FEI "Clean Sport" voting issues
JC Dill
"progressive drug list" voting issues at:
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/feihorsedoping-174.shtml
Of particular interest:
> Then came the final vote, on the drugs lists. Nations were offered a
> choice between the progressive list and the existing zero-tolerance
> prohibited substance list, albeit updated for 2010.
>
> "No debate was offered," Ellis said. "No debate was asked for."
>
> Nations pushed their buttons to vote and 30-40 seconds later the
> result came up on screen: 53-48 in favour of the progressive list.
>
> "There was this audible groan in the room," he recalls.
(snip)
> First Vice-President of the FEI, Sweden's Sven Holmberg, immediately
> recognised the ramifications of what had occurred, telling delegates
> they had taken a vote which was about to divide the sport.
>
> He formally noted his objection to the progressive list before
> successfully standing for re-election as Chairman of the FEI Jumping
> Committee.
>
> Delegates broke for lunch and the progressive list got the debate it
> had not received before the General Assembly.
>
> Britain, Ellis recalls, was openly talking of the need for a re-vote.
>
>
>
>
> "The clear view," he said, "was that some nations did not know what
> they were voting on."
>
> Later in the day, during the veterinary part of the General Assembly
> agenda, the progressive list came up for discussion again.
>
> "The Irish asked three or four times for a re-vote," Ellis said.
> Princess Haya repeatedly refused, pointing out that some nations
> which had earlier voted were no longer still in attendance.
(snip)
> There was a feeling, he said, that there were "a large number of
> non-English-speaking nations who thought this [vote] was another
> rubber-stamp for the Clean Sport recommendations".
>
> "They didn't understand and weren't present the previous day."
>
> Ellis said the public relations value of the Clean Sport initiatives
> had gone out the door in a matter of seconds with the adoption of the
> progressive list.
>
> The fallout began.
>
> A group of 15 top-level equine veterinarians wrote to Princess Haya
> outlining their grave concerns over the move.
>
> The vets, led by former FEI Veterinary Committee chairman Leo
> Jeffcott, described the list's adoption as premature, ill-considered
> and seriously retrograde.
(snip)
> Ellis firmly believes that if the decision is revisited in Chinese
> Taipei, the progressive list will be consigned to history.
>
> He believes Princess Haya seriously underestimated the degree of
> feeling the progressive list would generate.
>
> All nations would go to the Chinese Taipei meeting with a full
> understanding of the issues and a majority would vote against its
> introduction, he believes.
>
> "We are confident this [list] will never come into practice. I hope
> that confidence is not misplaced," he said, "but I would be very
> surprised if it passed after a proper vote and discussion."
>
> Which begs two questions: where did the progressive list come from,
> and why was it sprung on national federations just six days before
> the General Assembly?
Please READ the whole article before debating, so that you are fully
informed on what the article says before you comment. I've included
only small snippets here, to spur people to go read it for themselves.
jc
Carl
SO sensitive that a horse can pop positive which is not on clinically
signficant levels of a drug or has merely come into contact with that
drug via secondary transfer. I bet Belles has a good chance of coming
up positive because we give Baby feed through bute and there is some
left in the pan after she has eaten her dinner and Belles once in a
while gets stuck in that stall as a spare stall, or it is on our hands
after handling Baby's feed and then handling Belles. Or how about that
horse who popped positive after an event for a non-performance drug
that had not fully cleared his system after six months post
treatment?
That said, this sounds sort of ill thought out, ill understood, and
ill planned.
Eileen Morgan
The Mare's Nest
http://www.themaresnest.com
John Hasler
> That said, this sounds sort of ill thought out, ill understood, and
> ill planned.
Or very well planned.
--
John Hasler Boarding, Lessons, Training
jo...@dancinghorsehill.com Hay, Jumps, Cavallox
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
John Hasler
> That said, this sounds sort of ill thought out, ill understood, and
> ill planned.
I wrote:
> Or very well planned.
BTW if the thresholds are well below the therapeutic level (the article
is not clear) that's as it should be. "Zero tolerance" is idiocy.
Bill Kambic
wrote:
>I have some issues with the zero tolerance, because the drug tests are
>SO sensitive that a horse can pop positive which is not on clinically
>signficant levels of a drug or has merely come into contact with that
>drug via secondary transfer.
"Zero tollerance" has long been synonomous with "zero thought."
I bet Belles has a good chance of coming
>up positive because we give Baby feed through bute and there is some
>left in the pan after she has eaten her dinner and Belles once in a
>while gets stuck in that stall as a spare stall, or it is on our hands
>after handling Baby's feed and then handling Belles. Or how about that
>horse who popped positive after an event for a non-performance drug
>that had not fully cleared his system after six months post
>treatment?
>
>That said, this sounds sort of ill thought out, ill understood, and
>ill planned.
Or John might be right. Bad news and worse news, eh??? :-(
JC Dill
> I have some issues with the zero tolerance,
Agreed. The problem with the doses they passed are that they are much
closer to "therapeutic doses" that can have a measurable effect on
performance, than possible cross contamination etc.
> That said, this sounds sort of ill thought out, ill understood, and
> ill planned.
Yep.
jc
JC Dill
> There's an excellent in-depth writeup on the FEI "Clean Sport" and
> "progressive drug list" voting issues at:
>
> http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/features/feihorsedoping-174.shtml
Update here:
http://www.horsetalk.co.nz/news/2009/12/111.shtml
They agreed to postpone this new rule and revisit it again next fall.
jc