Re: Research $$$

Susan F. Evans (suendavid@worldnet.att.net)
Wed, 04 Dec 1996 17:53:29 -0800

> << We need to convince Nutramax that here's their big chance to get in on the ground floor, be a pioneer in implementing truly relevant
> endurance research and thereby earn our loyalty and goodwill forever.
> If I were a manufacturer, that would be a better way of spending my
> company's money than making ten hot rods happy.
>
> Susan Evans >>
>
> Susan, if you were the president of Nutramax right now, and if you'd read the
> posts concerning that company which have appeared here, would you be
> encouraged to spend a dime in this direction? For what--to appease the
> outrage already caused by an errant rep? Why bother? Cosequin is clearly not a product that will be appreciated here--probably will be
banned if it demonstrates any efficacy whatsoever.

Hi Tom,

Again, I disagree. I now have a huge stack of printed posts in front of
me from the list and nowhere is there any criticism whatsoever directed
towards Nutramax or their product Cosequin. Every comment, good or bad,
has been leveled towards the concept of offering cash awards for
first-to-finish. Nutramax has no reason to "appease" anyone, because I
see zero evidence in these comments that anyone is "outraged" at
Nutramax at all.

Call me naive if you like, but endurance riders appreciate and utilize
both pharmaceuticals and nutraceuticals that will keep our horses
healthy and performing well. We simply do not believe in or condone the
use of substances which will falsely allow a horse to perform in
competition when he shouldn't. Because of the very nature of our sport,
drugs even such as Bute during competition would let a tired, sore horse
continue down the trail farther than he should be allowed to, and in our
book, that's overriding and that's abuse and that's unacceptable. If we
overreact to the word "drug", it's because the standards of our sport
require us to place our horse's well-being above everything else, and
not mask pain for the sake of winning. If a horse requires drugs to go
100 miles, then you shouldn't be asking him to go 100 miles. It doesn't
mean we don't utilize pharma/nutraceuticals in between rides to help
him. We just don't do it during competition.

>
> If I were the AERC and looking for sponsors, I'd go find the manufacturer of
> water and ask for donations.

Wouldn't the original manufacturer of water be God? Hell, I ask for
help there all the time. During Finals Week and during the last five
miles of a ride, almost continuously and usually at great volume.


> I'm a little sensitive to this because my company is involved in nutritional
> additives--the manufacturers I'm dealing with are looking at this situation
> very carefully. The message I get from all this is "stay away".

No need to. We're friendly.


> One of the major forces in human athletics is Gatorade. This company sponsors
> a gigantic array of research into nutritional support for athletics, as well
> as many events. Nike is another such sponsor of research and events in human
> athletics--but the company suffers from overexposure and is attracting
> criticism from a number of anti-business directions.

Send them our way, we'd love their sponsorship. We just don't care to
sell our souls to get it, or to compromise what we believe in.

It's probably best just to quietly explain your products to those who
will
> understand them and otherwise, just keep quiet.

Which makes it difficult to increase market share for the manufacturers.
Besides, again, nobody's criticized the product OR the manufacturer.

>
> Here was Nutramax trying to do something beneficial--they already sponsor research at some universities. The kneejerk reaction is that the
company is the Devil Incarnate. A corporate drug pusher. A "foofoo
powder" snake oil outfit out to corrupt a sport (that's what my company
has been called on occasion).

I must have missed all that. Criticizing and debating a concept in
competition incentive and the shortcomings of human nature is NOT
calling a company names. I'm sorry that your company has been.


> For all the intelligence I find in this group, I'm surprised that a little
> more quiet logic has not been applied to this situation. There was some, but,
> in my mind, too little, too late.

IMHO, I think the comments on this topics have been some of the best,
most well-thought-out and consistently intelligent comments I've heard.
If not, we wouldn't have the excellent suggestions of where cash prizes
could otherwise be spent---ie, research, scholarships, prizes for BC,
park and trail funds, etc. I haven't heard one comment of "Wait, I
could really use that money, outta my way!" , I've only heard
reasonable, non-hysterical discussion. In my mind, that in and of
itself, is to be admired and commended.

My guess is that Nutramax will feel that
they've made a big error and will punt rather than throwing good money
after bad.

With all due respect, I hope you're mistaken.

Susan Evans