That wasn't really my point (not sure which post you are responding to). My point - in a nutshell - is "change happens".
Science advances, new compounds are discovered, and new studies are done on known compounds. So here - a question has come up. It seemed reasonable to question whether there should be a difference in the rules between a horse feed which contains yucca for a non-performance reason, and a separate supplement (feed 2 scoops morning and evening) specifically sold as an anti-inflammatory.
The difference is in the amount, and my question is "what amount has anti-inflammatory properties"? If are a reasonable number of peer-reviewed studies which attempted and failed to show anti-inflammatory properties, then my next question would be - why is it still on the prohibited list?
On May 5, 2009, at 9:38 PM, Kathy Copeland wrote:
No means "NO". How hard is that to understand. So if AERC says no then find a feed that doesn't have yucca in it and there are plenty that don't. Bitch and moan at the company that makes the feed. If you feed it, you know it is in there (and you should know the ingredients of everything you feed your horses) and you get tested and you test positive then you should pay the piper. You know the rules and you know what happens if you break them. Don't like the rules don't play the game.
