I think we are closer than I thought. Your
reply appears to be a good summary of the situation in professional, and high
visibility armature sports. Our FEI sanctioned international competition
is as close as we come to this type of situation. The AERC does not
control substance rules or procedures for the FEI. I don't feel that
international competition is part of this discussion. If it is, I will
have to put on my Sgt. Schultz hat: "I know nothing".
As far as the AERC is concerned:
You said: "...The issue gets back to sensitivity and cost..."
Actually just cost. Since I have no reason to
suspect that the AERC is squandering the Rule 13 test money that it collects, I
conclude that the available moneys support the current frequency, and mode of
testing. If the members, through their elected representatives, wish more
testing, we will have to find more funds. I have already indicated that I
would support an increase in the testing budget to at least $5 per ride
entry. As far as the issue of using urine vs. blood tests, that is all
part of the allocation of a resource. Would we get more bang for the buck
with a more sensitive test, that cost more to collect and more to analyze, or
would it make more sense to test more horses and raise the probability of
catching a blatantly positive horse? Note: urine testing would cost more
per test to do since two persons would have to follow the selected horse
around until it peed. This is significantly harder to do at a ride camp
than at a TB stable. To provide a chain of custody, every action by the
vet during the collection of blood is witnessed by a disinterested person.
I have a neat video of this being done during a MN ride.
Your comment that professional sports figures are
tested all year not just during the season, is interesting. Your
implication would seem to be that AERC should do this also. We don't have
enough money to test enough horses at enough rides as it is. Hell, even if
the money was available, many riders have no idea which of their horses will be
campaigned the next summer. Now the WEC horses are identified a year in
advance, but that is international FEI competition and not what I feel
comfortable in discussing.
Our point of disagreement would seem to boil down
to whether "0", or some formal action level is best, and whether to ban all
active substances or just a laundry list of substances. The other
list has had thread that a specific person feels that they were unjustly
punished by the P&G committee when it did not follow the vet committee's
recommendations. If this issue has not been handled internally by changes
of procedure, I would support a change to Rule 13, preventing the P&G
committee from assessing a harsher penalty than the vet committee
recommends. We do want to leave the P&G committee in the loop, because
their work is essential for due process.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser 2994 Mittower
Road Victor, MT 59875
