Omeprazole
300 views
Skip to first unread message
k s swigart
Oct 13, 2014, 11:02:18 AM10/13/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Ed said:
> On 10/2/2014 11:39 AM, Bruce Weary wrote:
> "..."We don't allow doping/performance enhancing or pain
>
masking meds." We already allow Regumate, Pergolide (for
> Cushing's) and injectable/oral joint nutraceuticals..."
>
> I think you are saying that the camel's nose and much of his
>
> I think you are saying that the camel's nose and much of his
> head is already in the tent so why not allow a little bit more.
> This simply illustrates
the danger of compromising principles
> one little step at a time.
>
> I was and remain opposed to all the above listed drugs.
>
> I was and remain opposed to all the above listed drugs.
There is no philosophically consistent reason to allow the above listed drugs and not allow ALL therapeutic drugs. It would be cheaper and easier if the AERC
were to simply concede this and used the USEF Drugs & Medications policy from now on.
Bruce also said about using omeprazole:
> I have begun to use the preventive dose in our horses,
> and the change has been remarkable. They nearly empty
> their hay bags in the trailer now, urinate MUCH more (not
> sure why) and eat and drink better on the trail. And we
> never really felt we had problems in these areas until we
> saw these changes. Now a fuller gut, better hydration and
> free urination likely make for a horse that will be more able
> to handle endurance riding...
So which is it? The AERC "doesn't allow performance enhancing...meds" or now that it allows the preventive dose of omeprazole it allows something that Bruce has experienced FIRST HAND enables his horses to "be more able to handle endurance riding." In what interpretation of the English language doesn't "more able" not equate with "better performance?" Bruce has said that he changed his mind about allowing omeprazole because he has noticed that it improves his own horses' performances at endurance rides.
Which leads to the other thing Ed said:
> As far as distinguishing between a difficultly detectable tiny
> residues, that are many orders of magnitude smaller than a
> therapeutic dose and drugging a horse, I hold that the difference
> is clear. Those who can't do this, are not being completely
> honest with themselves or are not aware of the
nature of our
> world.
"...not being completely honest with themselves or are not aware of the nature of our world" is just a long, wordy way of saying "delusional." But since it seems many people don't like the word delusional, from now on I'll use Ed's words instead.
When the omeprazole topic came up I had intended not to say anything because the AERC had already sacrificed its "drug free" philosophy years ago by allowing drugs for the control of estrous in mares, which I mentioned at the time that the list first came out. Adding Pergolide to that list last year was ... ill-considered (there are a lot of other words I could have put there, but I will leave it to your imagination).
Pergolide is a drug used solely for the purpose of marginally managing (there is no treatment) Cushing's disease, a metabolic disorder which affects, among other things: stress hormones, bone density, thermoregulation, hydration, food metabolism... and causes excess fatigue, immunodeficiency .... You know, nothing that matters to horses at AERC events.
By adding Pergolide to the allowed substances list, the AERC hung out a sign that says, in essence: "Bring your horse that you KNOW to be permanently metabolically compromised to our events, we'll allow you to keep it on the drugs that you use to sort of mitigate the symptoms of that condition."
After adding Pergolide, adding omeprazole is irrelevant.
All of these changes (and a few others, some of which I have already mentioned) indicate to me that the members of AERC Board of Directors who are responsible for approving these changes are not being completely honest with themselves or are not aware of the nature of our world. But I am sure they all have good intentions, so that makes it okay.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
Dawn Carrie
Oct 13, 2014, 12:05:13 PM10/13/14
to ridecamp
Well said, Kat.
Dawn Carrie
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
Char Jewell
Oct 13, 2014, 12:24:46 PM10/13/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Well said Kat!
2 of my 3 horses are ulcer prone & I do not support omeprazole during competition. (Or any of the other allowed drugs)
It would allow me to push them harder than they can handle AND I wouldn't need as much horsemanship to get them thru the ride because I am relying on a drug to do it for me.
Sent from Char's iPhone
Sent from Char's iPhone
Bruce Weary
Oct 13, 2014, 12:56:41 PM10/13/14
to ride...@endurance.net
9% full Using 1.4 GB of your 15 GB Last account activity: 3 minutes ago Details |   2 more | ||||||||||||
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 13, 2014, 1:29:53 PM10/13/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/13/2014 11:56 AM, Bruce Weary
wrote:
any substance that enables an athlete to perform ABOVE his genetic potential.
To advocate for the loyal opposition: Acid production, and
protection of the digestive system from the bad effects of acid
production is controlled genetically. As is an excitable
temperament which contributes to excess acid production. Unless you
can site evidence that genes do not control acid production, the use
of Omeprazole is enabling the athlete to perform "ABOVE his genetic
potential."
One could just as easily argue that NSAIDs prevent inflammation in addition to reducing pain by decreasing inflammation, and thus small doses are as good for the horse as small doses of Omeprazole.
My bottom line: We are arguing how much of the Camel we should allow in the tent. The very scenario that I and others have been on our soapboxes complaining about for a number of years now.
Ed #12561
One could just as easily argue that NSAIDs prevent inflammation in addition to reducing pain by decreasing inflammation, and thus small doses are as good for the horse as small doses of Omeprazole.
My bottom line: We are arguing how much of the Camel we should allow in the tent. The very scenario that I and others have been on our soapboxes complaining about for a number of years now.
Ed #12561
Diane Trefethen
Oct 13, 2014, 4:42:43 PM10/13/14
to ride...@endurance.net
I too agree with what Kat has said. I believe we will continue to struggle with
this issue and to add more drugs that allow horses to compete who could not do
so without them until we attack this from a different perspective.
Here is one suggestion that might fix the problem of the camel’s nose, and
possibly get it completely out of the tent. What if we define a minimum set of
standards for an endurance horse. I do NOT mean standards that members have to
follow to be allowed to compete. I mean standards which our RULES must
acknowledge. One of the slogans we use is a paraphrasing of Julie’s quotation,
any horse can do endurance as long as it is conditioned and cared for properly.
This slogan is meant to attract every rider who might have an interest in our
sport. Unfortunately, the slogan is a lie. There’s a cute mini-horse on U-Tube
who gets around with a prosthesis for a front leg. I doubt any of us would say
that horse could even do a fun ride, much less endurance.
So we make a good case and attract people with all sorts of horses, horses that
they love dearly and can hardly wait to take to a ride. But somewhere between
that mini and RO Grand Sultan is a line. Horses on one side of that line can
never do endurance. All of us can agree on those horses, the ones with multiple
leg fractures, or who are 40 years old or who have genetic conditions that cause
grave injury when stressed physically. It’s the other side of the line where we
run into trouble.
If we were to adopt a standard for endurance equines, part of that standard
might be that any non-working horse that cannot live comfortably and thrive on a
diet of hay and water without the benefit of a drug is not suitable for
endurance. That wouldn’t mean the horse couldn’t compete or the owner couldn’t
devise a protocol to circumvent the horse’s inability to use hay. It would only
mean that any drug that allowed a horse to use hay couldn’t be on the list. If
the standard included the statement that a horse must be manageable by an owner
with average horse handling ability without the benefit of a drug, again, anyone
could condition a difficult horse and bring it to rides. However, this part of
the standard would preclude from the drug list, any drug designed to calm or
take the edge off an excitable or intractable horse. Another part might be that
a horse must be able to trot without a grade 2 limp. Ergo, no pain killers.
It is fun to see Frisians and Haflingers and Percheron crosses at rides but I’m
pretty sure that the owners of heavy hunter and draft types don’t expect AERC to
change the finish line rules to allow horses over a certain size 90 minutes to
recover. And in fact, we went the opposite direction when we cut that time back
to 30 minutes from the previously allowed one hour. Similarly, why should AERC
make exceptions (and that is what adding drugs to the list amounts to) for
horses that are metabolically challenged? Why should we do that when we don’t do
it for big (not necessarily fat) horses? Do we make exceptions for horses with a
grade 2 limp because “they always go that way?” No. How about 10 hand ponies? Do
we give them extra time or do we say, get a taller pony? Why do we make
exception after exception for metabolically challenged equines while
simultaneously refusing to do the same for big horses or short horses or horses
with permanent limps or ANY other disability, genetic or otherwise.
We need to stop doing that.
If we devise a set of standards for the endurance equine, then I repeat, equines
that don’t meet that standard can compete. The standard would be strictly to
decide when a rule was reasonable or a drug permissible and in what amounts. If
equines are metabolically challenged and their owners can in good conscience
compete them in endurance, fine, let them. But do NOT allow drugs to give that
equine an edge that it doesn’t possess naturally. I think Bruce’s definition is
reasonable but even more so is Ed’s point that these horses’ problems ARE
genetic and therefore any drug that allows them to compete in spite of their
genetic deficiencies IS a performance enhancing drug. It is completely
unreasonable to forgive one genetic deficiency, say excessive acid production,
and not forgive others, say natural bulk or height.
this issue and to add more drugs that allow horses to compete who could not do
so without them until we attack this from a different perspective.
Here is one suggestion that might fix the problem of the camel’s nose, and
possibly get it completely out of the tent. What if we define a minimum set of
standards for an endurance horse. I do NOT mean standards that members have to
follow to be allowed to compete. I mean standards which our RULES must
acknowledge. One of the slogans we use is a paraphrasing of Julie’s quotation,
any horse can do endurance as long as it is conditioned and cared for properly.
This slogan is meant to attract every rider who might have an interest in our
sport. Unfortunately, the slogan is a lie. There’s a cute mini-horse on U-Tube
who gets around with a prosthesis for a front leg. I doubt any of us would say
that horse could even do a fun ride, much less endurance.
So we make a good case and attract people with all sorts of horses, horses that
they love dearly and can hardly wait to take to a ride. But somewhere between
that mini and RO Grand Sultan is a line. Horses on one side of that line can
never do endurance. All of us can agree on those horses, the ones with multiple
leg fractures, or who are 40 years old or who have genetic conditions that cause
grave injury when stressed physically. It’s the other side of the line where we
run into trouble.
If we were to adopt a standard for endurance equines, part of that standard
might be that any non-working horse that cannot live comfortably and thrive on a
diet of hay and water without the benefit of a drug is not suitable for
endurance. That wouldn’t mean the horse couldn’t compete or the owner couldn’t
devise a protocol to circumvent the horse’s inability to use hay. It would only
mean that any drug that allowed a horse to use hay couldn’t be on the list. If
the standard included the statement that a horse must be manageable by an owner
with average horse handling ability without the benefit of a drug, again, anyone
could condition a difficult horse and bring it to rides. However, this part of
the standard would preclude from the drug list, any drug designed to calm or
take the edge off an excitable or intractable horse. Another part might be that
a horse must be able to trot without a grade 2 limp. Ergo, no pain killers.
It is fun to see Frisians and Haflingers and Percheron crosses at rides but I’m
pretty sure that the owners of heavy hunter and draft types don’t expect AERC to
change the finish line rules to allow horses over a certain size 90 minutes to
recover. And in fact, we went the opposite direction when we cut that time back
to 30 minutes from the previously allowed one hour. Similarly, why should AERC
make exceptions (and that is what adding drugs to the list amounts to) for
horses that are metabolically challenged? Why should we do that when we don’t do
it for big (not necessarily fat) horses? Do we make exceptions for horses with a
grade 2 limp because “they always go that way?” No. How about 10 hand ponies? Do
we give them extra time or do we say, get a taller pony? Why do we make
exception after exception for metabolically challenged equines while
simultaneously refusing to do the same for big horses or short horses or horses
with permanent limps or ANY other disability, genetic or otherwise.
We need to stop doing that.
If we devise a set of standards for the endurance equine, then I repeat, equines
that don’t meet that standard can compete. The standard would be strictly to
decide when a rule was reasonable or a drug permissible and in what amounts. If
equines are metabolically challenged and their owners can in good conscience
compete them in endurance, fine, let them. But do NOT allow drugs to give that
equine an edge that it doesn’t possess naturally. I think Bruce’s definition is
reasonable but even more so is Ed’s point that these horses’ problems ARE
genetic and therefore any drug that allows them to compete in spite of their
genetic deficiencies IS a performance enhancing drug. It is completely
unreasonable to forgive one genetic deficiency, say excessive acid production,
and not forgive others, say natural bulk or height.
Truman Prevatt
Oct 13, 2014, 4:43:17 PM10/13/14
to ride...@endurance.net
The slippery slop comes in with something like. If the horse didn't have a sore "fill in your favorite soreness" (or the soreness came from transport) then he could perform up to his genetic potential. So why can't we use bute.
I think there was the type of argument put before the FEI the last year or so.
Lasix can be used - in fact it is in some equestrian sports - as a preventive drug to prevent bleeding. Why don't we allow it in endurance riding. Side effects - not to worry I am sure someone will develop an electrolyte
replacement that will address these issues and it would allow the horse to perform up to its genetic potential. In fact Pagan and KER are working on that.
The same exact reasoning can and actually has been applied to Omeprazole. However, at the end of the day Omeprazole allows horses to compete that would not other wise be able to compete at that level. It does not
help a horse compete above its genetic potential like say growth hormones or steroids do but it does allow some horses to compete at a level they could not other wise do without the drug. But neither does bute or Lasix.
Is that performance enhancing? Sure is - the horse performs better with Omeprazon or Lasix than without them. If that is not performance enhancing - what is it?
My wife had a wonderful horse - some people thought too good for her;-). He could gallop for 10 miles and have a 48 heart rate within a minute after stopping. He was fast, he had wonderful
recoveries and his canter was smooth as silk to ride and he could do it all day. Problem was he was ulcer prone.
That showed up an a particularly long first loop at a ride (see Angie's wonderful article in the latest EN). We did everything to address it but she finally said
enough is enough, this horse is not cut out to be an endurance horse and he did his last 50. He's a wonderful trail horse. She has ridden him on trails all over the US. She would do an LD or CTR from time to time,
but nothing to aggravate the ulcer condition. But he was not cut out to be an endurance horse. In my opinion she did the right thing. The idea of running him on drugs never crossed her mind.
I see the move to approve the use of Omeprazole is doing nothing more that opening the door of the same specious argument used on other drugs and eventually allowing more an more drugs in the sport. When I jointed the AERC
had a unique claim in the horse world. It truly was drug free. Today it has lost any creditable use to that claim. It is a vast difference to allow for drug residues not greater than 5 half lives because new testing technology
has increased the sensitivity of drug testing and saying preventative levels are acceptable.
Whatever claim the AERC had to a moral higher ground as being one of the only drug free equestrian sports was washed away with allowing preventive levels of Omeprazole with all the convoluted logic that allows Lasix and the other drugs that are used in equestrian sports.
Truman
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." E. B. White
"Prejudice is a great time saver. You can form opinions without having to get the facts." E. B. White
Truman Prevatt
Oct 13, 2014, 4:48:29 PM10/13/14
to Ed & Wendy Hauser, ride camp
Ed,
The camel already has his whole head under the tent. The AERC has lost any claim to being a drug free equestrian sport. But our illustrate board as ruled that it is okay for the AERC to no longer be drug free. There are arguments as to if Brutus was really noble or not. I will leave it to you do determine the same question about the AERC and drugs.
Truman
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
"Whenever you find that you are on the side of the majority, it is time to reform." - Mark Twain
Carla Richardson
Oct 14, 2014, 10:03:31 AM10/14/14
to ridecamp, (E-mail)
Thank you, Bruce. I agree.
Carla Richardson
Janice Taylor
Oct 14, 2014, 12:27:07 PM10/14/14
to RideCamp
Have to say, I agree with Bruce as well.
Janice
karen standefer
Oct 14, 2014, 5:37:50 PM10/14/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Acid production in the horse is non-stop. It's not like in humans where it is produced only when stimulated. A horse produces approx 9 gallons of stomach acid in a 24 hour period (48 oz per hour). So, I'm not so sure this is a genetic discussion. It is the nature of the beast. This is why so much emphasis is put on managing the horse correctly when one has an ulcer prone horse.
Kerry Ridgeway has put a lot of time into researching ulcers and wrote a great paper. Here is an excerpt:
"Lets start with the horse’s digestive tract. If it were to be stretched out to its full length, it would be a full city block long. The stomach portion is one of the smallest aspects and can only hold two or three gallons of material at a given time. This means that with the large amount of food a horse consumes in a day, the stomach must pretty rapidly process the food and move it on into the small intestine and from there into the large bowels. So – in relationship to stomach ulcers - the key point is that the stomach is geared to eating small amounts on a nearly continuous basis and not large amounts two or three times a day. The horse evolved as a grazing animal, right?
Add to this the fact that the glandular portion (in the lower part) of the stomach secretes well over a quart and a half of hydrochloric acid every hour on a 24/7 basis whether food is present or not. If no food is present for long periods, the acid can literally start digesting the lining of the stomach itself. This phenomenon is even more likely to occur with exercise. During exercise, the tightening abdominal muscles compress the stomach and move acid up where it does not belong. Especially during a canter or gallop, the viscera are propelled forward, essentially slamming into the stomach and compressing it against the diaphragm. The result is “splashing” of the acids (hydrochloric, volatile fatty acids and bile acids) up and onto the upper part of the stomach. "
Here is a link to the full paper:
http://www.drkerryridgway.com/articles/article-ulcers.php
Karen
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:29:20 -0500
From: ra...@sisuwest.us
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Omeprazole
<snip>
Kerry Ridgeway has put a lot of time into researching ulcers and wrote a great paper. Here is an excerpt:
"Lets start with the horse’s digestive tract. If it were to be stretched out to its full length, it would be a full city block long. The stomach portion is one of the smallest aspects and can only hold two or three gallons of material at a given time. This means that with the large amount of food a horse consumes in a day, the stomach must pretty rapidly process the food and move it on into the small intestine and from there into the large bowels. So – in relationship to stomach ulcers - the key point is that the stomach is geared to eating small amounts on a nearly continuous basis and not large amounts two or three times a day. The horse evolved as a grazing animal, right?
Add to this the fact that the glandular portion (in the lower part) of the stomach secretes well over a quart and a half of hydrochloric acid every hour on a 24/7 basis whether food is present or not. If no food is present for long periods, the acid can literally start digesting the lining of the stomach itself. This phenomenon is even more likely to occur with exercise. During exercise, the tightening abdominal muscles compress the stomach and move acid up where it does not belong. Especially during a canter or gallop, the viscera are propelled forward, essentially slamming into the stomach and compressing it against the diaphragm. The result is “splashing” of the acids (hydrochloric, volatile fatty acids and bile acids) up and onto the upper part of the stomach. "
Here is a link to the full paper:
http://www.drkerryridgway.com/articles/article-ulcers.php
Karen
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:29:20 -0500
From: ra...@sisuwest.us
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Omeprazole
<snip>
To advocate for the loyal opposition: Acid production, and protection of the digestive system from the bad effects of acid production is controlled genetically. As is an excitable temperament which contributes to excess acid production. Unless you can site evidence that genes do not control acid production, the use of Omeprazole is enabling the athlete to perform "ABOVE his genetic potential."
<snip>
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 14, 2014, 6:37:07 PM10/14/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/14/2014 4:37 PM, karen standefer
wrote:
This is why so much emphasis is put on managing the horse correctly when one has an ulcer prone horse.
This statement indicates that some horses are more likely to suffer
from ulcers than others. If there is a variation it implies that
the differences are associated with differences in genes. Do you
have a non-genetic cause for differences in how ulcer prone horses
are?
Ed
Ed
Lynn White
Oct 14, 2014, 10:54:04 PM10/14/14
to ridecamp
I believe the real issue here is the ideology of what is considered reasonable. AERC's drug free program is aimed at performance enhancing drugs outlined by Bruce Weary in the thread above. I agree that ulcer mitigation is probably not performance enhancement even if the horse seems to be thriving on it. What we do with our endurance horses is NOT natural. We do things like protect their feet and backs. One could argue that hoof protection and saddles are "performance enhancing" devices. A device is not a drug, but if a horse goes lame without shoes one could argue that shoes enhance performance. Shoes are not natural. If you want to ride your horse in a natural way get on his back without a saddle, bridle or hoof protection and let him just graze at his leisure. You might even get 25 miles in during a day. This is how horses are made to live and eat. The argument that a horse needs a medication that helps him mitigate ulcers or a chronic metabolic condition has merit if its use helps maintain the general health of the horse. Most people using an ulcer mitigating medication don't do it because they want to finish a 100-miler in less than eight hours or win a car. They use the medication because it keeps their horses healthier under the stresses horses are asked to do. I doubt any horses have dropped dead at the end of a 100-miler because they were given prilosec. So what would become of these ulcer prone horses and their riders if not put on some form of mitigation? Let's see now: one spends a good chunk of change and invests a couple years getting a horse to do eight-hour 50's and then has to retire the horse because he's ulcer prone. AERC would likely end up with one less rider coming back year after year. Probably not a good plan on keeping membership. And for what? So AERC can brag about "clean sport"? Seems like the real issue is the definition of "clean sport."
--
Truman Prevatt
Oct 15, 2014, 7:50:00 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
I find it a interesting juxtaposition that while there is an ongoing push in TB racing in the US to eliminate the use of drugs - there is a movement within the AERC to allow the use of drugs. It is also interesting how that those that want to see drugs used in the AERC are spinning the term performance enhancement. A performance enhancing substance which may or may not be banned by the governing body of the sport an athlete participates in is any substance that is taken for the specific reason to improve performance. This as a good working definition and one used by Major League Baseball - another sport trying to exorcise the deacons of a drug culture from its ranks.
Is not a substance foreign to the body and environment that allows a horse to compete in a sport when he/she otherwise could not a performance enhance drug? If a horse cannot do all five days of a ride - is not giving it Omeprazole so he/she can finish all five days performance enhancing? Let's see - can't finish all five days without but can with - sure sounds like performance enhancement to me. If a horse cannot finish a 100 without
Omeprazone but can with Omeprazone - is that not performance enhancement. Endurance riding is an athletic event. Not every person is capable of hitting a 90 mph fast ball or run a mile in 4 and 1/2 minutes. Do we go look for a pill for that? Not every horse is capable for whatever reason of finishing an endurance ride - but it seems that's okay if it is because he/she is ulcer prone since we have a pill for that.
The only person we are fooling with the spinning of the convoluted meaning of performance enhance by finding one that allows us to rationalize the use of drugs in the AERC is the person in the mirror. If that is the direction the AERC wants take the sport - that that is clearly an option. However, at the end of the day - it will mean the AERC's claim to be a drug free sport is as specious as that of TB racing.
Truman
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
“Many people consider the things government does for them to be social progress but they regard the things government does for others as socialism.” Earl Warren
Bruce Weary
Oct 15, 2014, 8:52:45 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
...."exorcise the deacons......" OMG, Truman, you just gave me my laugh of the day. :) Bruce Weary
endurancehorsemt
Oct 15, 2014, 9:21:37 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Yeah, please, let's not bring religion into this argument too, lol
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
AERC # M39603
www.allthingsendurance.com
AERC # M39603
www.allthingsendurance.com
Cynthia Ross
Oct 15, 2014, 9:36:57 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
My experience with pergolide is it has "managed" my horses hormones far, far more than just "marginally" And at 23 years old, she is going strong with no more issues than she ever had before she had cushings. And the best thing you can do for an IR horse, as many cushing horses are, is exercise them as much as you can within the limits they are capable of. And the limits they are capable of could be anything depending on the particular horse in question. And while I have no desire to try to ride my horse in any more one day 100's, her limiting factor is her legs, not her cushings. I still ride her just as I did when I was conditioning for distance riding and she could easily do LD's still. Pergolide does not "sort of mitigate" the symptoms of of cushings. Using something like chast tree mitigates the symptoms but does nothing to actually control ACTH levels. Pergolide controls the ACTH levels and brings a horse back to normal function. (of course each horse is individual in their response to this like anything else)
If you simply believe AERC should just be drug free, I get that. But pergolide is far better at controlling ACTH levels and bringing them back to normal function than what you state below.
Kat said:
Pergolide is a drug used solely for the purpose of marginally managing (there is no treatment) Cushing's disease, a metabolic disorder which affects, among other things: stress hormones, bone density, thermoregulation, hydration, food metabolism... and causes excess fatigue, immunodeficiency .... You know, nothing that matters to horses at AERC events.
By adding Pergolide to the allowed substances list, the AERC hung out a sign that says, in essence: "Bring your horse that you KNOW to be permanently metabolically compromised to our events, we'll allow you to keep it on the drugs that you use to sort of mitigate the symptoms of that condition."
By adding Pergolide to the allowed substances list, the AERC hung out a sign that says, in essence: "Bring your horse that you KNOW to be permanently metabolically compromised to our events, we'll allow you to keep it on the drugs that you use to sort of mitigate the symptoms of that condition."
Cindy Ross,
Sandra Adams
Oct 15, 2014, 9:38:29 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
I have a related question - do the drug prohibitions apply to LD as well, since LD is “not endurance”?
Carla Richardson
Oct 15, 2014, 9:39:27 AM10/15/14
to ridecamp, (E-mail)
The deacons probably do need to be exorcized, but aren't you glad he didn't say exercised? That would have been more typical Trumanizing. ;)
Carla Richardson
endurancehorsemt
Oct 15, 2014, 10:26:12 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Yes. LDs are AERC-sanctioned events and follow the same drug rules.
k s swigart
Oct 15, 2014, 10:26:49 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Truman said:
> The only person we are fooling with the spinning of the
> convoluted meaning of performance enhance by finding
> one that allows us to rationalize the use of drugs in the
> AERC is the person in the mirror. If that is the direction
> the AERC wants take the sport - that that is clearly an
> option. However, at the end of the day - it will mean the
> AERC's claim to be a drug free sport is as specious as
> that of TB racing.
The announcement from the Veterinary Committee regarding omeprazole said:
> While the Veterinary Committee fully supports the AERC
> philosophy that horses should compete on their own natural
> abilities, the Veterinary Committee also feels a need to protect
> and promote the health and welfare of horses competing in the
> sport of endurance. ...
This whole question of the
validity of the rationale for allowing the use of omeprazole in horses at AERC events could be removed entirely if the above statement from the Vet Committee were changed to:
"The Veterinary Committee does NOT fully support the AERC's stated philosophy that horses should compete on their own natural abilities; the Veterinary Committee feels a need to protect and promote the health and welfare of horses ..."
And then the Rules Committee could remove this statement from AERC Rule 13.1:
"Endurance equines should compete under their natural abilities without the influence of any drug, medication or veterinary treatment."
Nothing is added to the understandability or enforceability of Rule 13 by having that statement as part of the rules. It just leads to confusion because the existence of an Allowed Substances Appendix that includes substances that meet ANYBODY'S definition of drug or medication.
Actually, what it leads to is people being REQUIRED to ignore some part of the rules.
What the Veterinary Committee's justification for allowing the use of omeprazole amounts to is a statement that the Veterinary Committee does not believe that any horses can participate healthily in AERC events on just their natural abilities without the influence of this drug (because if there are some that can and some that can't and the
stated philosophy were actually believed, then those that can't should not be entered in AERC events).
All the AERC needs to do is be honest and admit that it doesn't ascribe to the philosophy. This should hardly come as a surprise, since the statement "except for those to control estrous in mares" has been part of that inconsistent philosophy for a very long time.
For as long as the inconsistencies continue to exist (i.e. part of a rule says that it is okay to break another part of the rule), the entire rule book is rendered meaningless. Which is another thing that has been true for a very long time. Maryben once said that in her 40+ years of membership in the AERC and attending AERC events in multiple capacities that she has never been to an AERC event where all of the AERC's rules were adhered to.
kat
Orange County, Calif.
:|
endurancehorsemt
Oct 15, 2014, 10:36:31 AM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
OMG - I have to get back to work but I'm laughing too hard. I could have used a few exercising deacons exorcizing demons at my rides (see my other post about pulls) :)
karen standefer
Oct 15, 2014, 12:11:07 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Reposting with my opinions left out so that the pertinent and important facts can be discussed:
From: kstan...@apbb.net
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Spam:***, RE: [RC] Omeprazole
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:37:44 -0700
From: kstan...@apbb.net
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Spam:***, RE: [RC] Omeprazole
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 14:37:44 -0700
Acid production in the horse is non-stop; this is the way their genetics work. It's not like in humans where it is produced only when stimulated. A horse produces approx 9 gallons of stomach acid in a 24 hour period (48 oz per hour).
Kerry Ridgeway has put a lot of time into researching ulcers and wrote a great paper. Here is an excerpt:
"Lets start with the horse’s digestive tract. If it were to be stretched out to its full length, it would be a full city block long. The stomach portion is one of the smallest aspects and can only hold two or three gallons of material at a given time. This means that with the large amount of food a horse consumes in a day, the stomach must pretty rapidly process the food and move it on into the small intestine and from there into the large bowels. So – in relationship to stomach ulcers - the key point is that the stomach is geared to eating small amounts on a nearly continuous basis and not large amounts two or three times a day. The horse evolved as a grazing animal, right?
Add to this the fact that the glandular portion (in the lower part) of the stomach secretes well over a quart and a half of hydrochloric acid every hour on a 24/7 basis whether food is present or not. If no food is present for long periods, the acid can literally start digesting the lining of the stomach itself. This phenomenon is even more likely to occur with exercise. During exercise, the tightening abdominal muscles compress the stomach and move acid up where it does not belong. Especially during a canter or gallop, the viscera are propelled forward, essentially slamming into the stomach and compressing it against the diaphragm. The result is “splashing” of the acids (hydrochloric, volatile fatty acids and bile acids) up and onto the upper part of the stomach. "
Here is a link to the full paper:
http://www.drkerryridgway.com/articles/article-ulcers.php
What happens when a horse is worried or scared is that their body responds by raising adrenalin levels. When this happens, the body shuts down all non-essential functions (including digestion). It doesn't produce more acid, it just shuts down digestion which stops the matter from moving through the digestive tract. You can do some searches for "Adrenalin shuts down digestion in horses" if you'd like to see the research on this.
Karen
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2014 12:29:20 -0500
From: ra...@sisuwest.us
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Omeprazole
<snip>
To advocate for the loyal opposition: Acid production, and protection of the digestive system from the bad effects of acid production is controlled genetically. As is an excitable temperament which contributes to excess acid production. Unless you can site evidence that genes do not control acid production, the use of Omeprazole is enabling the athlete to perform "ABOVE his genetic potential."
<snip>
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
--
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 1:47:40 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/15/2014 6:38 AM, Sandra Adams wrote:
> I have a related question - do the drug prohibitions apply to LD as well, since
> LD is “not endurance”?
Yes they do. LD is endurance (small e), just not Endurance (capital E).
> I have a related question - do the drug prohibitions apply to LD as well, since
> LD is “not endurance”?
Alice Y.
Oct 15, 2014, 1:52:23 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
So if you are giving a preventative dose when do you give it. And when do you stop to be in compliance with the rules?
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 1:54:19 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/15/2014 6:36 AM, Cynthia Ross wrote:
> My experience with pergolide is it has "managed" my horses hormones far, far
> more than just "marginally" And at 23 years old, she is going strong with no
> more issues than she ever had before she had cushings.
> /
> My experience with pergolide is it has "managed" my horses hormones far, far
> more than just "marginally" And at 23 years old, she is going strong with no
> more issues than she ever had before she had cushings.
> /Kat said:/
> /Pergolide is a drug used solely for the purpose of marginally managing (there
> is no treatment) Cushing's disease...
Kat was being conservative using "marginally." Your comments show clearly how
big a performance enhancement pergolide really provides. Thank you for arguing
our case.
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 1:56:22 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
I think Lynn has made numerous statements that are open to question so I will
try to refute each one in a separate post so those who wish to chime in won’t be
stuck dealing with a VERY long post.
“I believe the real issue here is the ideology of what is considered reasonable.”
This statement is ambiguous. If it means, “Due to the improvements in testing
for drugs, we need to set levels for each drug such that if an equine tests
below those levels, that equine will not be considered to be under the influence
of the drug,” I agree with you. If you mean, “Because it is unreasonable to let
an equine suffer, we need to allow drugs that can alleviate that suffering,” I
disagree. Or if you mean, “Since an equine with Condition X could compete in
endurance if it didn’t have Condition X, we should allow giving that equine any
drug that will eliminate the effects of Condition X,” I also disagree. I do not
think there are any valid excuses for allowing an equine to compete on any drug
without which that equine would be unable to compete. Regardless of WHY an
equine needs a specific drug to compete, it is unequivocally true that said
equine’s performance is enhanced by that drug. He couldn’t do a ride before. You
give him the drug. Voila! He can “go the distance.” His performance has been
enhanced from zero to completion. I would call that a very enhanced performance.
try to refute each one in a separate post so those who wish to chime in won’t be
stuck dealing with a VERY long post.
“I believe the real issue here is the ideology of what is considered reasonable.”
This statement is ambiguous. If it means, “Due to the improvements in testing
for drugs, we need to set levels for each drug such that if an equine tests
below those levels, that equine will not be considered to be under the influence
of the drug,” I agree with you. If you mean, “Because it is unreasonable to let
an equine suffer, we need to allow drugs that can alleviate that suffering,” I
disagree. Or if you mean, “Since an equine with Condition X could compete in
endurance if it didn’t have Condition X, we should allow giving that equine any
drug that will eliminate the effects of Condition X,” I also disagree. I do not
think there are any valid excuses for allowing an equine to compete on any drug
without which that equine would be unable to compete. Regardless of WHY an
equine needs a specific drug to compete, it is unequivocally true that said
equine’s performance is enhanced by that drug. He couldn’t do a ride before. You
give him the drug. Voila! He can “go the distance.” His performance has been
enhanced from zero to completion. I would call that a very enhanced performance.
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 1:57:32 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
“AERC's drug free program is aimed at performance enhancing drugs outlined by
always thought that, “a performance enhancing drug [is] any substance that
enables an athlete to perform ABOVE his genetic potential.” This definition is
good but incomplete. I expect he would agree that pain killers for injuries that
allow an athlete to perform at his genetic potential qualify as performance
enhancing. At the extreme would be an incredibly talented race horse with a torn
tendon sheath, loaded up on pain killers so it can run at its genetic potential.
Correct me if I’ve misread you, Bruce, but I believe you would not approve of
doing this even though it would meet your standard of a drug that did not enable
the horse to exceed its genetic potential. Thus this definition, though true, is
incomplete.
Bruce Weary in the thread above.”
I am not sure that Bruce thought this through thoroughly. He said that he has
always thought that, “a performance enhancing drug [is] any substance that
enables an athlete to perform ABOVE his genetic potential.” This definition is
good but incomplete. I expect he would agree that pain killers for injuries that
allow an athlete to perform at his genetic potential qualify as performance
enhancing. At the extreme would be an incredibly talented race horse with a torn
tendon sheath, loaded up on pain killers so it can run at its genetic potential.
Correct me if I’ve misread you, Bruce, but I believe you would not approve of
doing this even though it would meet your standard of a drug that did not enable
the horse to exceed its genetic potential. Thus this definition, though true, is
incomplete.
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 1:58:41 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
“I agree that ulcer mitigation is probably not performance enhancement even if
the horse seems to be thriving on it.”
This statement hinges on your definition of “performance enhancing.” Bruce
equated an enhanced performance with gaining “super powers.” If we define any
improvement in performance below the level of super powers as NOT an “enhanced
performance,” then that means that virtually any drug in any but the most
extreme dosage should be allowed and your statement is valid. However, if we
define “enhanced performance” as any improvement in performance due exclusively
to the administration of a drug, then your statement is false. Currently, given
the recent additions to the AERC drug list, AERC seems to be playing both sides
on this, the very epitome of stepping out on a slippery slope.
the horse seems to be thriving on it.”
This statement hinges on your definition of “performance enhancing.” Bruce
equated an enhanced performance with gaining “super powers.” If we define any
improvement in performance below the level of super powers as NOT an “enhanced
performance,” then that means that virtually any drug in any but the most
extreme dosage should be allowed and your statement is valid. However, if we
define “enhanced performance” as any improvement in performance due exclusively
to the administration of a drug, then your statement is false. Currently, given
the recent additions to the AERC drug list, AERC seems to be playing both sides
on this, the very epitome of stepping out on a slippery slope.
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 2:01:22 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
“One could argue that hoof protection and saddles are "performance enhancing"
This observation is correct but it ignores the underlying problem. With respect
to shoes, the underlying problem is that riding an equine for the thousands of
miles necessary to condition that equine for endurance will wear its hooves down
to a dangerous level. Applying hoof protection prevents the hooves from
excessive wear and it does this for all equines, regardless of breed, genetics
or any other factor. The underlying problems you seek to “fix” with drugs are
not common to all equines. As Ed suggested, they are genetic. What Peroglide and
Omeprazole do is allow a select sample of equines to dramatically enhance their
performance WITH drugs while the rest of the field is left to muddle along at
whatever level of performance they can muster WITHOUT drugs.
devices. A device is not a drug, but if a horse goes lame without shoes one
could argue that shoes enhance performance. Shoes are not natural.”
This observation is correct but it ignores the underlying problem. With respect
to shoes, the underlying problem is that riding an equine for the thousands of
miles necessary to condition that equine for endurance will wear its hooves down
to a dangerous level. Applying hoof protection prevents the hooves from
excessive wear and it does this for all equines, regardless of breed, genetics
or any other factor. The underlying problems you seek to “fix” with drugs are
not common to all equines. As Ed suggested, they are genetic. What Peroglide and
Omeprazole do is allow a select sample of equines to dramatically enhance their
performance WITH drugs while the rest of the field is left to muddle along at
whatever level of performance they can muster WITHOUT drugs.
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 2:02:51 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
“The argument that a horse needs a medication that helps him mitigate ulcers or
100-miler because they were given prilosec.”
The first statement is only valid for day to day living, not for competition. If
a medication “helps maintain the general health of the horse,” great. However,
you must keep in mind that these medications only reduce symptomatology. If a
horse is incapable of trotting 25 miles without medication but can suddenly trot
25 or 50 miles with medication, not only have you enhanced its performance but
with such a dramatic improvement, it’s a pretty good bet that you have
aggravated the underlying pathology. As for dropping dead at the end of a ride,
unfortunately that does happen. It’s usually chalked up to “colic” but again,
colic is a symptom of something else gone wrong, not a condition in its own
right. The simple truth is that we often don’t know what caused the colic. Given
that Omeprazole doesn’t cure ulcers (stop the medication but continue competing
and the ulcers come back), there is no way to state with say a 90% certainty
that the colic was not a result of the excessive stress of the ride, for that
particular horse, stress that was nicely covered up by the medication.
a chronic metabolic condition has merit if its use helps maintain the general
health of the horse.” And “I doubt any horses have dropped dead at the end of a
100-miler because they were given prilosec.”
The first statement is only valid for day to day living, not for competition. If
a medication “helps maintain the general health of the horse,” great. However,
you must keep in mind that these medications only reduce symptomatology. If a
horse is incapable of trotting 25 miles without medication but can suddenly trot
25 or 50 miles with medication, not only have you enhanced its performance but
with such a dramatic improvement, it’s a pretty good bet that you have
aggravated the underlying pathology. As for dropping dead at the end of a ride,
unfortunately that does happen. It’s usually chalked up to “colic” but again,
colic is a symptom of something else gone wrong, not a condition in its own
right. The simple truth is that we often don’t know what caused the colic. Given
that Omeprazole doesn’t cure ulcers (stop the medication but continue competing
and the ulcers come back), there is no way to state with say a 90% certainty
that the colic was not a result of the excessive stress of the ride, for that
particular horse, stress that was nicely covered up by the medication.
Diane Trefethen
Oct 15, 2014, 2:04:56 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
“Let's see now: one spends a good chunk of change and invests a couple years
Funny you say this. In 1994 I started conditioning a lovely, correct Arabian
mare I had raised from a foal. Out of Rushcreek Ruby by a Cougar Rock son, she
had fantastic bloodlines for Endurance. Her first ride was as an 8 yr old, the
1999 Fireworks 50. We arrived at the “lunch” hold BEHIND Trilby Pederson. Now
anyone who rode back then knows coming in behind Trilby was caution carried to
masochistic proportions. The mare was lame. We were pulled. A month later, we
tried again at Las Trampas, again came into lunch at the back of the pack and
again she was lame. Did I look for some way to allow this perfectly conformed
Endurance horse to “go the distance?” This horse into which I had poured almost
9 years of my money and time? No. She was correct, fun, a great attitude, but
not a good candidate for Endurance. I sold her to a young woman who fell in love
with her (and vice versa) as a trail horse.
Unlike your hypothetical rider with the ulcer prone horse, I love and support
the sport of Endurance. I have remained a member for 25 consecutive years while
only competing in 16 of those years (15 if you don’t count Ruby) because I’m not
going to pick up my marbles and go home just because I can’t ride. That’s not
how you support a worthwhile endeavor.
So my take on your rider with the ulcer-prone horse is “good riddance.” That
person just wanted to have fun and was completely oblivious to the challenges
this sport can throw at you. That person’s motto was, “If at first you don’t
succeed, quit.” Real endurance riders (note the small “e”) don’t quit just
because they have bad luck. Quit AERC over disagreements on how to run the
organization, yes. Quit because of rampant cheating, yes. But not just because
they discover late in the game that their horse isn’t suitable for the sport.
getting a horse to do eight-hour 50's and then has to retire the horse because
he's ulcer prone. AERC would likely end up with one less rider coming back
year after year.”
he's ulcer prone. AERC would likely end up with one less rider coming back
Funny you say this. In 1994 I started conditioning a lovely, correct Arabian
mare I had raised from a foal. Out of Rushcreek Ruby by a Cougar Rock son, she
had fantastic bloodlines for Endurance. Her first ride was as an 8 yr old, the
1999 Fireworks 50. We arrived at the “lunch” hold BEHIND Trilby Pederson. Now
anyone who rode back then knows coming in behind Trilby was caution carried to
masochistic proportions. The mare was lame. We were pulled. A month later, we
tried again at Las Trampas, again came into lunch at the back of the pack and
again she was lame. Did I look for some way to allow this perfectly conformed
Endurance horse to “go the distance?” This horse into which I had poured almost
9 years of my money and time? No. She was correct, fun, a great attitude, but
not a good candidate for Endurance. I sold her to a young woman who fell in love
with her (and vice versa) as a trail horse.
Unlike your hypothetical rider with the ulcer prone horse, I love and support
the sport of Endurance. I have remained a member for 25 consecutive years while
only competing in 16 of those years (15 if you don’t count Ruby) because I’m not
going to pick up my marbles and go home just because I can’t ride. That’s not
how you support a worthwhile endeavor.
So my take on your rider with the ulcer-prone horse is “good riddance.” That
person just wanted to have fun and was completely oblivious to the challenges
this sport can throw at you. That person’s motto was, “If at first you don’t
succeed, quit.” Real endurance riders (note the small “e”) don’t quit just
because they have bad luck. Quit AERC over disagreements on how to run the
organization, yes. Quit because of rampant cheating, yes. But not just because
they discover late in the game that their horse isn’t suitable for the sport.
Truman Prevatt
Oct 15, 2014, 2:33:28 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Got to love automatic spell checking as you type. Thank you Steve Jobs;-).
Of course it was "...exorcise the demons..."
--
"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
Lynn White
Oct 15, 2014, 4:59:01 PM10/15/14
to ridecamp
Diane, not everyone is YOU. Don't judge people by how believe everyone else should think. My point was this: Endurance is a tough sport and we ask our horses to do something that is physically unnatural for them. There is a huge chasm between medications that keep a horse healthy and medications that will significantly enhance performance. Just what is your take on “clean sport” anyways? If it means competing on a horse without any unnatural chemistry/means I certainly hope your horse runs on straight grass hay and takes no vitamins. Hope he doesn’t need shoes either because hoof protection could be construed as performance enhancement too.
We aren't all endowed with inexhaustible bank accounts, family support, great health, etc. Some of us have one or two shots at developing a horse and that is it. I had my dream horse that I spent thousands on and had to let go because he just didn’t have the mind for endurance. I never even started him in a ride. I spend eight years saving to just buy this horse and another six years raising him and starting him. So I think I have you beat on the disappointment issue, if that is your gig. I’ve been lucky so far with my latest project. No health issues, super fun to ride, etc. But yeah, if he needs ulcer meds I’ll be first in line to get them. I’m not giving up on him and I don’t have additional thousands to spend on another horse. Heck, I really need to save for a new-to-me pick-up anyways. My 1977 Ford isn’t going to last much longer.
Cheers,
Lynn White
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+unsubscribe@endurance.net.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 15, 2014, 5:13:34 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/15/2014 3:58 PM, Lynn White
wrote:
a horse healthy and medications that will significantly enhance performance. Just what is your take on “clean sport” anyways? If it means competing on a horse without any unnatural chemistry/means I certainly hope your horse runs on straight grass hay and takes no vitamins. Hope he doesn’t need shoes either because hoof protection could be construed as performance enhancement too.
These arguments are just attempts to confuse the issue. There is a
large and basic difference between DRUGS (or Pharmaceuticals to be
more precise), and both nutrients and mechanical items like shoes,
bits, saddles and ropes.
It is an unfair discussion technique to introduce RED HERRINGS* into the argument. If we want to change the AERC rules to only allow certain tack, or certain "natural" nutrients, we need to discuss that issue under a different subject.
Likewise it is another completely different subject to discuss the "fairness" of asking equines to do something as "unnatural" as being ridden by people, with or without participating in races.
Ed
*Sorry for the shouting, I felt I needed to emphasize this point.
It is an unfair discussion technique to introduce RED HERRINGS* into the argument. If we want to change the AERC rules to only allow certain tack, or certain "natural" nutrients, we need to discuss that issue under a different subject.
Likewise it is another completely different subject to discuss the "fairness" of asking equines to do something as "unnatural" as being ridden by people, with or without participating in races.
Ed
*Sorry for the shouting, I felt I needed to emphasize this point.
Lynn White
Oct 15, 2014, 6:21:11 PM10/15/14
to ridecamp
I don't think comparing prilosec to shoes is a red herring at all. Helping our horses is helping our horses whether it's shoeing, saddling, providing a special diet, vitamins, etc. I was not the person who brought up the statement of having horses able to stand up to the rigors of this sport. Some horses can do 50's barefoot while other horses can't walk 50 feet barefoot on gravel without showing unsoundess. One could argue that horses with thin soles can't stand up to the demands of endurance. A physical trait is a physical trait wether its thin soles or predisposition to ulcers. But since shoes have been around for so long they are considered an acceptable form of mitigation to get a horse through a 50 or a 100. Prilocec is not. But the objective is the same with both measures, is it not?
For years I was totally against any kind of medication too. Once I read up on how the equine digestion system was designed to work it got me thinking. What we ask of our horses is attune to asking them to GET ulcers. I've never had a horse with ulcers. Then again I don't trailer very far and I manage my feeding to prevent ulcers. I'm not a competative rider either. But if we stick to this fundamentalist attitude about allowing no medications to help mainatin the health our horses our sport is going to get pretty small indeed. Less riders means higher ride fees which means even less riders. Pretty soon ride managers can't afford to even put on rides for us to enjoy. Do you get my point?
I'd say 99% of AERC riders have very high ethical standards and would never give their horses a drug that would give them the competative edge over other horses. There is always going to be that 1% of people that cheat or the people that consistenly over ride their horses. Got news for you: Cheaters and jerks are everywhere and they always figure out how to cheat no matter how many rules you have. This is after all a sport for fun. Nobody is out there conjuring ways to win millions or a new Ferrari at the local ride. Even if someone wins the most points in their division what do they get? A horse blanket? Does anyone remember who the high point rider was in 1993? Seriously?
Life is too serious to take endurance riding so seriously. If someone wants to help their ulcer prone horse with medications so they can do a couple endurance rides a year, let them. If you want that purest attitude of no meds at all that is your right too.
Regards,
Lynn
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 15, 2014, 10:03:54 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/15/2014 5:21 PM, Lynn White
wrote:
Helping our horses is helping our horses whether it's shoeing, saddling, providing a special diet
Of course all, and I am including myself, want to help our horses.
But to try to claim that all things that might help horses are the
same is just trying to confuse the issue.
Let me one more time to try to clearly state the difference:
Let me one more time to try to clearly state the difference:
I don't think anyone should have a difficulty in understanding the above differences. My previous post was meant to indicate that if we wish to argue about rules related to 2 or 3 above let us do so, but not deliberately attempt to confuse a discussion about point 1 above by claiming that there are not fundamental differences between drugs, nutrients, and mechanical tools like tack and shoes.
- A drug is not required for life. It may help a horse. It may have undesired side effects. It has its action by entering the blood stream and changing a metabolic process.
- Tack, and shoeing. Are not required for life. They may help a horse. They may be cruel and harmful. Their action is external to the horse. They do not change a metabolic process.
- A nutrient is required for life. It may help a horse. In excessive amounts it may hurt a horse. It has its action by entering the blood stream and entering in a metabolic process.
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 15, 2014, 10:04:24 PM10/15/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Lynn White
Oct 16, 2014, 12:46:06 PM10/16/14
to ridecamp
I think this whole discussion on the omeprazole really hinges on concepts of “reasonable,” “clean sport”, and “compromise.” I’m not totally comfortable about AERC allowing certain meds for competing horses, but this is 2014 not 1974. Did anybody even think about ulcers in 1974? I’ve read all kinds of arguments of why membership and participation has fallen. People give all sorts of reasons, but the biggest factor is just the amount of disposable income that people have to do stuff that is fun. It takes a much bigger bite out of one’s disposable income to keep just one horse, let alone a pasture full of horses of which only half may be suitable for endurance under a totally med free definition. Since 2000 I’ve seen the price of gas and hay triple. That’s 300% inflation. I don’t know about other riders, but my income certainly hasn’t kept up with this rate of inflation.
It takes riders paying entry fees for RM’s to break even at rides. I look at how I do this sport. I’m not competitive; I usually do an average of 5 rides per year if I’m lucky. People like me are the bread and butter of endurance. Now let’s say I get a horse that’s ulcer prone. I only have so much $$ for horses so IF I want to ride my own horse in drug free AERC rides I’ll have to sell my horse and buy another one. I don’t know about the rest of the country, but selling horses in my region is not like selling a car. It takes time and money to sell a horse unless one is willing to dump him off at the local sale yard. So once I get my new horse I get to spend a couple more seasons getting him ready for a ride. So basically unless I plan on riding other people’s horses I’m not going to be attending any endurance rides for a season or two or three. So you multiply me by a couple more riders who can marginally afford going to rides and you start to see dwindling participation. Once you get a local population to a critical point local RM’s can no longer afford to put on rides. At this rate rides become fewer and farther apart and pretty soon there are areas of the country where rides don’t happen at all, “clean sport” or otherwise. I’m not saying this will happen if we continue to ban omeprazole, but organizations die because they don’t allow for reasonable changes.
To keep endurance affordable and viable means having to compromise during times of change. It means making reasonable accommodations to maintain a viable level of membership and participation. It means pouring over research and seeing what works and what doesn’t work. So what is a reasonable change anyways? In my mind I always ask myself these questions: Will the change negatively affect the general health and safety for horses and humans? Will the change affect how people compete? Will the change affect sportsmanship? Will the change significantly increase the cost of doing endurance? Does the change affect the original spirit of the sport?--
Lynn White
Oct 16, 2014, 1:02:11 PM10/16/14
to ridecamp
So is an electrolyte a drug or a nutrient? Since horses only require additional dosages during events one could argue that they are a drug. Seems like this discussion was a hot topic years ago.
--
Terre O’Brennan
Oct 17, 2014, 12:45:37 PM10/17/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On Thursday, October 16, 2014 9:46:06 AM UTC-7, Lynn White wrote:
I think this whole discussion on the omeprazole really hinges on concepts of “reasonable,” “clean sport”, and “compromise.” I’m not totally comfortable about AERC allowing certain meds for competing horses, but this is 2014 not 1974.
I think it's important to remember that there is only a very small number of horses identified as "needing" this change...multiday horses. All others, including 100 milers, can be returned to legal treatment within a safe time frame. And it may not even be all multiday horses. So this quite drastic change of policy is aimed at benefiting only a very small demographic...but of course "everybody" will use it. There is no such thing as an entirely benign drug; all have side effects and downsides. In this case I see the 'risk' to the integrity of the sport and indeed the longterm welfare of many horses far outweighing the reward of allowing a few horses to do five days in a row.
Did anybody even think about ulcers in 1974? I’ve read all kinds of arguments of why membership and participation has fallen. People give all sorts of reasons, but the biggest factor is just the amount of disposable income that people have to do stuff that is fun. It takes a much bigger bite out of one’s disposable income to keep just one horse, let alone a pasture full of horses of which only half may be suitable for endurance under a totally med free definition. Since 2000 I’ve seen the price of gas and hay triple. That’s 300% inflation. I don’t know about other riders, but my income certainly hasn’t kept up with this rate of inflation.
It takes riders paying entry fees for RM’s to break even at rides. I look at how I do this sport. I’m not competitive; I usually do an average of 5 rides per year if I’m lucky. People like me are the bread and butter of endurance. Now let’s say I get a horse that’s ulcer prone. I only have so much $$ for horses so IF I want to ride my own horse in drug free AERC rides I’ll have to sell my horse and buy another one. I don’t know about the rest of the country, but selling horses in my region is not like selling a car. It takes time and money to sell a horse unless one is willing to dump him off at the local sale yard. So once I get my new horse I get to spend a couple more seasons getting him ready for a ride. So basically unless I plan on riding other people’s horses I’m not going to be attending any endurance rides for a season or two or three. So you multiply me by a couple more riders who can marginally afford going to rides and you start to see dwindling participation. Once you get a local population to a critical point local RM’s can no longer afford to put on rides. At this rate rides become fewer and farther apart and pretty soon there are areas of the country where rides don’t happen at all, “clean sport” or otherwise. I’m not saying this will happen if we continue to ban omeprazole, but organizations die because they don’t allow for reasonable changes.
To keep endurance affordable and viable means having to compromise during times of change. It means making reasonable accommodations to maintain a viable level of membership and participation. It means pouring over research and seeing what works and what doesn’t work. So what is a reasonable change anyways? In my mind I always ask myself these questions: Will the change negatively affect the general health and safety for horses and humans? Will the change affect how people compete? Will the change affect sportsmanship? Will the change significantly increase the cost of doing endurance? Does the change affect the original spirit of the sport?
Firstly. Omeprazole is expensive. WAY more expensive than the other ways of 'managing' ulcers (feeding alfalfa, feeding more often, etc).
Secondly, if we start basing policy purely on what is profitable for AERC we are truly doomed.
terre
Secondly, if we start basing policy purely on what is profitable for AERC we are truly doomed.
terre
Diane Trefethen
Oct 17, 2014, 1:48:00 PM10/17/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Hi Terre O’Brennan,
I like your comments.
Diane Trefethen
I like your comments.
Diane Trefethen
karen standefer
Oct 17, 2014, 2:17:25 PM10/17/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Terre, there is research that shows that if you pull a horse off of Omeprazole for a few days that it induces big spikes in acid production. Not sure that is the effect desired on endurance ride day. So, people need to think hard 1) before they use it for prevention and 2) before they decide to pull their horse off on Thur or Fri before the ride because of the withdrawal effects.
There is also the problem of using it as a diagnostic because ulcers in the glandular cell area of the stomach do not respond to it. And, that is not very well advertised at this point as the research is pretty new.
Also, none of this addresses hind gut ulcers, which may be a bigger problem for endurance horses than stomach ulcers. We don't have research to know.
Karen (I do realize I just went down a rabbit hole)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:45:37 -0700
From: toby...@telus.net
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Omeprazole - Risk vs reward
There is also the problem of using it as a diagnostic because ulcers in the glandular cell area of the stomach do not respond to it. And, that is not very well advertised at this point as the research is pretty new.
Also, none of this addresses hind gut ulcers, which may be a bigger problem for endurance horses than stomach ulcers. We don't have research to know.
Karen (I do realize I just went down a rabbit hole)
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2014 09:45:37 -0700
From: toby...@telus.net
To: ride...@endurance.net
Subject: Re: [RC] Omeprazole - Risk vs reward
Kathy Mayeda
Oct 17, 2014, 3:32:24 PM10/17/14
to Karen Standefer, ride...@endurance.net
I don't know if you went down the rabbit hole or not. I think that the advent of omeprazole was significant because now we are identifying a problem that had no name in the early days of endurance, and all of a sudden EGUS is a hot topic once Merial started funding studies.
Terre, I think your idea of demographics is off because AERC had allowed it as a preventative DURING a ride citing that it may prevent colics and such at all ride lengths. Actually, my horse is not a good eater or drinker at rides, and was told by experienced riders to take him to multi-days so that has to learn to eat and drink on rides, which it did. So his stomach was more full at the end of a few days of riding of 50's than it was doing a single 50 miler, ultimately, which in itself would keep up with acid production.
K.
Lynn White
Oct 17, 2014, 4:07:42 PM10/17/14
to ridecamp
Yep, equine prilosec is pretty pricy stuff. Still way less than selling a horse and getting a new one. How do we really know if horses really need this or not? And as Karen stated above, what about the hind gut issues? How do we know if horses in the past had short careers because of ulcers? The detection and study of ulcers in horses is after all a relatively new phenomenon. Now that we know about, we are compelled to mitigate for it Are we not?
Since multi-day rides seem to be the wave of the future with AERC it may be something that needs to be seriously considered since in fact very few horses may be able to withstand the rigors of back-to-back 50's five days in a row, let alone the stress of trailering 1000 miles one way to one of these events. I don't think AERC saw this kind of competition back in the 1980's. Since I'm a relative newbie with only one decade horse under my belt I wouldn't know.
What I do know is that the equine digestive system is a sensitive mechanism that is easy broken. In fact, the more I read about it the more anal I get about feeding practices and the speeds I go. I do after all want another decade horse so I ride like he's the last horse in the world. I've also had my share of human digestive dysfunction. Damaging any portion of the digestive tract takes a long time to heal (like a year), and it's never the same afterwards. A bout of food poisoning can cause a lot of damage to one's guts, and this damage may not be apparent, but it's still there. So this makes me even more sensitive about gut issues in horses.
Perhaps the future of research will focus on how much stress a horse can take before damage is done. And what is accpetable damage? Every time we do an endurance ride we damage our horses. Really, think about it. Their ligaments and tendons take a beating. This is why rest is such a crucial part of our sport. If gives the horse time to repair some of that damage, and in the long run the horse gets stronger unless the damage is so severe it can't be repaired between rides.
I think perhaps the logical conclusion would be limiting back-to-back days or require a mandatory rest time for horses traveling more than a certain mileage to a ride. That would seem to keep the drug-free riders happy, but it opens up a whole new can of worms.
I do find this discussion very interesting. I don't take much personally, and I'm interested to see what other people think. I understand the camel's-nose-in-the-tent mentality, but times change, and part of this change is a result of just good old fashioned objective research.
If the US Constitution never changed, only land owning males over the age of 21 would be voting. Just a thought.
REgards,
Lynn
Kathy Mayeda
Oct 17, 2014, 5:13:08 PM10/17/14
to RideCamp List
I think that multi-days don't have much to do with the drug arguments. It seems like there are those that thrive on multi-day competitions and the others weed themselves out anyway naturally. Multi-days existed before the advent of Gastrogard to the market. In fact, the rigors of multi-days had taught my horse to eat and drink better, and for myself to learn about taking good care of my horse, which lessens the chance of ulcers in itself vs. a one day ride.
With a one day 50, I would drive to ridecamp and Beau would be all wound up not eating or drinking well. We get up and ride the next day, and he's still wound up, even racebrained, not eating or drinking well. Then we go home. Thus the positive ulcer scoping at the Wine Country ride where UC Davis was running a study for Merial for EGUS. I think I did multi-days AFTER I did the Gastrogard treatment, but since I cant look that up in the records at this moment :), I can't confirm that. In a multi-day, we might be both wound up the 1st day, but we are generally exhausted after the 1st day, but we need to eat drink and rest. By the end of the multi-day we are both relaxed and enjoying ourselves, and Beau has spent the vet checks and nights ravenously replenishing himself.. Usually we leave the following day for a multi-day, whereas it's often that I leave the same day for a 50.
K.
Truman Prevatt
Oct 17, 2014, 7:01:30 PM10/17/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On Oct 17, 2014, at 4:07 PM, Lynn White <ldlw...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yep, equine prilosec is pretty pricy stuff. Still way less than selling a horse and getting a new one. How do we really know if horses really need this or not? And as Karen stated above, what about the hind gut issues? How do we know if horses in the past had short careers because of ulcers? The detection and study of ulcers in horses is after all a relatively new phenomenon. Now that we know about, we are compelled to mitigate for it Are we not?Since multi-day rides seem to be the wave of the future with AERC it may be something that needs to be seriously considered since in fact very few horses may be able to withstand the rigors of back-to-back 50's five days in a row, let alone the stress of trailering 1000 miles one way to one of these events. I don't think AERC saw this kind of competition back in the 1980's. Since I'm a relative newbie with only one decade horse under my belt I wouldn't know.
Multiday rides were going strong in the Western and mountain states when I started in 1989. Omeprazole didn't come out until 1989 for humans under the name Prilosec. Some time after that probably at least 5 years maybe more considering patents it was approved for horses. There were plenty of happy healthy horses doing endurance rides including multiday rides before Gastroguard was available. In the early 1990's, the AERC introduced it drug policy - which was quite specific no drugs. I was told more than once by people in other equine sports and vets that worked with the AHSA (now USEF) how much they respected the AERC policy. We all competed our horses clean. No one I know had a "crutch drug" we needed because of trailer rides or multiday, or this or that. Folks it can be done. There was life before Gastroguard or Ulcerguard or any other type of guard.
Bottom line if a horse for whatever reason is not capable of trailering for multiple days without going through a couple bails of hay on the trip and drinking regularly - he probably isn't cut out for endurance. If your horse is so high on adrenaline during a ride that he won't eat or drink - then maybe he needs some training or he just might not be cut out for the sport. Today the AERC vet committee tells us - there is a pill for that and you can use it.
We have come a long way since Dr. Kerry Ridgeway wrote the drug rule that was in fact consistent to the stated stand on drugs in the early 1990's. It has been a long time since Dr. Ridgeway embodied the concept of horse welfare and a horse competing on their own natural abilities in a very clear and succinct drug policy. It was one paragraph - not pages and pages of exceptions - that said "say no to drugs." Today the AERC vet committee seems to adopted the policy of - "we have a pill for that."
As far as I am concerned - the appropriate response is "just say no."
I'm sorry if Bruce feels offended and I'm sorry if I step on toes but I was proud of the AERC stand on drugs when I joined. Today I am ashamed of the AERC's stand on drugs. I am sure we will hear push back about "how hard these people work" and how "they give of their own time." However, at the end of the day if the product is an inferior product to what came before - then it is an inferior product and it is. Today the AERC is no better than any other equestrian sport and while many equestrian sports are rethinking their drug policy and moving to more restrictive use of drugs the AERC vet committee keeps saying - we have a pill for that. Today I am ashamed of where we have gone in our drug policy. I don't see the AERC today at all having a moral high ground on the use of drugs. Today the AERC on its stand on drugs is an also ran in the equestrian sports community.
So I will be scanning the DAL write ups to see the stand on drugs. I might end up voting for not a single candidate but it is time we have a BOD that reverses this push of embracing convoluted logic to allow the use of more drugs in the sport that once prided it self and the envy of the equine world of "just saying no to drugs."
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." Franklin Roosevelt
"A conservative is a man with two perfectly good legs who, however, has never learned to walk forward." Franklin Roosevelt
Maryben Stover
Oct 17, 2014, 7:16:43 PM10/17/14
to ridecamp, aercmemb...@yahoogroups.com
Truman said I might end up voting for not a single candidate and that reminded me of something I meant to post. When you vote, you are allowed up to 8 votes. You DO NOT have to vote for 8. Vote for the candidates that you know about and not just who you have heard of. If you only know 5 and only agree with 3 of those, then vote for 3. That's what I do.
..........mb
..........mb
steph teeter
Oct 17, 2014, 7:39:28 PM10/17/14
to Ride Camp, aercmemb...@yahoogroups.com
while a valid and logical way to vote, that (voting for only 3) is not what I intend. rather I will use my 8 votes!
John Teeter - ABE!!!
stephanie teeter
Oct 17, 2014, 9:24:36 PM10/17/14
to Ridecamp Teeter, aercmemb...@yahoogroups.com
Just to be clear, that was John Teeter posting, not me! (for such a smart guy he can't seem to figure out his email accounts :)
Steph
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
--
Keith Kibler
Oct 17, 2014, 10:25:09 PM10/17/14
to AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com, Ridecamp Teeter
Heck I am still trying to figure out how Truman has morphed into everyone's computer
Keith
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
__._,_.___
Reply via web post • Reply to sender • Reply to group • Start a New Topic • Messages in this topic (7) 
.
__,_._,___
Truman Prevatt
Oct 18, 2014, 12:48:53 PM10/18/14
to st...@endurance.net, Ridecamp Teeter, aercmemb...@yahoogroups.com
You are suppose to keep you passwords private - not write them on the frig door ;-)!
Truman
“He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into the abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil
Diane Trefethen
Oct 18, 2014, 3:08:45 PM10/18/14
to AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com, Ride Camp
10/17/2014 4:39 PM:
What Truman said on the AERC Forum about improving the chances of a candidate or
candidates you really like by not using all your votes is true.
First imagine a race where everything is equal. All the voters equally support a
favorite candidate to win so all the candidates get the same number of first
choice votes. Also, all the voters equally support less-favored candidates so
all the less-favored candidates will also receive the same number of votes. In
this scenario, all the candidates will receive the same number of votes.
Now change just one variable. Let Candidate A’s supporters vote for only
Candidate A. In this scenario, all the candidates will still receive the same
number of first choice votes and Candidate A will still receive the same number
of less-favored votes because all the supporters of her/his opponents are still
using all their ballots. The difference is that the pool of less-favored votes
for all the other candidates is now smaller so when that smaller number is
equally divided amongst the other candidates, they will each receive fewer
less-favored votes than in the first scenario above and Candidate A will win.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
West Region
> while a valid and logical way to vote, that (voting for only 3) is not what I
> intend. rather I will use my 8 votes!
>
> John Teeter - ABE!!!
Hi John,
> intend. rather I will use my 8 votes!
>
> John Teeter - ABE!!!
What Truman said on the AERC Forum about improving the chances of a candidate or
candidates you really like by not using all your votes is true.
First imagine a race where everything is equal. All the voters equally support a
favorite candidate to win so all the candidates get the same number of first
choice votes. Also, all the voters equally support less-favored candidates so
all the less-favored candidates will also receive the same number of votes. In
this scenario, all the candidates will receive the same number of votes.
Now change just one variable. Let Candidate A’s supporters vote for only
Candidate A. In this scenario, all the candidates will still receive the same
number of first choice votes and Candidate A will still receive the same number
of less-favored votes because all the supporters of her/his opponents are still
using all their ballots. The difference is that the pool of less-favored votes
for all the other candidates is now smaller so when that smaller number is
equally divided amongst the other candidates, they will each receive fewer
less-favored votes than in the first scenario above and Candidate A will win.
Diane Trefethen
AERC #2691
West Region
John Teeter
Oct 18, 2014, 4:25:02 PM10/18/14
to AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com, Ride Camp
interesting logic, but it is the actual votes not the averages may be more interesting. If you look at the last 4-5 DAL votes, you'll see what it takes to be elected.
But if everyone just followed that one basic creed, we could move forward:)
John Teeter (voting ABE:)
.
__,_._,___
Truman Prevatt
Oct 18, 2014, 5:45:01 PM10/18/14
to AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com, Ride Camp
Maybe we should put them on a remote tropical island where they get to eat fired fruit bats and monkey eye soup for 60 days until 8 are left. That could not be any worse
than having to read people criticizing them on the list:-)!
Truman
On Oct 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Teeter jo...@endurance.net [AERCMembersForum] <AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
interesting logic, but it is the actual votes not the averages may be more interesting. If you look at the last 4-5 DAL votes, you'll see what it takes to be elected.But if everyone just followed that one basic creed, we could move forward:)John Teeter (voting ABE:)
.
__,_._,___
---
"Crash programs fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. " Wernher von Braun
Truman Prevatt
Oct 18, 2014, 6:39:29 PM10/18/14
to tr...@wakerobinranch.com, AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com, Ride Camp
The logic is sound, but there is a much simpler proof:-).
I am sure if John thought about it instead of hijacking Steph's email account - he would see it also.
Now if we could use all our 8 votes - voting more than once for a specific candidate instead of only once - it would be a different ball game.
Truman
--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
“Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong - these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history.” - Winston Churchill
Maryben Stover
Oct 19, 2014, 12:30:19 AM10/19/14
to aercmemb...@yahoogroups.com, ridecamp
I fear that the BOD is elected a lot by name recognition.
But then again, the way people vote for the regular elections is not much better. My nephew just votes no on everything. I told him I don't care if he vote the way I do or not but voting no across the board is just stupid. Course most people don't even know there is an election next month and that is just plain sad.
You get what you vote for I guess.
..........mb
CC: ride...@endurance.net
To: AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com
From: AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:44:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [AERCMembersForum] Voting
But then again, the way people vote for the regular elections is not much better. My nephew just votes no on everything. I told him I don't care if he vote the way I do or not but voting no across the board is just stupid. Course most people don't even know there is an election next month and that is just plain sad.
You get what you vote for I guess.
..........mb
CC: ride...@endurance.net
To: AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com
From: AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 2014 17:44:53 -0400
Subject: Re: [AERCMembersForum] Voting
Maybe we should put them on a remote tropical island where they get to eat fired fruit bats and monkey eye soup for 60 days until 8 are left. That could not be any worse
than having to read people criticizing them on the list:-)!
Truman
On Oct 18, 2014, at 4:24 PM, John Teeter jo...@endurance.net [AERCMembersForum] <AERCMemb...@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
interesting logic, but it is the actual votes not the averages may be more interesting. If you look at the last 4-5 DAL votes, you'll see what it takes to be elected.But if everyone just followed that one basic creed, we could move forward:)John Teeter (voting ABE:).
---
"Crash programs fail because they are based on the theory that, with nine women pregnant, you can get a baby a month. " Wernher von Braun
.
__,_._,___
Terre O’Brennan
Oct 19, 2014, 2:16:43 PM10/19/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On Friday, October 17, 2014 2:13:08 PM UTC-7, Kathy Mayeda wrote:
I think that multi-days don't have much to do with the drug arguments.
The drug argument is 'all about' multiday rides. If you go back and look at the Endurance News article from a couple of months ago that was the precursor to this proposal, it clearly stated that we have identified an issue with multiday horses that can't be solved by the current legal protocols.
It seems like there are those that thrive on multi-day competitions and the others weed themselves out anyway naturally. Multi-days existed before the advent of Gastrogard to the market. In fact, the rigors of multi-days had taught my horse to eat and drink better, and for myself to learn about taking good care of my horse, which lessens the chance of ulcers in itself vs. a one day ride.With a one day 50, I would drive to ridecamp and Beau would be all wound up not eating or drinking well. We get up and ride the next day, and he's still wound up, even racebrained, not eating or drinking well. Then we go home.
Question: how did he know whether it was going to be a multiday ride or a one day ride?
terre
Kathy Mayeda
Oct 19, 2014, 2:43:39 PM10/19/14
to toby...@telus.net, RideCamp List
He figured it out the second day of the ride, but like I said, the first day of the multi-day had him running on adrenaline. It wasn't that he changed the pace... he actually got stronger towards the end of the multi-day... He just started to eat and drink more because he wasn't running on adrenaline as much the subsequent days and his body's need for fuel over-rode the adrenaline race brain. It was part of both of our learning curves, and I think it was the best thing I ever did.
I haven't been to a multi-day for a long time. Gastrogard wasn't even in the picture then. Are we seeing more metabolic issues at multi-day rides? The few multi-day rides I went to had very few metabolic issues, and very few pulls. What has changed that the current legal protocols became a concern for the multi-days?
K.
terre
Oct 19, 2014, 3:12:42 PM10/19/14
to Kathy Mayeda, RideCamp List
On 19/10/2014 11:43 AM, Kathy Mayeda wrote:
> I haven't been to a multi-day for a long time. Gastrogard wasn't even
> in the picture then. Are we seeing more metabolic issues at multi-day
> rides? The few multi-day rides I went to had very few metabolic
> issues, and very few pulls. What has changed that the current legal
> protocols became a concern for the multi-days?
argument against. As you and other have said, lots of horses have done
multiday rides for years with no apparent ill effects.
If you read the article in April Endurance News "Ompromozole, Ulcers,
and Endurance Horses" by Chrysann Collatos, she clearly states (twice):
"This decision was made primarily to benefit at-risk horses at multiday
rides" and "The decision to allow ompromozole is based primarily on
concern for the multiday horse subjected to....three to five days of an
unavoidably disrupted feeding schedule during ride days".
The last sentence follows a paragraph that explains that the effects of
omprom (I'm tired of typing the whole word!) last for over 24 hours,
therefore (quoting again) "Therefore at one-day rides horses legally
administered omprom 24 hours pre-ride would continue to benefit from its
action throughout the ride".
Is there a need for this? There's no statistics on metabolic pulls
quoted. Do ALL multiday horses need it? Probably not, since many have
been doing this for years without. So why allow a drug with such a
small, specific demographic target? As I said in an earlier post, doing
all 255 miles of a Pioneer Ride is an extreme example of our sport. If
somebody had suggested allowing a drug to 'assist' the OTHER extreme
example--speed at 100 miles--we wouldn't even be having this conversation.
Once it's allowed, 'everybody' will be using it for 'everything', and
there are serious downsides (also spelled out in Dr. Collatos's
article). Why even go there for such a small gain? The reward is
nowhere near the risk.
terre
Truman Prevatt
Oct 19, 2014, 5:20:05 PM10/19/14
to toby...@telus.net, Kathy Mayeda, RideCamp List
Furosemide (Lasix) came into TB racing as a "preventive" for horses that are predisposed to bleed (exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage). Now if you look at a race card it you will be hard press to find a horse
not running on Lasix. Although a recent study at the Breeders' Cup showed in 2-year olds showed that 71% of the horses on Lasix had bled while only 37% that were not on Lasix bled. Also treated horses were more likely to have more sever bleeding than untreated horses. The breeders cup races don't allow the use of Lasix in 2 year olds while the up card races did allow the use of Lasix.
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/breeders-cup-lasix-study-yields-surprising-results/
So here is an example of the adding of a permitted drug for a specific at risk category of horses which is now used by everyone. I expect there was little science that went into the decision to allow - just as the case of Omeprazole for "at risk" multiday horses when there has been little indication of any risk. In fact I think if you would look at the stats would will find a lower metabolic pull rate in Pioneer rides than regular rides.
So here is a rule allowing the active use of a drug in AERC events with no justifications in the statistics of metabolic pulls. In fact I did look at the pull rates for 1006 through 2006 and found in general the Pioneer pull rates were significantly less that that for a single day 50. In fact the Pioneer total rates during that era were between 5 and 7 percent which was just a little less than half of that for LD and less than half of that for single day 50's.
http://www.seraonline.org/Archives/Pull%20analysis.pdf
It seems that for what ever reason the Vet committee has put forward a major change in the AERC tradition of drug use for a small number of horses which will most likely have the effect of Furosemide on TB racing. While the Jockey Club is debating pushing back some drug use there are those pushing to ban the use of Lasix on race day - the AERC is running gun ho toward - "there is a pill for that" with little evidence that there is
a) A higher rate of metabolic pulls in Pioneer events that single day events of the same distance.
b) That Omeprazole will make it safer for these horses to participate in endurance (clearly the use of Lasix did not reduce the rate in bleeding according to the Breeders' Cup study).
This sounds like another case were the BOD didn't do its job. If they did I would like to see the scientific justification drawn from our fairly large and complete database of events since 1996.
Truman
"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
not running on Lasix. Although a recent study at the Breeders' Cup showed in 2-year olds showed that 71% of the horses on Lasix had bled while only 37% that were not on Lasix bled. Also treated horses were more likely to have more sever bleeding than untreated horses. The breeders cup races don't allow the use of Lasix in 2 year olds while the up card races did allow the use of Lasix.
http://www.paulickreport.com/news/the-biz/breeders-cup-lasix-study-yields-surprising-results/
So here is an example of the adding of a permitted drug for a specific at risk category of horses which is now used by everyone. I expect there was little science that went into the decision to allow - just as the case of Omeprazole for "at risk" multiday horses when there has been little indication of any risk. In fact I think if you would look at the stats would will find a lower metabolic pull rate in Pioneer rides than regular rides.
So here is a rule allowing the active use of a drug in AERC events with no justifications in the statistics of metabolic pulls. In fact I did look at the pull rates for 1006 through 2006 and found in general the Pioneer pull rates were significantly less that that for a single day 50. In fact the Pioneer total rates during that era were between 5 and 7 percent which was just a little less than half of that for LD and less than half of that for single day 50's.
http://www.seraonline.org/Archives/Pull%20analysis.pdf
It seems that for what ever reason the Vet committee has put forward a major change in the AERC tradition of drug use for a small number of horses which will most likely have the effect of Furosemide on TB racing. While the Jockey Club is debating pushing back some drug use there are those pushing to ban the use of Lasix on race day - the AERC is running gun ho toward - "there is a pill for that" with little evidence that there is
a) A higher rate of metabolic pulls in Pioneer events that single day events of the same distance.
b) That Omeprazole will make it safer for these horses to participate in endurance (clearly the use of Lasix did not reduce the rate in bleeding according to the Breeders' Cup study).
This sounds like another case were the BOD didn't do its job. If they did I would like to see the scientific justification drawn from our fairly large and complete database of events since 1996.
Truman
> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
>
> To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
--
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to ride...@endurance.net
>
> To post to this group, send email to ride...@endurance.net
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to: ridecamp+u...@endurance.net
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/a/endurance.net/group/ridecamp?hl=en
>
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecamp+u...@endurance.net.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "RidecampRedistributed" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to ridecampredistri...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
"I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way." - Mark Twain
Carla Richardson
Oct 19, 2014, 5:39:33 PM10/19/14
to ridecamp (E-mail)
I wonder if one of the veterinarians on the vet committee could comment on this discussion.
Truman, the board was acting on the veterinary committee recommendation, and I know this topic has been discussed for several years.
Carla Richardson
terre
Oct 19, 2014, 5:55:52 PM10/19/14
to Truman Prevatt, Kathy Mayeda, RideCamp List
On 19/10/2014 2:19 PM, Truman Prevatt wrote:
> It seems that for what ever reason the Vet committee has put forward a major change in the AERC tradition of drug use for a small number of horses which will most likely have the effect of Furosemide on TB racing. While the Jockey Club is debating pushing back some drug use there are those pushing to ban the use of Lasix on race day - the AERC is running gun ho toward - "there is a pill for that" with little evidence that there is
>
> a) A higher rate of metabolic pulls in Pioneer events that single day events of the same distance.
> b) That Omeprazole will make it safer for these horses to participate in endurance (clearly the use of Lasix did not reduce the rate in bleeding according to the Breeders' Cup study).
>
> This sounds like another case were the BOD didn't do its job. If they did I would like to see the scientific justification drawn from our fairly large and complete database of events since 1996.
>
> Truman
>
I believe at this point this is just a recommendation from the Vet
> It seems that for what ever reason the Vet committee has put forward a major change in the AERC tradition of drug use for a small number of horses which will most likely have the effect of Furosemide on TB racing. While the Jockey Club is debating pushing back some drug use there are those pushing to ban the use of Lasix on race day - the AERC is running gun ho toward - "there is a pill for that" with little evidence that there is
>
> a) A higher rate of metabolic pulls in Pioneer events that single day events of the same distance.
> b) That Omeprazole will make it safer for these horses to participate in endurance (clearly the use of Lasix did not reduce the rate in bleeding according to the Breeders' Cup study).
>
> This sounds like another case were the BOD didn't do its job. If they did I would like to see the scientific justification drawn from our fairly large and complete database of events since 1996.
>
> Truman
>
Committee; the Board hasn't taken a position on it (yet). That may, in
fact, be how this online discussion got started; somebody seeking member
input.
terre
Truman Prevatt
Oct 19, 2014, 6:05:16 PM10/19/14
to ride...@endurance.net
But where is the science to justify it? Why is it a deep dark secret. We have a wonderful database out that and up to at least 2006 pulls of all sorts in Pioneer rides were half of the LD pulls. Looking at the distribution of pulls - which is in the referred to document - metabolic were no higher in Pioneer than LD or single day 50. I(n fact at least from 1996 to 2006 they were a smaller distribution of total pulls in Pioneer.
So where is the science? I don't want to hear a "trust me I'm a vet" excuse. I have been a research scientist for over 40 years. I have set on PhD defenses from all sciences including biology - the mathematics and methods of statistical analysis in biology is no different than any other science. So its time for the Vet committee to show the members the numbers and show the members the science that led them to this conclusion. What is proposed is a fundamental change in the philosophy of the AERC concerning drugs. That should not be done lightly and should not be done without overwhelming evidence. That should require a significant burden of proof that it is warranted.
Personally I don't think it is there. I am willing to listen but as any scientist am skeptical - which is the role of the scientist. So where is the science.
Truman
--
"The great tragedy of science - the slaying of a beautiful theory by an ugly fact." - Thomas Henry Huxley 
Susan Garlinghouse, DVM
Oct 19, 2014, 6:31:55 PM10/19/14
to ride...@endurance.net
Will do. I'm in DC right now and it would be difficult to adequately discuss this via iPhone (not to mention I would have to stop eating crab cakes, which ain't gonna happen)<g>, but I'll be home Tuesday.
Susan G
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
Carla Richardson
Oct 19, 2014, 6:59:47 PM10/19/14
to ridecamp (E-mail)
Ha ha! I would definitely not get between anyone and crab cakes, one of my favorites too, enjoy!
Thank you, Susan.
Carla Richardson
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 20, 2014, 9:41:23 AM10/20/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/16/2014 11:46 AM, Lynn White
wrote:
o keep endurance affordable and viable means having to compromise during times of change. It means making reasonable accommodations to maintain a viable level of membership and participation.
While I do not agree with this line of reasoning, it is an argument
which relates to the discussion on hand.
Ed
Ed
Ed & Wendy Hauser
Oct 20, 2014, 9:52:40 AM10/20/14
to ride...@endurance.net
On 10/16/2014 12:02 PM, Lynn White
wrote:
So is an electrolyte a drug or a nutrient? Since horses only require additional dosages during events one could argue that they are a drug.Electrolytes do meet my criteria of a nutrient in that they are absolutely required for life (not just an optimal life).
I have no problems with a discussion about a rule relating to electrolyte supplimentation but it still does not make them a drug and thus not directly comparable to Omeprazole.
Do remember that AERC rules specifically only talk about "substances". Calling things "drugs" is just common English language usage, or in my case as I defined things.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages