Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff
> I agree wholeheartedly with your post - too long to repeat :) and would like
> ot add my support to your concern, Indeed, if we now have to watch what our
> horses GRAZE on, then something is terribly wrong. One should not be penalized
> simply because technology has now allowed us to find every molecule of every
> substance in a body, particularly when many of those substances occur
> naturally in the body or in other forms of nature, which are then consumed by
> the horse. There needs to be some common sense here. Indeed, I have a concern
> for my older mare, who is regularly on Yucca - a plant - and also naturally
> occurring GAGS (not injectable) for her arthritis. At her level of competition
> (LD) there is no reason that she should have to avoid substances that occur
> NATURALLY in her body, just not as efficiently as in a younger horse. In our
> opinion, since LD is NOT considered a race, and in addition, certain of these
> substances are quite natural without supplementation in all horse - just less
> in some - there should be no debate on these. I applaud my soon-to-be 23 yo
> mare who is still competing and finishing fit to continue!
There seems to be two issues here that you are addressing, of which I only
intended to address one. I am in staunch agreement with the AERC on their
prohibition of all drugging, even if the drugs in question are naturally
occurring in plants (such as Yucca); after all, there are many naturally
occuring substances which can only be classified as drugs, cocaine and
heroine are the two most obvious that come to mind. This does not, as far
as I am concerned mean that we should be allowed to "supplement" our
horses with opium, just so long as we give them the rest of the poppy
along with it. Opium is a very strong pain killer that has no business
being fed to competing endurance horses.
My question, as was the trainer's in the _TB Times_ was with regard to
"no-effect" levels of "drugs" that are inadvertently a part of the things
we feed our horses because they are scattered about the landscape on which
our horses feed and scattered about the landscape of the fields of
manufacturers of the thing we feed our horses. The key words here being
"no-effect."
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.
The point that I was trying to make is that it appears the current drug
testing technology enables "no-effect" levels of drugs to be detected,
thus leading to the disqualification of horses that had, indeed, competed
entirely on their own ability (since there was no pharmacological effect
associated with the administration/ingestion of the substance). Thus,
using current drug tests for determining whether a horse had been
"drugged" would not serve the purposes of the AERC's current drug policy.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
Events
Groups
Rider Directory
Market
RideCamp
Stuff