RE: It's a Drug.

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

Truman states:

<<<<Back to Rule 13. The bottom line, if it doesn't test, then it is not in
violation of
Rule 13 - pure and simple. >>>

I have to say one simple thing; If you care for the welfare of the sport, if
you care for the welfare of the horse, If you have any sense of
sportsmanship then you will read the AERC Rule concerning drugs as stated in
the first several lines " THE INTEGRITY OF ENDURANCE COMPETITION REQUIRES
THAT THE EQUINE IS NOT INFLUENCED BY ANY DRUG, MEDICATION OR VETERINARY
TREATMENT. ENDURANCE EQUINES MUST COMPETE ENTIRELY ON THEIR NATURAL
ABILITY." You will not go looking for the loophole that is described in the
following lines that bring in the testing for drugs.

As I have stated before on this forum, I tend to be a moral purist. I also
feel that those persons that have to look for protection for their actions
behind a screen of "proof by laboratory testing" before admitting they use
enhancing substances, and should not be competing, are ultimately fooling
only themselves.

It is sad for the sport and sad for the horses that so many persons have the
attitude that drugs are OK as long as they do not get caught.

Bob Morris

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt, PhD [mailto:truman.prevatt@netsrq.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 6:18 PM
To: katswig@earthlink.net; RideCamp
Subject: RC: It's a Drug.


Not that I disagree with you Kat, this substance is a drug because it does
have a
pharmacological effect, but the same can be said about ice boots!  Ice boots
applied
properly can have a very strong anti-inflammatory effect. I've heard at
least one very
well know endurance vet state that there is little way a unsound horse could
do a 50
mile ride on bute and finish, but I would expect an unsound horse could
complete a 50
ride with judicious use of ice boots.

Is ice a drug? The drug issue is tricky. If something doesn't test is it a
drug? Well
yes and no. It's pharmacological effect may indicate it is a drug, but
legally cannot
be classified for enforcement because it does not test.

In the 99 Tour de France, there was a scandal over the use of a blood doping
drug.
There was no test so their drug policy was unenforceable. In a recent
"Scientific
American" article there was an article on the next generation of performance
enhancing
drugs. These are compounds that will cause genetic changes in the athletic.
This type
of enhancement is absolutely undetectable, hence cannot be outlawed!  It is
becoming a
"Brave New World."

Back to Rule 13. The bottom line, if it doesn't test, then it is not in
violation of
Rule 13 - pure and simple.  I have read the arguments starting with the
origination of
this rule, long before Ridecamp was a gleam in Steph's eye, over why the
drug rule is
as is and in theory it sounds good. Take an example from drug laws in the
US. Our
courts will not allow prosecution for the possession of a substance that is
not
specifically described as a prohibited substance. You can not write a law
that is
vague enough to catch the "designer drugs" when they first come out. You
could but the
courts would throw them out. The architects of Rule 13 understood this and
didn't want
to get into this quagmire, as the AHSA did. However, any rule we have will
have to
withstand the challenge of a court - which it may just have to do some day,
and I do
not believe Rule 13 would if applied to substances which are not considered
by the
community of experts at large to be a drug, e.g., bute.

So our rule is fine as long as no one challenges it. When it is challenged
it doesn't
really matter what is written, what matters is a) does it test and b) is it
a
substance that is considered by the community of experts at large to be a
drug. On the
latter matter I asked by own vet, who does test for the FL winter Grand Prix
circuit,
about Rule 13. His comment was, "hope they never have to enforce it on a
horse worth a
million dollars, because they will lose."  This is not good bad or
indifferent, it is
a fact of life in the US. We do in the final analysis have to live within
the legal
structure of guilt has to be proved beyond a resonable doubt.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with Rule 13 and support it, but as more money
creeps into
the sport and as FEI competition becomes more a mainstream part of the sport
which
mixes different concepts of drug policy, then we will probably find that we
will have
to revisit the drug issue to make it more bullet proof to challenge.

Truman



"guest@endurance.net" wrote:

>
>
> Just because current drug tests do not test for metabolites of the
chemical
> compounds contained the herbs that have the above stated pharmacological
> effects, there should be little doubt in anybody's mind (no matter how
strict
> of a definition used for the term "drug"), that using APF on an endurance
horse
> would be in violation of the AERC's rule 13 (despite the assertion that
current
> drug tests would not pick it up, and therefore it is unlikely that anybody
> using it is likely to get caught).  The fact that it is allowed by the
> medications rules of the AHSA is of no consequence when determining if it
is
> allowed by AERC rules.  The AHSA has gone to the trouble of making a list
of
> forbidden medications...and, apparently, this medication is not on it.
That
> doesn't mean that it isn't a medication; there are lots of medications
that are
> not on the AHSA's list.
>

--
Vertex Engineering, Inc.
Innovative Solutions
Superior Support



=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=