email@example.com: RE: AERC Drug Policy
RE: AERC Drug Policy
Steph Teeter (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Fri, 5 Dec 1997 12:47:57 -0800
>IMO, substances/supplements that we deliberately feed to our horses for
>their pharmacological effect do not fall into this category. For me,
>Yucca would not fall into this category. I have not yet decided how I
>feel about GAGS. I am inclined to think that if they are administered in
>order to allow a horse that would otherwise be lame to compete...this
>would be on the borderline of drugging. If, on the otherhand, they are
>given in order to prevent horses from developing debilitating DJD, then
>they are a good thing that we should avail ourselves of. You will note
>that there is probably a good deal of overlap in these two
>purposes...which is why I have not yet decided how I feel about GAGS. I
>think, that it is up to each individual to decide what their purposes are
>in administering GAGS to their horse and up to each individual to decide
>if that purpose is in contravention of the "spirit" of the AERC "no drug"
>policy in that horses should compete entirely on their own ability,
>unenhanced by drugs.
So what is the difference between
- administering (or feeding) GAGS to increase production of cartilage,
or hyaluronic acid for increased synovial fluid
- or anabolic agents such as Gamma Oryzanol to increase muscle mass
- or even adding fat to the diet in order to 'train' the horse's body
to better metabolize fat?
I do not see that GAGS or HA fall into the same category as the
pain relieving, or anti-inflammatory drugs (or feed additives) such as
bute, yucca, or even MSM. While the horse's ability to compete may
be enhanced, there is no masking of pain, or short-term (24 hrs)
performance enhancement to my knowlege.