RE: RC: RE: It's a Drug.

["Bob Morris" <bobmorris@rmci.net>]

Trumann:

You state <<<We do ourselves no favor by "standing on principal" when the
rule in question is most likely to vague to be enforced.>>>

I contend that if we stand on principles (incidentally "principal" is a
person not a concept) and are honest there will be no need for enforcement.
Those that chose not to adhere to the best of principles hurt them selves
and the sport no matter if enforcement is possible or not. I would say they
are the bane of society and our sport.

Now, once it ceases to be a sport, and becomes a business, we have a new
ball game. there-in lies the necessity of strict dogmatic discipline and
enforcement. But then the rules will need rewriting and the volume of
content will grow exponentially.

Bob

-----Original Message-----
From: Truman Prevatt, PhD [mailto:truman.prevatt@netsrq.com]
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 6:58 PM
To: Bob Morris; RideCamp
Subject: Re: RC: RE: It's a Drug.


Bob,

As I stated, I agree with Rule 13, but I don't believe Rule 13 will stand up
to
legal scrutiny. We do ourselves no favor by "standing on principal" when the
rule in question is most likely to vague to be enforced. We live in a
society of
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and an ex-Marine you risk you life to
preserve
and protest that tenet, and while it may not be morally pure it the best
approach that has ever been tried before.

To sanction and/or punish someone for a violation of a rule, you need proof
pure
of simple or else it is an establishment which none of us would care to be
part
of.

Truman

Bob Morris wrote:

> Truman states:
>
> <<<<Back to Rule 13. The bottom line, if it doesn't test, then it is not
in
> violation of
> Rule 13 - pure and simple. >>>
>
> I have to say one simple thing; If you care for the welfare of the sport,
if
> you care for the welfare of the horse, If you have any sense of
> sportsmanship then you will read the AERC Rule concerning drugs as stated
in
> the first several lines " THE INTEGRITY OF ENDURANCE COMPETITION REQUIRES
> THAT THE EQUINE IS NOT INFLUENCED BY ANY DRUG, MEDICATION OR VETERINARY
> TREATMENT. ENDURANCE EQUINES MUST COMPETE ENTIRELY ON THEIR NATURAL
> ABILITY." You will not go looking for the loophole that is described in
the
> following lines that bring in the testing for drugs.
>
> As I have stated before on this forum, I tend to be a moral purist. I also
> feel that those persons that have to look for protection for their actions
> behind a screen of "proof by laboratory testing" before admitting they use
> enhancing substances, and should not be competing, are ultimately fooling
> only themselves.
>
> It is sad for the sport and sad for the horses that so many persons have
the
> attitude that drugs are OK as long as they do not get caught.
>
> Bob Morris
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Truman Prevatt, PhD [mailto:truman.prevatt@netsrq.com]
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2001 6:18 PM
> To: katswig@earthlink.net; RideCamp
> Subject: RC: It's a Drug.
>
> Not that I disagree with you Kat, this substance is a drug because it does
> have a
> pharmacological effect, but the same can be said about ice boots!  Ice
boots
> applied
> properly can have a very strong anti-inflammatory effect. I've heard at
> least one very
> well know endurance vet state that there is little way a unsound horse
could
> do a 50
> mile ride on bute and finish, but I would expect an unsound horse could
> complete a 50
> ride with judicious use of ice boots.
>
> Is ice a drug? The drug issue is tricky. If something doesn't test is it a
> drug? Well
> yes and no. It's pharmacological effect may indicate it is a drug, but
> legally cannot
> be classified for enforcement because it does not test.
>
> In the 99 Tour de France, there was a scandal over the use of a blood
doping
> drug.
> There was no test so their drug policy was unenforceable. In a recent
> "Scientific
> American" article there was an article on the next generation of
performance
> enhancing
> drugs. These are compounds that will cause genetic changes in the
athletic.
> This type
> of enhancement is absolutely undetectable, hence cannot be outlawed!  It
is
> becoming a
> "Brave New World."
>
> Back to Rule 13. The bottom line, if it doesn't test, then it is not in
> violation of
> Rule 13 - pure and simple.  I have read the arguments starting with the
> origination of
> this rule, long before Ridecamp was a gleam in Steph's eye, over why the
> drug rule is
> as is and in theory it sounds good. Take an example from drug laws in the
> US. Our
> courts will not allow prosecution for the possession of a substance that
is
> not
> specifically described as a prohibited substance. You can not write a law
> that is
> vague enough to catch the "designer drugs" when they first come out. You
> could but the
> courts would throw them out. The architects of Rule 13 understood this and
> didn't want
> to get into this quagmire, as the AHSA did. However, any rule we have will
> have to
> withstand the challenge of a court - which it may just have to do some
day,
> and I do
> not believe Rule 13 would if applied to substances which are not
considered
> by the
> community of experts at large to be a drug, e.g., bute.
>
> So our rule is fine as long as no one challenges it. When it is challenged
> it doesn't
> really matter what is written, what matters is a) does it test and b) is
it
> a
> substance that is considered by the community of experts at large to be a
> drug. On the
> latter matter I asked by own vet, who does test for the FL winter Grand
Prix
> circuit,
> about Rule 13. His comment was, "hope they never have to enforce it on a
> horse worth a
> million dollars, because they will lose."  This is not good bad or
> indifferent, it is
> a fact of life in the US. We do in the final analysis have to live within
> the legal
> structure of guilt has to be proved beyond a resonable doubt.
>
> Don't get me wrong, I agree with Rule 13 and support it, but as more money
> creeps into
> the sport and as FEI competition becomes more a mainstream part of the
sport
> which
> mixes different concepts of drug policy, then we will probably find that
we
> will have
> to revisit the drug issue to make it more bullet proof to challenge.
>
> Truman
>
> "guest@endurance.net" wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Just because current drug tests do not test for metabolites of the
> chemical
> > compounds contained the herbs that have the above stated pharmacological
> > effects, there should be little doubt in anybody's mind (no matter how
> strict
> > of a definition used for the term "drug"), that using APF on an
endurance
> horse
> > would be in violation of the AERC's rule 13 (despite the assertion that
> current
> > drug tests would not pick it up, and therefore it is unlikely that
anybody
> > using it is likely to get caught).  The fact that it is allowed by the
> > medications rules of the AHSA is of no consequence when determining if
it
> is
> > allowed by AERC rules.  The AHSA has gone to the trouble of making a
list
> of
> > forbidden medications...and, apparently, this medication is not on it.
> That
> > doesn't mean that it isn't a medication; there are lots of medications
> that are
> > not on the AHSA's list.
> >
>
> --
> Vertex Engineering, Inc.
> Innovative Solutions
> Superior Support
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
>
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
> Ridecamp is a service of Endurance Net, http://www.endurance.net.
> Information, Policy, Disclaimer: http://www.endurance.net/RideCamp
> =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

--
Vertex Engineering, Inc.
Innovative Solutions
Superior Support