Re: The great drug debate

["Kathy Myers" <kathy@nvolve.com>]

First, I am opening up discussion here, not attacking anyone.
If I sound like I'm attacking you, please forgive me as I've
just started the coffee here and have a stack of IRS forms
infront of me that I don't understand, and I don't want to have
to pay some accountant I don't understand to deal with all this.
I've never been a corporation before.  Looks expensive.

I think the AERC and our BOD is right with the Zero drug
tolerance rule.  We have to have a zero tolerance.  Also, I
don't want the AERC to end up like NATRC where the rules are
there in good faith, but end up being detrimental to the horse.
I don't want to open a NATRC discussion... and yes, I know they
are working on their rules for the good of the horse.  That's
a very big step in the right direction and we need to notice
that.

Heidi wrote:
>The level is NO drugs.  Period.  Zero.

Bob Morris wrote:
>At this point I am going to bow out of the discussion! You have all heard
>my stance on the subject today and I stand fast that all that is needed for
>a top competitive endurance horse is water, forage and electrolytes.

Then I will put to you this question.  Have you ever ridden any
of your horses against the Zero drug rule?  Ever?  ANY trace of
bute in there at all?  2 parts per billion?  How about penicillin?
EVER EVER EVER???

How about in 1995?  1994?  1993?  1992?  1991?  1990?
1985?  1982?  1975?

The point is, what we can detect now is levels of residual bute
that might be 60 days old.  We couldn't detect that in, what?,
1980?  The tests wouldn't catch it.  Zero tolerance meaning
NONE FOUND was fine.

Is there anyone out there riding endurance that has NEVER used
bute in their horse?  Would we suggest that once you've ever
had a need for bute you have to choose between what's right for
your horse and never riding that horse in AERC competition again?

I don't think that's what this rule is about.  The Zero drug
rule is to protect the horse against an owner who might choose
bute a horse and then ride it 50 miles.  We'd all like to think
that would never happen... and unfortunately we'd be nieve.

Still, the Zero Tolerance drug rule needs to stay in place.
Which means if we take Heidi and Bob at face value, I'm suggesting
we are riding against the rules.  Kinda like the 55mph speed limit.
It gets to a point where people find it's OK to break the law
when in reality we're better off to be realistic, raise the
speed limit to 65mph and then enforce the hell out of it.
It's better to have a situation where people are not breaking
the rules.

So what do we do now?  Whatever it is, it needs to be done
for the good of the horses.  How about less than 1% of the
accepted normal therapeutic level?  Is there a point where
we can be pretty sure that 99.99999999 % of the horses would
see absolutely no benefit from bute at 1% of therapeutic
level?  Can we be pretty sure that after 3 days or 2 weeks
or 30 days 99.99999999 % of every equine on the planet would
test at 1% or less therapeutic level for bute?

Oh, and dandelion is a staple up in Canada.  They grow like
weeds up there.  Guess that makes it OK... natural feed and
all.

:/ - Kat Myers
in San Mateo, CA with Magnum the TB ex-racer
and Mr Maajistic
ps... my stand on CS and GAGS is for the older horse they
become more like vitamins than drugs.  They provide the
basic building blocks the horse needs to keep joints healthy.
Like Vit D which helps with calicum, Vit B for hooves, nerve
health, Vit C, Vit A, Vit K... I'll coin them as Vit G.