Re: Drug Policy

[K S Swigart <katswig@deltanet.com>]

On Tue, 28 Jul 1998, Nancy Mitts wrote:

> I am in favor of keeping the zero tolerance, and letting the protest
> committee decide the penalty depending on the amount of drug actually
> found. Allowing a certain level is opening Pandora's box. Where would
> you set the limit? If .05 of something is okay, what about the horse who
> tests .055? Or .058? but then where do you stop? It's best left alone. 

I can't agree with this.  I, like Kris, agree that drugging horses to
enhance their performance or to mask their pathologies or to alter their
performance is not for endurance.

However, with the current state of drug testing (and getting better all
the time), the results, if you don't have some break off other than zero,
become totally meaningless.

This is just off the cuff, but my preference would be to change the drug
policy to shift the burden of proof to the AERC rather than having a zero
tolerance (I must confess that I don't believe in zero tolerance for
anything) policy which assumes that anybody who has even the minutest
positive test is guilty of infraction of the "horses must compete on their
natural ability" aspect of rule 13 (which is, after all, the stated intent
of the rule), that the veterinary committee (or whoever) must demonstrate
that the amounts of drugs present in the horse actually could have some
effect.

In this manner, the AERC is not required to IN ADVANCE decide what are
therapeutic levels for all drugs (as each becomes available) as this would
at best be unwieldly and at worst impossible, but rather it can decide on
a case by case basis using current medical knowledge.  It then becomes the
responsiblity of the AERC to prove that the equine was "influenced by any
drug, medication or veterinary treatment."  Rather than assuming any
positive drug test proves this.  The state of drug testing technology
today is such that a positive drug test, without taking into consideration
the levels found, is TOTALLY meaningless.

I would like for the policy to be that riders and their horses are
presumed to be competing on their own natural ability and that it is up to
the officials to demonstrate that the performance was influenced by drugs,
and any positive drug test is not sufficient to demonstrate this.

I think that I feel fairly strongly about this, since I would hate for
horses to not receive the medical care that they need because a rider
would like to be able to compete on the horse next year (yes, drug testing
technology is coming to that level).  I also would not like to have
competitors disqualified because their horse grazed on a leaf of some
forbidden substance along the trail (or...god forbid...the hay that
management provided at the vet checks contained a weed that would cause a
positive drug test...and yes, the technology exists for this too).

As far as I am concerned, the only reason that the AERC drug policy as
written and understood has not caused untold unfairness is because nobody
has bothered to try to implement it--at least, not the drug testing part
of it.  If the AERC routinely tested all winners of all endurance rides
(and one random horse) as is done in sprint racing, the total
unworkability of the current rule would have come to light.

Don't get me wrong, I LIKE the "no drugs" rule.  I DO think that endurance
horses should compete without being influenced by drugs (unlike sprint
racing and show horses who have "permissible substances" even at
therapeutic levels); but I am NOT in favor of having a policy that
disquaifies competitors whose horses were not influenced by drugs just
because the technology exists to detect the minutest traces of a myriad of
substances.

Nor am I in favor of a policy that would require competitors to prove that
their horses were not influenced by the trace amounts of drugs found in a
test.

One could, of course, reduce the argument to the absurd, by stating that
the penicillan you gave to your horse last year did effect his performance
today, because if you hadn't given it to him to treat his pneumonia he
would either have died (in which case he would not have done as well in
the ride, being dead) or he would have suffered irreparable lung damage
(in which case he would not have done as well in the ride).  So yes, the
drugs you gave your horse last year DID influence its performance, but I
don't think that this is what rule 13 is talking about.

However, all that said, the current rule reads (with regards to discovery
of a positive drug test) in 13.1 (B):  "Presence of such medication or
drug in an equine participating in an AERC sanctioned event shall be
grounds for review by the Protest and Grievance committee with input of
the Veterinary Committee." 

Further reading doesn't say to me that the rider must be disqualified,
just that it is "grounds for review."  ANd I agree with this, a positive
drug test IS grounds for review,...and if, after review, the Protest and
Grievance committee with the input of the Veterinary committee decides
that the test does not demonstrate that the horse was influenced by
drugs...well then they can file that under "no action taken."  So, as long
as the Protest and Grievance committee doesn't have a "zero tolerance"
policy, the policy doesn't exist.

The only thing that it says is grounds for immediate disqualification is
refusal to comply with a request from an AERC approved vet to take a
sample for the purpose of testing.

kat
Orange County, Calif.