<% appTitle="Ridecamp Archives" %> Ridecamp: Re: [RC] [RC] B.C.A.A. Complex

[Archives Index]   [Date Index]   [Thread Index]   [Author Index]   [Subject Index]
Current to Wed Jul 23 17:29:24 GMT 2003
  • Next by Date: [RC] Identificatrion of the female equesterian
  • - Veronica
  • Prev by Date: RE: [RC] [DR] Comments on LD
  • - Bob Morris

    Re: [RC] [RC] B.C.A.A. Complex - Truman Prevatt

    As technology advances, it is sometimes difficult for law to keep up. For example it would be wonderful to be able to execute contracts on line electrically. However, our legal system is based on a signature. How does this translate to an "electronic signature." This question was being discussed in the early '70's and even today, at least with the people I do business with, all contracts require a written signature by all parties. A fax is sufficient - if it is followed up with an original.

    Since the drug rule was passed some 10 years ago, a lot has changed. At that time your local GNC needed to be only the size of a phone booth. Today they need to be large. The supplements companies have done a very good job of isolating and separating individual nutrients and bring those to market. Even some of the pharmaceutical companies are following this trend. Instead of eating a "well balanced meals," and hoping to get what we need - we as a society are taking nutrients "targeted" for specific reasons. Some may work and some are probably no more effective than a sugar pill. And to a large extent the medical community is supporting this. How many MD tell their healthy patents an aspirin a day is a good idea or maybe they should take about 400 IU of vit E, etc.

    Similar trends are present in the equine world. The number of supplements that you see has exploded in the past 5 years - with little end in sight. Most of it is probably fueled by the human supplement industry. When the drug rule was passed the number of these "nutrients" was very small and hence there was little issue. The preamble to the drug rule is a wonderful statement of policy. But I think as time and tide as marched on, the environment that exist today is vastly different than that existed 10 years ago concerning what is a food product and what is a "drug."

    I remember the (what was probably the first) case under this new rule. It was a very well know rider who had no intention of breaking any rules. They ended up using a homemade liniment that had DMSO in it in the Tevis. There was a huge controversy which played out on the pages of EN. From my recollection, lawyers were bought in and it got somewhat nasty. All this over a liniment that probably that had absolutely no impact on performance. Thank goodness we didn't have Ridecamp back then.

    If a veteran endurance vet (who was on the AERC vet committee when he did this) tells a person that Adaquan is not a drug but a nutrient and they should time their Adaquan shots so they fall on the day before a ride, what does that say about the interpretation of the rule. I've seen that happen. We accept some things that have been around for a long time - like Adaquan, Legend, etc., but not others that haven't. When if fact under a strict interpretation of rule 13 none should be allowed.

    What is the new rider to think? Yes, Jim, I think you are correct - the rule needs to be looked at. It needs to be enforced and it needs to be enforceable. Enforceability implies testability - hard evidence is required for enforcement. These are not easy issues but in my experience standing behind a set of simple sounding words and "wrapping yourself in the flag" to defend them solves little.

    Since there has been random testing the past several years, I believe we have had a very small number of infractions of rule 13. That's the good news. If we can keep the stuff that reasonable people of differing opinions agree should not be used on an endurance ride and will show up in a test so it is actually enforceable, then we have a very good sport indeed.



    Jim Holland wrote:

    With regard to the "keep it simple" paranoia with regard to AERC rules,
    I would like to point out that the venerable Constitution of the United
    States has required numerous amendments to keep up with the times.
    (Granted that the on prohibition was somewhat misguided) <grin> IMHO,
    several AERC rules certainly could use some thoughtful "upgrades" to be
    more specific, given the advancements in technology and medicine. JMO....

    Jim, Sun of Dimanche, and Mahada Magic.

    Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
    Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/Ridecamp
    Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/logon.asp

    Re: [RC] [RC] B.C.A.A. Complex, FASTGraphic
    Re: [RC] [RC] B.C.A.A. Complex, Heidi Smith
    Re: [RC] [RC] B.C.A.A. Complex, Jim Holland