Monday, November 30, 2009

The Quiet Americans

by Fran Jurga | 30 November 2009 | The Jurga Report at Equisearch.com


Horse Wrangler, originally uploaded by Clearly Ambiguous. (Thanks!)

Last week, I was asked to comment on a German news web site about the silence in the world equestrian web news from both US officials and the masses of US equestrian sports fans over the change in rules voted in by the FEI General Assembly two weeks ago. I was shocked when I read that the Europeans might go so far as to boycott our sacred AllTech FEI World Equestrian Games, held for the first time outside Europe here in the USA in 2010. And now, to be held for the first time under liberalized medication rules.

While researching the concerns of the Europeans, I found out about the strict equine welfare laws in some nations and also the rather dark history of the use of medication in FEI events before the all-out ban. I think it is comparable to the debates about legalizing gambling in some states in the USA. The states that have it don't think it is a big deal; those that don't are horrified by the possible Pandora's Box of evils associated with it. Both sides have valid points of view.

What is missing is a unified global agreement of how medication impacts the performance horse and, by extension, the reputation of equestrian sports. Kudos to the vets on both sides who are willing to speak up. The elephant in this room is a clear definition of the responsibility for equine welfare, not a level of Bute or Banamine.

Here's my take on why Americans may not be taking to the streets...either in protest or in celebration.

Perhaps it was the eclipse of the country’s busiest travel week; the long Thanksgiving weekend had Americans traveling, cooking, and entertaining on a grand scale. Perhaps they forgot to check their email.

For whatever reason, Americans are neither rallying to protest nor hurrying to embrace the announcement of changes in FEI medication rules two weeks ago that ended the long years of zero tolerance of medications for all horses competing in FEI-sanctioned events.

It's not like Americans not to have something to say.

This is in distinct contrast to how Americans responded emotionally and emphatically to the viral “blue tongue” dressage video that circulated on the Internet last month. It was impossible to find anyone who hadn’t seen it and didn’t have an opinion—and most of that was negative.

Is it just a matter of a holiday that makes reactions to these two sensitive issues so different?

The relatively few opinions that are posted on American forums and chat rooms so far regarding the FEI’s medication policy change seem to be contradictory: it’s not ok to pull on the curb rein of a dressage horse in the warm-up ring, but it is ok to make a radical switch in medication policy. A micro incident with one horse excites the masses; a macro policy change affecting the highest level of sport brings a shrug, if that.

Therapeutic levels of medication are nothing new to US competition, since USEF rules for competitions within the U.S. for most disciplines allow low levels of certain medications. That's the American system; our veterinary advisers disagree with their European colleagues and believe that allowing medication in performance horses is in the best interest of the horse.

Yet, when the big events came, the Americans always met--or valiantly tried to meet--the challenge of competing on the international stage without the same drugs they used at home. The frequent success of “clean” American horses under FEI rules often goes unmentioned and may be all the more extraordinary.

On this blog in November, 21 readers commented on the blue tongue incident and all condemned the rider based on viewing the short YouTube clip. But faced with news of the medication vote, only eight people commented, and the opinions were quite split between support for therapeutic administration of low levels of Bute vs. outright cynicism about the pharmacological corruption of horse sports.

Will Americans join the debate now that the turkey leftovers are running low and the relatives have gone home? My guess is that the subtlety of such low levels of medication as allowed by the new FEI rules will be lost on the masses of Americans, many of whom have never followed the international scene and may not even be aware that there was ever a radical difference in policy as wide as the Atlantic Ocean itself between US competitions and those in other countries.

All that will change in 2010 when the world comes to the US for the Alltech FEI World Equestrian Games in Kentucky. We can expect plenty of international riders to be competing in the US over the summer months leading up to the Games. They will bring not just their best horses but also their politics and their opinions with them and Americans may learn, at last, that we are part of a larger horse world where not everyone thinks the same as we do.

That European federations and riders might be put off by the first world championships under these new liberalized medication rules seems not to have crossed many Americans’ minds. There are 300 days to go…I hope that is time enough for some compromise or peacemaking at the highest international levels that will appease all parties and make the first WEG in the USA the wonderful celebration it was always meant to be.

Labels: , , , ,

7 Comments:

At November 30, 2009 3:17 PM, Anonymous loria said...

I noticed that both Robert Dover and Karen Robinson have both spoken out on their blogs in favour of the new medication ruling.

Both seem to make very credible arguments, essentially stressing that we are talking about allowing low levels of therapeutic NSAIDS vs performance enhancing drugs.

 
At November 30, 2009 3:42 PM, Blogger Claire said...

and of course, any post i made on that (i'm sure i did post here!) won't count as i'm in the UK (and agin it!)

and as others have said elsehwere.. if it's bad for a human athlete to compete with the help of an NSAID, it surely can't be right for the horse!

 
At November 30, 2009 3:45 PM, Blogger Fran Jurga said...

Hi Molly, thanks for the update!

The problem seems to be in the way that NSAIDs and isoxuprine and lactanase are perceived by people from other countries.

It's about perceptions, similar again to gambling, where some states think that racetracks or lotteries are ok, but casinos are not.

If you think about it, our Thoroughbred racing allows medication as well, while European racing, as far as I know, does not. It's two different philosophies that have come to light again.

 
At November 30, 2009 3:54 PM, Blogger Fran Jurga said...

Claire, what you say counts with me! Thanks for your insights!

 
At November 30, 2009 4:47 PM, Blogger Claire said...

that's true about racing - you allow lasix(sp?)to prevent bleeding, we don't allow anything at all....friend of mine vets for some racing yards and is incandescent at the thought of drugs being allowed in competition..

 
At December 4, 2009 9:57 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am too conflicted to campaign hard either way. The debacle with the Olympic medals makes you wonder if anyone can ever guarantee their horse is completely clean, even if they try their best. I also understand trying to keep older campaigners comfortable and still useful in a world that tosses horses away in a heartbeat. But your point about racing is a good one. I believe they need a clean sweep to get rid of the trash. Make their horses compete clean and if they're not sound, scratch them. So if allowing some drugs in racing has, as I believe, led to much abuse and detriment to the horses' welfare, then it seems logical to assume that opening that door in other places can lead to the same scenarios.

 
At December 8, 2009 2:51 PM, Blogger Muriel said...

You are right about the boycott, it took me quite a bit of research ...ahem... putting right words into google to get more infos about this new ruling. I only heard about it because I received a petition from the German Mediashop PferdiaTV.

I guess it is quite a delicate matter. I believe that when something is allowed it can be controlled. If something is forbidden it is done in sneaky way, and there is lots of mind power put into "how to cheat".

IMO in the horse-world there are three fractions, 1/the horse-lovers i.e. the masses, usually one-horse-owner who is easily moved by any sensationals news in the horse world like the blue tongue horse ( I am one of them), 2/there are the professionals (trainers, pro riders) who make a living from horses, and 3/ there are the RICH owners who keep going the horse-industry. Let's face it it is not the one-horse-owner who is going to support research in horse veterinary research!!! It is more the racing industry or high level performance horses.

So I guess the rich onwers fraction cannot careless, the pros must be happy because their practise might actually become legalised, and the masses do not know because they do not have a clue, because they do not compete.

I do not know, I do not know what is acceptable, I do not how much research has been done. I ma convinced that high-performance vet have a good idea ...

So I would be for having something allowed for being able to control it better.
I am writing from Europe too.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home