ti>
Yes, this is precisely what I'm getting at. However, the rule as it reads
does not allow for this because it does not define what "abnormal" levels
are. Plus, they are specific about MSM as a no-no.
<Enhanced performance is another bugaboo. We want enhanced performance. If
the
horse doesn't swoon halfway through the event, that's enhanced performance.
If he comes through a vet check bouncing and smiling, that's enhanced
performance.
What we don't want is to feed or inject something that will cause the horse
to be overused and thereby abused.>
I agree here, too. However, our Vets don't want "enhanced performance" as
you describe it here. See, they feel that implies that a competitor has an
advantage over one who chooses not to supplement. My feeling is that
supplementation is necessary to help prevent the inherent harm done by
competing in endurance. But, you can possibly break the "drug" rule by
doing this.
We need lots of help in redefining this. The first thing we need to do is
convince the Vet Committee to be receptive to discussion. To do that, we
need a constituency. It appears that there are not very many riders who are
concerned right now. I'm I wrong about that?
Linda Van Ceylon
lvanceylon@vines.colostate.edu