In the December 2008 editorial, I invited you to discuss the findings of the FEI Tribunal in the positive drug cases at the Olympics.

In a nutshell, American Courtney King was disqualified--and the US Dressage Team's fourth place finish erased--because Mythilus tested positive for a very small amount of Felbinac. (The concentration found in his blood wasn't enough to have an affect on a rat.) While the Tribunal acknowledged the excellent stable management practices of the US team, they had to uphold her suspension and disqualification because she was unable to prove the source of the contamination.

On the flip side, Brazilian show-jumper Rodrigo Pessoa's horse Rufus also had a positive drug test. Rodrigo was able to show the source of the contamination--his groom was using a topical ointment on his own broken collarbone and accidentally transferred the substance to the horse. However, the Tribunal still found him guilty and upheld his suspension due to what they deemed poor management practices.

My question to you is this: Is the FEI's "zero tolerance" policy fair, or do you think there needs to be some middle ground when it comes to decisions in these types of cases? And, if you agree the system needs to be overhauled, what do you think should be done?

Stacey-mod:

My question to you is this: Is the FEI's "zero tolerance" policy fair, or do you think there needs to be some middle ground when it comes to decisions in these types of cases? And, if you agree the system needs to be overhauled, what do you think should be done?

I am a veterinarian who has drug tested in racing for 15 years and USEF and AQHA drug tested for 5 years.  I am a firm believer that "zero tolerance" is insane.  There is solid evidence that environmental contamination is not just possible, but probable as the testing technology improves and lower and lower levels are able to be detected.  There are detectable Prozac levels in the Mediterranean Sea, resulting from release of treated sewage from bordering countries.  The solution is (1)  testing at the time of competition for performance enhancing drugs, and establishing threshold levels below which there is no effect on performance, and (2)  random testing for performance enhancing drugs in the 1 - 6 weeks prior to competition for hormones,including anabolic steroids, growth hormone (IGF levels) and erythropoietin.

Additionally, there should be rational guidelines for use of some approved therapeutic medications.  Horses are professional atheletes, similar to football players and basketball players.  Professional human atheletes cannot be expected to compete without rational medication guidelines, such as the use of anagesics.  There is obviously a big difference between anabolic steroids and aspirin.  Similar rational guidelines should be applied to horses.

Thanks, Drfenger. I heartily agree on all points! Here's hoping the FEI will read your comments.

 I totally agree with you .  I think my horse even at a low level of work is stresed by being hauled and could sometimes use a little help but I cannot do that .  I feel it is abusive to withold treatment that he needs and would get without the performance rules.  I also think it is very difficult to get a horse up to the training required without some need for medication for injury.  Many horses end up disgarded or put down for injury htat is treatable but the rules prevent them from being used. I am also concerned about envormental contamination that can put a horse in this situation.

Exactly. Many years ago we interviewed a top USET vet about using medications wisely. (I think it was for Dressage Today magazine when I worked for them.) Basically she said that just like human athletes might take ibuprofen to help with muscle soreness after working out a little harder or doing something new, that CORRECTLY using certain medications for horses will help them work through the soreness issues from using new muscles as they progress up the levels and learn new things.

From what I understand from the top athletes, they agree that there should be a level playing field, and they're not advocating use of currently "illegal" substances to give their horses advantage. They just want to make the horses comfortable. I mean, no matter how good shape a horse is in, he's probably going to be a little sore and tight after being asked to jump several technical and large courses over the span of 3-4 days--sometimes more than one in a day! It comes down to what's fair to them.

Of course, I also see the other side of it that one bad apple will spoil it for everyone else who wants to play fair. At the very least, I just think there needs to be middle ground in the decisions made by the tribunal, particularly in those cases of accidental contamination. And as testing gets more sophisticated, I think we're going to see this become even more of an important issue.

I did see that an FEI committee has been formed to look into this and discuss options. I wish them the best of luck and hope they come up with a plan that's in the best interests of the horses. I'll keep you posted if I hear anything.