The issue is test sensitivity (and cost). Take for example in track.
During the off season a runner can use steroids as part of the
training. There is no testing in the off season. As the season nears,
they back off of the drugs. The drugs have dissipated from their system
but the performance enhancement benefits have not. Therefore a
"standard" 50 to 100 buck drug test at a track meet would not find the
residual. Only by using much more sensitive and expensive means could
these levels - say two to six months later - could the residuals of
these drugs be found. That's why designer steroids, e.g. THG, are
developed to decrease the sensitivity of test.
Not that's not what I am saying at all. The use of performance
enhancing drugs has become an ever present fact of life today it seems.
Every sport has some sort of problem. Looks at the problems in the
Olympics, MLB, etc. When is the last Tour de France when there wasn't a
drug controversy. Sports has become a cat and mouse game between the
chemist and the testers and the testers will always be behind the power
curve. THG has been used in humans for several years but feel below the
radar screen because the test were insensitive to it because that was
the way it was designed.
The issue gets back to sensitivity and cost.
In football and basketball they solve it by using more sensitive
testing and by testing often - even during the off season in some
cases. In baseball players have gotten away with using steroids because
of the infrequent testing. That's why baseball has and issue and the
others don't.
The equine organizations test at shows or events on a random basis. I
doubt if they use super sensitive - and expensive testing protocols for
initial test. Not many endurance horses - except maybe at FEI
championship rides and maybe the NC - are tested at any one time or a
horse doesn't get tested very often. The practice described above would
fly right below the radar screen of these procedures. Only someone that
really pushed the envelop of withdrawal time would get nailed. That's
what happened to Canadian sprinter Ben Johnson in the Olympics several
years ago - he got greedy pushed the limit and lost his gold metal.
I doubt if this is a pervasive problem in endurance but I suspect it
happens. 98% percent of our members want to do what is right for their
horses and their sport. The use of substances such as Adaquan or even a
few sprigs of a herb are for that reason. These are not the problem -
but there is a serious problem lurking which would fly right below the
AERC testing radar screen. Given the direction as far as money coming
into the sport it won't be long until we won't have the luxury of
ignoring it. This practice is determinal to the horse's health. The
cause of the death of US woman runner Jackie Joyner was laid to the
fact she regularly used such a training regiment as described above.
It is also performance enhancing and if it became public would give
endurance a very bad name.
As far as the USEF - Bill told me that at least in the FL winter
circuity they test often and primarly use urine which is more sensitive
to testing. As far as SEDRA - there is not money in local CTR's. They
test a few horses at every ride - much more frequently than the AERC
and as of yet I don't believe (but don't know for sure) they have had a
positive. But again a "smart" trainer could use performance enhanced
drugs in the off season in training and most likely avoid detection.
BTW there are good reasons to ban the use of mega doses of some
vitamins. For example vitamin B1 is a masking agent for certain drugs
and in large concentrations of B1 in the system the test will not
detect these banned drugs.
Truman
Ed & Wendy Hauser wrote:
"...I would be extremely surprised if the AERC testing protocol
is much different that that used by the AHSA or I guess it USEF now or
that used in SEDRA..."
Now I am confused. Assuming that
you are right (I suspect you are, but do not know), are you contending
that AHSA, USEF, and SEDRA are also not testing for the proper
substances? Or are you contending that since AERC is concerned about
substances which are minor problems in your view, they ignore positive
results for when they find the same substances that AHSA etc. get their
knickers in a twist about? My reading of Rule 13 is that it would
prohibit any substance on any list that is used or could be used by any
organization, and at lower levels, if the other org. had some "action"
level.
I just quickly looked at rides
attended in the data base, and found that I have been between 2 and 3
times as lucky as you when it comes to drug testing (I have always
welcomed tests). I suspect that an average experience is somewhere in
between. I will agree that the chances of being tested should be
between 5 and 10 times what it is now, if it is to be an effective
deterrent for semi honest competitors. I think we both agree that
actively dishonest competitors will always try to see what they can get
away with.
One of my non-endurance vets once
had a similar reaction to the AERC rule that you report. Upon further
questioning, it turned out that she/he just didn't believe that any
organization would even think about being that strict, because it did
not make medical sense to him/her, not that it somehow was going to
increase cheating.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser
2994 Mittower Road
Victor, MT 59875
