 |
Re: [RC] APF - heidiNow I am confused. Assuming that you are right (I suspect you are, but do not know), are you contending that AHSA, USEF, and SEDRA are also not testing for the proper substances? Or are you contending that since AERC is concerned about substances which are minor problems in your view, they ignore positive results for when they find the same substances that AHSA etc. get their knickers in a twist about? My reading of Rule 13 is that it would prohibit any substance on any list that is used or could be used by any organization, and at lower levels, if the other org. had some "action" level. Indeed, the ONLY thing different about AERC testing is that AERC asks for ALL positive reports, not just those in a therapeutic range. One of my non-endurance vets once had a similar reaction to the AERC rule that you report. Upon further questioning, it turned out that she/he just didn't believe that any organization would even think about being that strict, because it did not make medical sense to him/her, not that it somehow was going to increase cheating. This, unfortunately, is the reaction from most non-endurance vets. Like most competitors in other disciplines, most vets are of the mindset that the drug rules are there to prevent cheating only. Additionally, the concept that the horse should be well in order to compete does not cross their minds. Several years ago, Dane Frazier and I sat in a session at the AAEP in which a noted reining and cutting horse veterinarian shared with us several techniques and protocols for deep injection of local anesthetics into hip joints and around the vertebrae to numb the pain caused by jamming 2-year-olds and 3-year-olds destined for futurities into hard stops and spins, etc. His attitude was that "they're gonna train 'em and show 'em anyway, so you might as well numb the pain so that the horse can do the pattern right and not get tuned on quite as much." The entire presentation was geared to how to pharmacologically manage the horse to get him to the competition, never mind what might happen to him as a result. Needless to say, Dane and I sat there with our jaws on our knees, appalled. We both walked out muttering that we were sure glad we were endurance vets. I believe that AERC is unique in the horse industry in this country (and endurance unique in the world) for taking a zero tolerance stand. And once again, this has to do with making sure that when horses need medication, they are not returned to competition until they are well, instead of being rushed back as soon as the drug levels have reached some mythical tolerance level. Truman, I find it extremely unsettling that you purport yourself to be in favor of more efforts on the part of this organization to protect horse welfare, and yet you would have us undermine one of the very cornerstones of the whole concept of welfare--that we try to ensure that only healthy horses go out there in the first place. Yes, there is a degree of "philosophy" in the rule--but is it any more philosophical than a speed limit posted on a country road where the cops only go once in a blue moon? If we DON'T set the limit where we believe it should be--at zero tolerance--then WE are responsible for telling someone that "yes, it is ok to come and compete before your horse has gotten over his ulcer/influenza/colic/tie-up/whatever." The day we knuckle under to that will be a day of shame for AERC, and a giant step backward for our concern about horse welfare. Heidi PS: Ed, I'm like you--I'd be happy to jack the drug fee up from $1 to $5 if it meant 5x the testing. That would have cost our family $64 extra last year--for 16 rides entered between hubby and me. I doubt that it would impinge much on most of us. ============================================================ It is how we "feel" deep inside that matters, cause each of us knows the truth, regardless of how we try make it complicated. It just isn't. ~ Frank Solano ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================
|