
Email: jemma@nupafeed.net
Web: www.nupafeed.co.uk"

BE responded with:

"Please see below an extract from the BE rulebook relating to the use of herbal or natural medicinal products:-

1. Riders, trainers, grooms and veterinarians are cautioned against the use of herbal medications, tonics, oral pastes and products of any kind, the ingredients and quantitative analysis of which are not known in detail. Many of these products can contain one or more prohibited substances.
2. 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.
3. The use of any herbal or natural product to affect the performance of a horse or pony in a calming (tranquillising) manner or an energising (stimulant) manner is expressly forbidden by the FEI regulations. The use of a calming product during competition may also have important safety consequences.
4. The FEI does not test or approve herbal or natural products to verify a possible violation of the FEI rules and regulations. Therefore a claim that the product does not violate the FEI rules or is undetectable by drug testing is the sole responsibility of the manufacturer or individual making such a claim.
5. The use of a herbal or natural product may result in a positive test result, contrary to the claim by the manufacturer or marketing agent. Many prohibited substances (e.g. salicylatels, digitalis, reserpine) have their origin in plants and may be regarded as serious rule violations.
6. As the analytical techniques in the testing laboratory become more refined, the fact that these products have not been detected by testing in the past does not hold any guarantee for their safe use in competition.

I hope this clarifies the matter."

Looks from this thread that it is entirely up to the manufacturers - if ANYTHING in the calmers gets them caught out, or the tests update and can suddenly pick things up, then it is their fault, as the FEI and BE etc have warned us not to use them full stop.

So, in technicality, looks like the top riders using these ARE in technically contravention of the rules - however FEI isn't about to chase them on it as long as the tests aren't positive.

Full thread here: http://www.britisheventing.com/asp-...spx?topicid=5440&section=00010001000200490001
 
dieseldog said:
I am insulted by your first point, didn't realise i had got 'snarky' I thought we were having a debate, although thanks for the heads up that you are obviously snarked by trying to turn the thread around to character basing me.

I am confused by your 2nd point, not sure where I have used that reasoning, don't even understand what you are trying to say.

It is obviously fine for Laura to feed her calmer as she still has her gold medal, I don't understand why it is fine for her to feed it, with the intent of calming her horse, even if it is by changing its mineral levels, and it is not fine for average joe rider to do the same, with the same product.

I haven't said anyone should stop feeding calmers, you have said that it is breaking FEI rules. I think it is fine to feed one calmer compared to another as one says it doesn't contain FEI banned substances and the other is a FEI banned substance.

It is about what a random company says as they are marketing these products as not containing FEI banned substances, not every rider is a scientist, I don't think HHO is a representative sample of the riding community.

And Jock Paget would most certainly disagree with your final sentence.
Click to expand...

Then I apologise if I misread your tone. That's the problem with the written word/internet - it's easy to get the wrong impression. Apologies for speaking out if turn.

The second point was to the view put forward earlier that the only yardstick is the banned/controlled substance list and that if something does not test then it's 'okay'. Clearly there are things you can do to horses that are undetectable but which are debatable, at best. It goes to the argument that doing something because it doesn't test or because someone else gets away with it isn't everyone's (not mine, not yours, in general) interpretation of 'okay' and the rule is written as loosely as it is to give room for interpretation. So the steward who found empty buckets can call people on it. If the same steward found someone giving a horse something out of a tube they'd have a word, too.

As to Laura, I still think that's a really interesting question!

Quite frankly, I don't always have a massive amount of faith in the FEI and it's decision making. Evidence would suggest they don't always get it right although they would - rightly -argue they cannot police everyone all the time.

The people who have successfully challenged feed companies on positive tests have done so on the basis of contamination not manufactures claims
 
Re Jock, we don't have enough information. Perhaps the horse was nobbled? Perhaps it ate a banned plant, which would make it the first case for this substance? I still maintain that with due diligence, in the vast majority of cases, it's pretty easy to avoid a positive test.
 
The real interpretation issue comes from the issue that the FEI were at the time that ruling came in up against some serious issues with one shot calmers being used in competition as well as some other human medications which at the time were undetectable in the horse.A few serious falls(including a rider fatality) had been attributed to them especially ones containing Valerian which has now become a banned substance.Do you allow anything not on the banned list to be used willy nilly as the cheats will always be ahead of you for example in SJ a year or two back their was a spate of disciplinary action for riders giving horses powerful human antipsycotics which were not being tested for as nobody had thought they would be used in horses. Their is no ruling against calmers used as a feed supplement outside competition just during competition. For those who say calmers aren't cheating what is the difference between giving a tube before dressage and a horse being given reserpine for example .Both are being given to the same end.One works! and the other one only has a placebo effect on the rider in most cases.
 
Ingredients in Polo's

Ingredients of the main variety include: sugar, glucose syrup, modified starch, stearic acid (of vegetable origin), lubricant (570) and mint oils.

Components of Peppermint
Peppermint has a high menthol content, and is often used in tea and for flavouring ice cream, confectionery, chewing gum, and toothpaste. The oil also contains menthone and menthyl esters, particularly menthyl acetate.[12] Dried peppermint typically has 0.3-0.4% of volatile oil containing menthol (7-48%), menthone (20-46%), menthyl acetate (3-10%), menthofuran (1-17%) and 1,8-cineol (3-6%). Peppermint oil also contains small amounts of many additional compounds including limonene, pulegone, caryophyllene and pinene.

From the FEI prohibited substance pages


search

Search results for "Peppermint" (showing 0 of 0 results)

No results !

So if Peppermint is not on the Prohibited substance list then Polo's can be fed. My mare loves her mints

Without horses Rowntree's would be out of business! Polo's keep them going.........
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top