Tony Andre Hansen doping news - spray to stop horse biting rugs!

[little_flea]

Swedish magazine Ridsport reports this afternoon that the banned substance has been found in a spray used by the stable of Tony Andre Hansen to spray rugs to prevent the horse biting it. Apparently the substance can take weeks to leave the horse's body.

So there we go! Mystery solved. (if it is correct, of course)

 

[lucretia]

as has beeen said before the stuff is as common as horsesh*t. pepper sprays of that nature are very common and i bet you wouldnt think to check the ingredients because you dont put it on the horse directly.

 

[TarrSteps]

It can also be in preparations to stop horses chewing wood.

 

[gloster_image]

Interesting!

 

[sunflower]

You may not put it on the horse directly but if you're using it to stop a horse from chewing something then presumably it's chewed it before so there's a fair chance that the horse will end up ingesting some though the amount will depend on how well it works and how fast the horse learns. Therefore you should still check the labels, especially if you're competing at this level.

 

[TarrSteps]

Well of course.

But to be fair it is a bit of a "spirit of the law" vs "letter of the law" situation. The purpose of drug testing is to control the use of performance enhancing drugs, including those that mask pain so why and how a substance is ingested *should* be pertinent, at least when administering censure. It works that way for human athletes - a positive test for a performance enhancing drug carries a higher penalty (within the sport) than one for a cold medication or even a recreational pharmaceutical. Obviously I'm not saying athletes - and their handlers - shouldn't be very, very careful but I'm surprised people are so quick to assume being dumb is the same thing as being criminal. The fact is in these cases we simply don't know yet.

 

[cefyl]

Staple product in probably half the tack rooms in the UK!

BATTLE, HAYWARD & BOWER LIMITED Crofton Drive, Allenby Road Ind. Est., Lincoln. LN3 4NP Tel: (01522) 529206/541241 Fax: (01522) 538960 MATERIAL SAFETY DATA SHEETDATA SHEET NO:- 5443/11. IDENTIFICATION OF THE PREPARATIONNAME:-HYDROPHANE CRIBOX2. COMPOSITION/INFORMATION ON INGREDIENTSCOMPOSITION:- Mineral waxes, greases and crude lanolin blended with aloes and capsicum oleoresin

And no they do not list the ingredients, nor are they required by law to do so.

This is not the only anti-chew product to contain capsaicin.

 

[skewbaldpony]

I think the FEI has shot itself in the foot with this capsaicin business.
Sound idea, not thought through.
If the main worry is the illegal use on the legs, then why do they not swab the legs, rather than blood test? Seems to me someone hasn't done their homework.
Do they test all the horses for the same substances - I'm wondering for example if half the dressage horses would have tested for capsaicin, but weren't tested as the illegal use was not suspected. If you get my drift!

 

[sunflower]

Yes but capsaicin can be used as performance enhancing substance which is why it is banned (presumably). As for route of administration, maybe it should be pertinent but it is very, very difficult to prove either way - especially if you are the detecting the substance in the blood stream - you only have the handler's word about it being used for innocent purposes unless they can test skin scrapings.
I seem to remember a Romanian gymnast being disqulified in the last olympics for failing a drug test after her trainer gave her an adult dose of a cold rememdy and for her body size she should have had a child dose so tested over the legal limit.

 

[SpottedCat]

[ QUOTE ]
I think the FEI has shot itself in the foot with this capsaicin business.
Sound idea, not thought through.
If the main worry is the illegal use on the legs, then why do they not swab the legs, rather than blood test? Seems to me someone hasn't done their homework.
Do they test all the horses for the same substances - I'm wondering for example if half the dressage horses would have tested for capsaicin, but weren't tested as the illegal use was not suspected. If you get my drift!

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you're right! I wonder if they do test all for the same substances or not? That'd be good to know.

Whilst being foolish is not the same as deliberately cheating, I have to say I am astounded that riders at this level are not obsessively anal about everything which goes within 100m of their horse - I would be. In fact I am as my horse reacts to certain substances in fly repellent so I make damn sure that whatever I buy does not have that in, to the point of contacting the manufacturers to make sure it's not in there.

 

[little_flea]

All horses were positive in the B-test btw.

http://www.hastmagazinet.se/newsItem.asp...ll%20avsl%F6jat

(most of it is in English)

What a shame to lose out on a potential medal cos' of an anti-chew spray. :-/

 

[Gonetofrance]

They should test all horses, every time.
That is only fair, and at least might highlight potential cock-ups like this appears to be, and perhaps then they could have let them jump, and then announced the results pending an enquiry.
As it stands, this is a bit of a mess............

 

[sunflower]

How is this a cock-up? And how would letting them compete, potentially winning medals, only to have to disqualify them after the B test result and re-assign the medals, be any les of a mess?

 

[SpottedCat]

It's so hard though isn't it - we're trying to keep equestrian sports in the Olympics and having to delay the results through testing really doesn't help the cause sadly.

I dunno - maybe all horses to be tested on arrival and then immediately after each round? Don't all atheletes get tested after each final? I'm sure that's how Ben Johnson was caught wasn't it? So maybe all horses to get tested at some stage perhaps?

 

[Gonetofrance]

[ QUOTE ]
How is this a cock-up? And how would letting them compete, potentially winning medals, only to have to disqualify them after the B test result and re-assign the medals, be any les of a mess?

[/ QUOTE ]

If disqualifying four horses that have innocently got this stuff into their systems through a sudden improvement in testing that none of them could have forseen, then if that's not a cock-up I dunno what is.

As for the medals, the whole thing is a fiasco anyway, with DL and TAH not being allowed to compete for, so far, using a product he's used for years, and using a spray to stop a horse eating his rugs.
They cannot go back and jump now, but they could have changed the medals.........

 

[sunflower]

Whether this stuff got into their systems innocently or not, the fact remains it is a banned substance so should not have been anywhere near horses competing at this level.

 

[Gonetofrance]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether this stuff got into their systems innocently or not, the fact remains it is a banned substance so should not have been anywhere near horses competing at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only it were so simple............I feel for the riders, how easy is hindsight?

 

[SpottedCat]

I think this should act as a wake up call for riders that they need to be MUCH more careful about what they use. Whether it will or not remains to be seen.

 

[skewbaldpony]

Also, John Whitaker was obviously prevented from competing on the strength of his horse's NAME fergoodnessake.
[ QUOTE ]

Whether this stuff got into their systems innocently or not, the fact remains it is a banned substance so should not have been anywhere near horses competing at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, don't lets let innocence get in the way of a good public flogging

 

[skewbaldpony]

I think the thing is, their side of the story - things like linament, rug spray and so on, has always contained a 'banned substance' but in such small quantities that it hasn't tested, and since it is not used for the illegal purpose for which it was banned in the first place, it is deemed to have been tolerated. I'm guessing that if the rug spray, for example 'doesn't test' then they are thinking the FEI have got it about right, ie if an innocent product used for innocent purposes contains miniscule quantities of a banned substance, not to worry, as it doesn't test.
The FEI then change the test, and all of a sudden, these products test.
Personally, I feel that while the FEI have every right to improve the tests, they must have known about these products, and it would not have hurt to make an announcement saying that they had improved the test for capsaicin, and riders should note that any product containing even the slightest trace, would now test.
After all, surely the aim is to keep banned substances out of the sport, rather than to catch people out.

 

[Kate260881]

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, I feel that while the FEI have every right to improve the tests, they must have known about these products, and it would not have hurt to make an announcement saying that they had improved the test for capsaicin, and riders should note that any product containing even the slightest trace, would now test.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does this not happen? That is actually a genuine question as I have no idea. I would have thought that that is the fairest way to go about things especially if products have been used for years then generally it takes some kind of prompt to think 'oh, we'd better check that actually'. I still believe the riders should have checked everything anyway but a heads up from the FEI would have been fair.

 

[skewbaldpony]

As I understand it, no, they weren't warned, stealth is considered A Good Thing.
Now to me, whilst yes, OK, riders should check everything, equally you can't tell me the FEI don't know that some of these products are used innocently, and will suddenly become incriminating with a new test, and should say so.

 

[Gonetofrance]

[ QUOTE ]
The FEI then change the test, and all of a sudden, these products test.
Personally, I feel that while the FEI have every right to improve the tests, they must have known about these products, and it would not have hurt to make an announcement saying that they had improved the test for capsaicin, and riders should note that any product containing even the slightest trace, would now test.
After all, surely the aim is to keep banned substances out of the sport, rather than to catch people out.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly.....well put.

 

[The Voice]

If this is true about the source then the situation is a joke and will have seriously damaged the reputation of the sport. Tony Andre Hansen is also a well known pop personality abroad, so I do not think he is going to like being branded as someone who competed a horse in the Olympics with a banned substance in it as this will damage his own personal reputation. I would be amazed if he did anything on purpose.

The FEI have got to find a way to distinguish between cheats and innocent use and quickly.

 

[TarrSteps]

http://www.dressagedaily.com/2008/dd_200808/dd_20080827-oly-king-dye.html

Quite a good article on how things are progressing and what happens next.

It would be interesting to know more about the amounts of substances that trigger a positive test. It seems like "has come into contact" is a reasonable defence (although it doesn't change the outcome) which means that the levels detected must now be TINY. Absolutely, handlers need to be incredibly careful about what their horses come into contact with but if we're now reaching the state where a preparation on a rug or a medication that might be on a vet's equipment is an issue how can people ever hope to avoid a problem? Dumb luck, it would seem. Show stabling, handlers at the airport, borrowed equipment . . . it's easy to say "don't" but how possible is that?

I can see banning capsaicin on the ground that it has pain relieving properties (so long as every other NSAID, however slight and benign is treated similarly) but from the FEI list someone here copied (sorry, can't remember the thread) it's suspected on it's potential sensitivity producing attributes . . . completely counter to the manufacturer's intended use.

Clearly there is something we don't understand - maybe the FEI has a much better handle on things than we think. But also the words "drugs" and "banned substances" seems to make people very judgemental and assume the situation is very cut and dried even if it's not. Isn't there some piece of information that anyone who handles money in their job stands a good chance of testing positive for cocaine on their hands? Clearly not the point of such a test but possibly a result.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether this stuff got into their systems innocently or not, the fact remains it is a banned substance so should not have been anywhere near horses competing at this level.

[/ QUOTE ]

precisely.its banned-thats an absolute. tough ****
yes its a shame but at that level they should be more clued up.

 

[skewbaldpony]

I get the feeling the smug brigade are simply not reading the posts which don't just echo their own {very simplistic} opinions.
On this and other threads, there are numerous explanations of how it may not be that simple at all.
But hey, if it's beyond you.

 

[MotherOfChickens]

[ QUOTE ]

On this and other threads, there are numerous explanations of how it may not be that simple at all.
But hey, if it's beyond you.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is that simple because thats the rule

. I doubt very much that there is any deliberate intention on the rider's part.but that doesnt matter .its fairly irrelevant whether or not its fair as well.

 

[skewbaldpony]

But, if as seems likely, the products have been in use for years, then as I said above, you cannot tell me the FEI didn't know that, and know that changing the testing would make products which previously didn't test, test.
If that's the case, then the FEI have screwed up - not because the riders should 'get away with it' but because, the object of the exercise is a clean sport, NOT to bring the sport into disrepute in this way.
If, had the FEI issued a statement saying that they had changed their testing method and that some widely used products would now test - assuming that their use in the first place was, as you suppose, innnocent - it would have avoided this debacle, then that is what they should have done.
Not saying the riders should not be disqualifed, but that it was counterproductive to 'spring' them in this way.
I don't call that simple!

 

[sunflower]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

On this and other threads, there are numerous explanations of how it may not be that simple at all.
But hey, if it's beyond you.

[/ QUOTE ]

it is that simple because thats the rule

. I doubt very much that there is any deliberate intention on the rider's part.but that doesnt matter -its fairly irrelevant whether or not its fair.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well quite. If a substance is banned then you don't knowingly use it in any form, no matter how innocent your intentions are.
My friend's Mum will be competing in the paralympics (her 4th). They have to submit a list of all the medications they take and are given a list of what they are allowed to continue taking and the last date they are allowed to take other drugs so that they will be out of their system in time. They are told not to take or use anything else without checking first. It really is that simple - and it is the same applied to the horses. If you think a substance shouldn't be banned as it has a therapeutic use etc then you take that up with the governing body beforehand, ask for a medical exemption or whatever. You don't take the risk of using a known banned substance - in any form - and then moan when you get caught out. Why should the FEI have told the riders that they would be testing for capsaicin - or that they would have a more sensitive test for it - in Hong Kong? It was already banned.