# FEI to allow horses to compete on bute!



## Astra (18 November 2009)

This is a complete turn around and goes totally against everything they have been saying about having a no tolerance approach! 

www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/291950.html


----------



## christinao (18 November 2009)

i think the expression is "are they having a laugh?"


----------



## Munchkin (18 November 2009)

Christinao I opened this to reply with those very same words having just read the article!  Surely it won't get passed when they realise how against it everyone (?) is?

Anyone actually for this move?


----------



## tigers_eye (18 November 2009)

I think there is a very valid case for this, along with tolerance levels for medication that could have been used several weeks prior or trace amounts from cross-contamination through buckets.


----------



## peachy (18 November 2009)

what are the side effects of bute


----------



## Munchkin (18 November 2009)

I agree with the latter part of that sentence but bute?  Surely there is an animal welfare concern if a horse is competing in FEI competition and actually needs anti-inflammatory painkillers?


----------



## tigers_eye (18 November 2009)

If something really is in pain 1 bute isn't going to hide it. I can't remember when it was completely banned, but I know in the 70's and I think 80's too it was common to give a horse a bute or two on the saturday evening of a 3-day event. Lucinda Green discusses it in one of her old books, the one about Be Fair I think.


----------



## little_flea (18 November 2009)

I think it is disgraceful that this matter has even got this far! How can Princess Haya make herself out to be prioritising the welfare of the horse, and then allow a vote on what is in effect reintroducing doping?? This sport has been trying to clean up for years. What kind of sport allows it's top athletes to take painkillers and be expected to perform at the very highest level??


----------



## little_flea (18 November 2009)

On the upside though, perhaps this will cause PH to retire. How much more damage to the FEI can this woman do?


----------



## not_with_it (18 November 2009)

QR - To some extent I agree. Im not saying that lame horses should be competing, far from it. Some horses, especially older horses become stiff from travelling for example. A bit of bute would make them more comfortable but wouldnt be hiding any lameness. 

Surely the comfort of the horse should be paramount.


----------



## christinao (18 November 2009)

i dont think you can have tolerance levels on painkillers and steroids no matter what  because how do you define the threshold levels? all horses react differently and the system would be open to abuse. But on the other hand if it is something with no performance enhancing properties then I can slightly see where they are going with it.


----------



## TarrSteps (18 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
What kind of sport allows it's top athletes to take painkillers and be expected to perform at the very highest level?? 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, quite a few.  Many amateur and professional sports have guidelines in place whereby an athlete can declare the use of a small amount of NSAID, anti-histamine etc. for a proscribed use.  I think this is part of the point - if a person can take an asprin why can't a horse take the equivalent?  And, of course, many (most?) national federations allow some NSAID uses at certain levels of national competition in some disciplines.

However, I think it's more complicated than that for equestrian sports.  First, the horse is not sentient and capable of making it's own decision and secondly, there is a public perception issue.


----------



## Rouletterose (18 November 2009)

I don't believe it's been voted on yet? there are a lot of countries against it.


----------



## dieseldog (18 November 2009)

I don't think they banned it until the '90s.  I remember watching Jappaloupe being fed his vitamins at Olympia one year on Eurosport.

BTW it is currently legal to jump horses BSJA on Bute.


----------



## Doris68 (18 November 2009)

Nat - I agree with your comment but, where do you draw the line from a horse that is a 'bit stiff' to a horse that is seriously stiff/a bit lame?

It is difficult the evalute this - the difference between "a headache" that is transient, to a seriously long-term condition.

I have no answers here but I wonder at the merits/de-merits of this proposal??  I really don't know?


----------



## WishfulThinker (19 November 2009)

Would that not have an effect on 3 day eventing mainly, stopping horses from being stiff after the phases etc?


----------



## daisycrazy (19 November 2009)

I suppose allowing low levels of bute might make it less likely that people will give their horses other substances in an attempt to get around the rules? Better the devil you know?


----------



## rocketdog69 (19 November 2009)

Disgusting.  Competeing a horse on a painkiller only opens the door for potentially more damage to be caused to the horse.  What happened to keeping the animals welfare at heart!  Very sad state of affairs.


----------



## SJFAN (19 November 2009)

I understand that Boomerang needed bute throughout his illustrious SJ career.


----------



## PapaFrita (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
If something really is in pain 1 bute isn't going to hide it. I can't remember when it was completely banned, but I know in the 70's and I think 80's too it was common to give a horse a bute or two on the saturday evening of a 3-day event. Lucinda Green discusses it in one of her old books, the one about Be Fair I think. 

[/ QUOTE ]
This is my bosses position on this; bute is like paracetamol- helps with the odd ache, but won't touch significant pain, especially in small doses as you describe.
Personally, if my horse needed bute to compete, I would consider him/her too sore and I wouldn't. I only compete for fun though.


----------



## millitiger (19 November 2009)

I agree with allowing horses to compete that were buted a week or 2 ago and the effect has worn off but the chemical is still showing in doping tests.

i don't agree with horses coming while under the effect of bute and i think there is a clear difference.


----------



## little_flea (19 November 2009)

Just read that this rule has gone through!! Shocking. I wonder what this will do for sponsorship etc into the equestrian sports...


----------



## kit279 (19 November 2009)

Bute is a NSAID like aspirin or ibuprofen.  It wouldn't come anywhere close to covering up serious lameness.  If the FEI really wanted to ensure horse welfare, they'd do a trot up like the eventers do for the SJers.  I can think of a couple off the top of my head that would be quite lame at the trot (but they never trot so you never notice)...


----------



## SJFAN (19 November 2009)

Don't know if it's still done but I've watched a trot-up on the morning of a SJ World Cup Final.


----------



## spaniel (19 November 2009)

The vote has now been taken and its now legal to compete on bute from 2010.  I know so many people used to do this in 'the olden days' and that there are many horses who genuinely continue a very useful existence on low levels BUT I can see this being a charter for cheating and wriggling round the guidelines.

Sadly not everyone has high moral standards.  This is a very retrograde step.


----------



## TarrSteps (19 November 2009)

Do they not present SJers before CSIs?  They certainly do it for dressage horses.  It may be a formality but it's not an automatic pass and horses do get spun from time to time.  The problem is that's before things start and people can do the same preparations as eventers.  I know quite a few top event horses that wouldn't be what most people call completely sound if you just pulled them from their stalls in the morning.

Being an upper level competition horse is hard work and there is wear and tear.  It can't be avoided.  I guess the argument is where do you draw the line?  There are rules about icing but you can do it.  What about magnetic rugs?  Acupuncture?  All prove to help sore horses and all allowed.  Surely if your horse needs something like that it's not "pain free"?

Personally, I don't think I am in favour of allowing bute, but not necessarily because I think it's some demon drug that allows horses to compete regardless of injury.  I know lots of older horses that are living lovely lives being schoolmasters that wouldn't be able to without it.  I'd much rather see a horse being given a little help than being chucked in a field, still hurting, but deemed "okay" simply because the owner doesn't have to see/ride it every day.  But at the top levels I think there are other issues in play, one of which is public perception.  The sport has taken some big hits recently and I'm quite surprised they are entertaining this now.  I do think the "legal limits" problem has to be addressed though, and perhaps this is the only way of doing it reasonably.  I'm not familiar enough with the technology to know.


----------



## Munchkin (19 November 2009)

I agree with the point that there was never enough time to thoroughly discuss or debate this.  It went to vote almost immediately.  Quite irresponsible of the FEI, in my opinion.

Whether you agree with the use of bute in competition or not, you have to admit their constant inability to abide by, enforce or even keep their own rules in place is quite embarrassing.


----------



## SJFAN (19 November 2009)

SJers certainly have a vet check before the competition begins e.g. this morning in Stuttgart but I don't know what this now involves.  It obviously should include a trot-up.

Bute was previously phased out, but I know that a lot of riders wanted it re-introduced at the equivalent level to humans taking a mild dose of a painkiller.

It's a complex and emotive issue and I don't feel I know enough to decide one way or the other.


----------



## eventingnovice (19 November 2009)

Omg  this is a joke? The FIE can not, say they are 'no torrolence' on drugs in the horse industry and then propose that we are all allowed to compete our horses on what is essentially a drug that allows horses to move pain free? The bottom line is that horses are given bute as a pain killer, to Prevent pain, this shud not be abused, by people competing horses that are actually lame underneith the cover that bute provides? This is CRAZY! any horse that competes under FIE rules, shud be fit, helathy, sounds and all importantly the horse should be like that NATURALLY, without ANY other substance. 
Silly FIE! x


----------



## Toby773 (19 November 2009)

Will everyone be aboe to use bute or just at FEI comps?


----------



## Rouletterose (19 November 2009)

Can't believe this news!!! there is strong feeling at the FEI against this, so I don't understand how it got passed. They're even talking about challenging this decision legally.

Where are the guidelines, how can someone judge 'how much' is enough or too much on a competition day?? Where is the horses welfare in all this??

As is often the very sad case, this law being passed will be open to massive abuse by some, with the horse as the victim!!

I would not want to compete against the person working in next to me knowing their horse was on bute.


----------



## TableDancer (19 November 2009)

I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded.


----------



## humblepie (19 November 2009)

The vet check for the show jumpers at HOYS had a trot up - it  was in the outdoor warm up (temporary school in part of the NEC car park) on the Wednesday evening.


----------



## Rouletterose (19 November 2009)

The big question seems to be 'how much is a little bit?'


----------



## Booboos (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The big question seems to be 'how much is a little bit?' 

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently "a limit of administration of 1 gram in 24 hours, not within 12 hours of competition" Source: http://www.eurodressage.com/news/dressage/fei/2009/fei-newdopinglists2.html


----------



## JDChaser (19 November 2009)

but surely it would have to depend on the weight of the horse/pony


----------



## BBs (19 November 2009)

TD I wholeheartedly agree with your post.

I have always been of the thought if my horse has to have a bute to compete then he WILL NOT compete.
However, after years with an older horse who was stiff due to arthritus a tiny bit of bute made his life a lot easier just like me taking an ibuprofen for back pain or headaches.
A lot of us couldnt function comfortably without taking some sort of pain killer so why is it any different for a horse?

Im sure the FEI arent saying stuff the poor neddie with 2-4 sachets of bute. And in any case any horse who has severe pain would still be lame.
You only have to see how lame a horse is with a foot absess (not life threatening) but damn painful even with many grams of bute inside them.

There are many horses even younger ones whose careers suffer due to arthritic pain maybe this would mean the can too can still be competitive without breaking any rules?


----------



## Caledonia (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Totally agree with you! Thanks for saving me having to put it into words!


----------



## Booboos (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
but surely it would have to depend on the weight of the horse/pony  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, possibly they have more details in the document? No idea.

I think the standard dose of bute is 2-4 grams per day, per 1,000 pounds (about 450 kilos). So 1 gram would be the standard dose for a very small pony, for anything else it would be well below the standard dose.


----------



## Munchkin (19 November 2009)

There are a lot of outstanding questions, and I don't understand how they could vote either way without these being addressed (and publicised)


----------



## TarrSteps (19 November 2009)

I think one potentially inflammatory (sorry 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 ) issue is the description of bute and similar substances as "pain killers".  Interestingly, this is a UK thing as far as I can tell.  Such substances in North America are called, even in common language, NSAIDs or anti-inflammatories.  "Pain killer" means something heavy duty and narcotic, such as morphine or Demerol - things that actually stop you hurting when you're really hurt.

"Pain killer" carries the connotation that it stops the subject from feeling any pain - take an ibuprofen for a broken arm and see how well that works.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





I'm not just being pedantic (okay, a little bit pedantic) I think it really is part of the debate.  If we're talking about stopping any kind of "help" for expected stiffness/soreness ON PRINCIPLE then it also has to address icing, acupuncture etc.  If the goal is not to allow horses to compete when they've had any treatment leading up to or during a competition then that's one thing, but we already allow this.  But if we allow those things and a small dose of NSAID is a proven, low risk way to do similar, then what, exactly, is the debate about?


----------



## bahumbug (19 November 2009)

IMHO setting aside  (just for a moment) the question of how one feels about the use (or not) of NSAIDS - the whole procedure of this vote was flawed.
 The FEI has shot not just itself but horse sport in the foot by introducing such a step with scant prior consultation at a time when drugs in sport is topping the agenda in a highly inflammable and emotional way. If it is the case that some NFs at the General Assembly did not have sufficient information to make a considered decision on this key issue then this is further evidence of the fundamentally wrong way the FEI seems to think it can conduct business. Disgraceful.
And did I just see that Princess High-handed has refused to entertain the idea of a reballot? No surprise there then....


----------



## Munchkin (19 November 2009)

What else is on this "progressive list" - is it published anywhere?


----------



## little_flea (19 November 2009)

Very well said Horsetailia. Completely agree. If I was an external sponsor I wouldn't touch this sport with a barge pole after this. And as for the Olympics...


----------



## Daffodil (19 November 2009)

Typical Princess Haya!    Always totally convinced that she is right and no-one else has any worthwhile opinion.

Whilst a case could be made for a low level dosage, particularly after XC to ease any aches or minor stiffness, it does unfortunately open the door to abuse by administering bigger doses to get an otherwise lame horse through to the next SJ round, or the SJ in a three day.

This is a major leap back in horse welfare.

We will see a lot more horses sustaining serious or permanent injury or incapacity as a result of this idiotic decision.


----------



## Booboos (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
What else is on this "progressive list" - is it published anywhere? 

[/ QUOTE ]

I couldn't find the entire list anywhere, which is bizarre as you would imagine these things would be pre-publicised, but found this reference:

"The latter [the progressive list] does not prohibit phenylbutazone (up to 8 mcg/ml in plasma or serum), three times the level tolerated in the 1980s before the ban, salicyclic acid (up to 750mcg/ml in urine and up to 6.5 mcg/ml in plasma or serum) and flunixin (up to 500 mcg/ml in plasma or serum,) so long as those substances are not detected in a horse's sample above the prescribed limits noted and are used in isolation and not combined. 

The progressive list also sanctions acetycysteine, dichloroacetate (lactanase), and isoxuprine."

Source: 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersp...anned-list.html


----------



## arden (19 November 2009)

regardless of your opinion on the actual rule change, it's way out of line with the FEI Statutes since this was dropped onto the NFs just days before the vote in an obvious attempt to circumvent the appropriate level of discussion:
"5. Amendments to the Sport Rules
5.2 All National Federations must be given at least six weeks to review a draft of the revised Sport Rules or proposed modifications and propose any amendments thereto. The final draft must be sent to the National Federations no later than four weeks before the General Assembly."


----------



## Booboos (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
regardless of your opinion on the actual rule change, 

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you mean QR, because I don't have an opinion on the rule change other than agreeing with you!


----------



## arden (19 November 2009)

sorry, I didn't mean to reply directly to you just making a general comment.


----------



## Munchkin (19 November 2009)

That is my point too arden.  And as someone pointed out earlier (QR so can't see who - sorry) there isn't really enough info available to form an opinion.  This hasn't been discussed or debated in any great depth, as far as I can see. Surely the guidelines should have been set and the proposal publicised before it went to vote?  That is what I have a problem with.  The FEI doing things unprofessionally, as per.


----------



## SJFAN (19 November 2009)

Regardless of which side of the debate one supports, we can all agree it's yet another example of the FEI being in a complete operational mess.

Incidentally, some of you will probably remember that the Duke of Edinburgh said that he used to take bute himself for his arthritis.


----------



## AutumnRose (19 November 2009)

Completely agree with Tabledancer, she's saved me having to type out  along reply though


----------



## MegaBeast (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Completely agree with Tabledancer, she's saved me having to type out  along reply though 
	
	
		
		
	


	

















[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise!


----------



## only_me (19 November 2009)

QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh


----------



## Orangehorse (19 November 2009)

The argument about bute raged around eventing.  It was completeley "normal" for people to give horses bute at the end of the cross country day
"just in case" but it annoyed people who felt that their completely sound horse was beaten by a horse that couldn't have completed if it hadn't had a pain killer.  So bute was banned.

I think it should remain banned for exactly the same reasons.


----------



## charliebo (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Completely agree with Tabledancer, she's saved me having to type out  along reply though 
	
	
		
		
	


	

















[/ QUOTE ]

Likewise! 

[/ QUOTE ]

Me too.  Thanks Tabledancer!


----------



## little_flea (19 November 2009)

Well I personally would never compete a horse that needed to be treated with bute. Might be my heritage with Sweden strongly supporting the nought percent tolerance line and the "if you treat, don't compete" line. But clearly quite a few of you UK eventers on here feel differently - so I guess you are in luck...! Lets hope the sport doesn't suffer too much from this though, both in terms of media/publicity, but obviously above all, when it comes to animal wellfare.


----------



## Onyxia (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded. 

[/ QUOTE ]
I have to agree with this.
If someone is going to cheat or attempt to compete a horse that shouldnt be out at shows due to ill health or lameness issues,they will whatever the rule book says.
But for the riders with an older horse who is fine and sound at home,but gets still traveling,a low dose of bute will allow them to compete on an even footing.
There is an argument for it in some cases/circumstances,but it should have had a hell of a lot of more discussion before being passed.


----------



## Rouletterose (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is a big difference because if you have a bad pain in say your knee, you could say how much it hurts...the horse can't.

How long does bute stay in the system? so are you saying that if a horse was entered to compete say on the Saturday and five days previous to that he needed a bute (1) for a sore somewhere....would that 1 bute still be detected in the system in a blood test on the Saturday? 

I don't know so perhaps someone could tell me.? this is a genuine need to know question to try and understand what the FEI are trying to achieve.


----------



## Quarrybank (19 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is a big difference because if you have a bad pain in say your knee, you could say how much it hurts...the horse can't.

How long does bute stay in the system? so are you saying that if a horse was entered to compete say on the Saturday and five days previous to that he needed a bute (1) for a sore somewhere....would that 1 bute still be detected in the system in a blood test on the Saturday? 

I don't know so perhaps someone could tell me.? this is a genuine need to know question to try and understand what the FEI are trying to achieve. 

[/ QUOTE ]

In answer to your question - yes
For this reason, I also agree with Tabledancer.
If your horse knocks himself, small cut, pulled shoes you might give him a couple of days of bute ( &amp; obviously wouldn't compete him at that point) however, once he's over this, the question I always have is how long before there is no residue left in their system. 

With this rule, which is the equivalent to 1 sachet being given 24 hours before, you know that as long as it has been a couple of days there would be no danger of failing a dope test. The same applies if medicated feed buckets get mixed up (we have a separate medication feed bucket for this reason) If there was a trace, it wouldn't be enough to fail a dope test on.

That's how I read this rule &amp; thus feel it prevents horses failing a dope test for unintentional reasons. Not for people to be able to compete lame horses as 1 sachet of bute will not make a lame horse sound.


----------



## popsdosh (20 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Typical Princess Haya!    Always totally convinced that she is right and no-one else has any worthwhile opinion.





[/ QUOTE ]

I hate to be cynical 
	
	
		
		
	


	




However everybody is looking at eventing and SJ and the repercussions.The fact is that in recent history it is endurance riding that has higher levels of test failures and in particular one families horses. Read into that what you will.

However that does not mean I am opposed to it as described however how long will it be before 1g becomes2g etc etc


----------



## little_flea (20 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Not for people to be able to compete lame horses as 1 sachet of bute will not make a lame horse sound. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, not all vets would agree with this. Dr Peter Kallings, who is the top vet in regards to equine doping issues in Sweden, says that 8 micrograms of phenylbutazone per litre of blood (the limit decided upon yesterday) has "full therapeutic effect" and in his opinion in many cases this will directly lead to a horse not feeling pain, thus performing better. He also says that there is scientific evidence that on race horses in the USA, this level of bute and competing means that the horses really are being damaged. (I have not read this original evidence though).

This evidence is directly opposite to that presented by Princess Haya and her team.

The article in Swedish is here if anyone wants to do a Google translate http://www.hastmagazinet.se/newsItem.asp...20uppfattningar


----------



## christinao (20 November 2009)

Personally I am not disputung whether it helps some horses or not, it is the moral question and also the one of public perception. particularly as another drug on the new list of permited drugs is isoxuperine (sp) which as i recall is used to treat horses with navicular is it not......... 
  the showjumpers must be loving this. and they do trot up by the way for CSI's, although it is not the big formal affair it is for eventing generally and IMO possibly not as stritch.


----------



## FairyCakes (20 November 2009)

QR - Considering the problems i am having with my ankle at the moment, i would rather pop a paracetamol (bute) than have my legs wrapped up in ice for hours, its a shame horses, until now, havent had the same option
I would rather give my horse a bute than ice its legs, surely a lot nicer for the horse. 
On a bad day a taking a paracetamol doesnt help me, and i have to limp, surely bute will be the same, and if the injury is serious it will not mask it.


----------



## Rouletterose (20 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
QR

Agree with tabledancer, its like us taking a paracetamol the day before an event because we feel a bit off! 
	
	
		
		
	


	





One bute may be needed 4/5 days before comp - horse may have banged himself in field or could be sore from casting a shoe - both short term problems and not going to affect horse competing!!

One Bute is us taking a paracetalmol - not going to affect our way of thinking tbh 
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say there is a big difference because if you have a bad pain in say your knee, you could say how much it hurts...the horse can't.

How long does bute stay in the system? so are you saying that if a horse was entered to compete say on the Saturday and five days previous to that he needed a bute (1) for a sore somewhere....would that 1 bute still be detected in the system in a blood test on the Saturday? 

I don't know so perhaps someone could tell me.? this is a genuine need to know question to try and understand what the FEI are trying to achieve. 

[/ QUOTE ]

In answer to your question - yes
For this reason, I also agree with Tabledancer.
If your horse knocks himself, small cut, pulled shoes you might give him a couple of days of bute ( &amp; obviously wouldn't compete him at that point) however, once he's over this, the question I always have is how long before there is no residue left in their system. 

With this rule, which is the equivalent to 1 sachet being given 24 hours before, you know that as long as it has been a couple of days there would be no danger of failing a dope test. The same applies if medicated feed buckets get mixed up (we have a separate medication feed bucket for this reason) If there was a trace, it wouldn't be enough to fail a dope test on.

That's how I read this rule &amp; thus feel it prevents horses failing a dope test for unintentional reasons. Not for people to be able to compete lame horses as 1 sachet of bute will not make a lame horse sound. 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thankyou for your informed answer 
	
	
		
		
	


	




 just trying to find the reasoning behind everything ie changing the rule book, and time lengths for bute in the system etc.

If you are correct then I can't see the reason for changing the rules.


----------



## Rosiefan (20 November 2009)

QR - Could PH's take on this be about the Sheikh being pulled up re his race horse earlier this year and the subsequent fall out with the FEI? 
ref http://www.horseandhound.co.uk/news/397/282457.html


----------



## little_flea (20 November 2009)

Surprised nobody has mentioned this earlier on here, Rosiefan... certainly something the Swedish media have been focussing on!


----------



## rosie55 (20 November 2009)

I have to agree with tabledancer on this. i am sure FEI will qualify the ruling and set time limits, dosage, etc. you will always get people cheating in any sport who do get away with it, but one day they will be found out. i think if a person cheats then what they achieve has no value in my eyes.


----------



## bahumbug (20 November 2009)

The issue is simply whether the FEI General Assembly was fully appraised of the facts before they voted. The evidence suggests they were not. The fallout from this could be huge for horse sport.  For an excellent summation of what went on I recommend the Pippa Cuckson's reports for the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/equestrianism/


----------



## Rouletterose (21 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
The issue is simply whether the FEI General Assembly was fully appraised of the facts before they voted. The evidence suggests they were not. The fallout from this could be huge for horse sport.  For an excellent summation of what went on I recommend the Pippa Cuckson's reports for the Daily Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/othersports/equestrianism/ 

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks very good reports!

Have just read the lot and there are an awful lot of amazed and angry people regarding the decision to re-introduce Bute, I still can't understand the reasoning behind this decision, I do not think it will work for the riders or the horses, and zero tolerance should have remained: sound confident riders and sound confident horses. Now nobody will know what they are doing. What a sad day


----------



## EstherYoung (21 November 2009)

As an endurance rider, this new FEI ruling is particularly depressing.

The welfare of the horses in our sport depends on minor issues being picked up quickly either by the vets at the vetgates or by the riders en route, before they become major issues. Currently, that 'minor muscle stiffness' will result in a horse being spun at a vetgate, and quite rightly too as it prevents the tired/sore horse getting into real trouble over potentially another 10 hours of riding. That 'minor muscle stiffness' could be the first indicator that you get that the horse is on the way to tying up. If bute is brought into the mix, there is a serious risk of the warning signs of a compromised horse becoming undetectable.

As an example, our horse Spud has been vetted out twice for very minor lamenesses this year - both for the same reason (a foot bruise that took longer than expected to heal and grow out) and both of which were so minor that half a bute earlier in the day would have probably made him look level at the vetting. But had we carried on he would have become very sore indeed.


----------



## MagicMelon (21 November 2009)

It's ridiculous IMO.  Surely bute is definately "performance enhancing" since a horse who needed it wouldn't be able to compete otherwise! 

I think it goes against what's best for the horse.  Too many people will now try and cover up injuries by using bute.  Surely, everyone will now bute their horse automatically before any eventing trot-ups?!


----------



## cucinof1 (21 November 2009)

It seems to me that PH has railroaded this ruling through with a total disregard to full and informed voting. It is interesting that her family have recently been found guilty of using banned substances on endurance horses. Personally I can't wait for her to step down, she seems to have no grasp of the pressure that equine sport is under to be squeeky clean- the vast majority of non horsey public know that horses do not choose to compete, it is ambitious people who want the glory, public acclaim and sometimes profits which pitches the equine into competition. Giving pain killers to horses can never be compared to athletes dosing themselves -human beings choose for themselves often motivated by their own agenda.


----------



## Starman (21 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
I seem to be in a minority here but I think it could be a good thing. I am old enough to remember the days when most horses were given a bit of bute after XC at an international 3 day: don't know if it was allowed or just not policed very well in those days!

I think some of the responses above are very emotional and not necessarily well-informed: nobody is talking about allowing horses who are on regular/large amounts of bute to compete. However, certainly in my sport there is an argument that it is actually in the horses' best interests to allow a very small dose of anti-inflammatory pain relief after XC to ease the inevitable aches and pains. If a horse has a real injury this amount of bute will never mask it - you are far more likely to get away with masking it by numbing it with ice, which is permitted anyway!

In my view, this is a useful and important debate. While there are pros and cons, personally I come out in favour of a low tolerance level for bute and, quite possibly for some other commonly-used medicines which may have been used several weeks previously but still be present in the system at trace levels. If a rider is tested and found to have a tiny trace of antibiotic in their horse's system, for instance, they are currently punished in the same way as a rider who has been caught out doping their horse with completely un-licensed human anti-psychotic drugs (say 
	
	
		
		
	


	




) I think some form of differentiation along the lines the FEI is trying to establish is quite right and, while they may not have it quite right yet, their efforts are to be applauded. 

[/ QUOTE ]



I concur!


----------



## epson (21 November 2009)

I agree 1 bute wont make any differance if a horse has a serious problem but it would help the older horses have a longer career.Cant see some vets so keen so as there wouldnt be the need for so much treatment to the joints???


----------



## little_flea (21 November 2009)

Like I said above, top doping vet Dr Peter Kallings (head of the Swedish Institute for Equine Research and head vet for medication and doping issues for the Swedish Equestrian Sports Society) definitely thinks the allowed dosage is performance enhancing and that competing horses on that dose could be damaging to them (as proven by studies on race horses in America). I guess it is down to who you believe. Personally the fact that this vet has put forward such strong opinions backed up by scientific study, is enough for me to be against this new rule.


----------



## Helbert (22 November 2009)

In my mind - a bit of bute for a horse that genuinely needs it to make it comfortable seems fine to me, but I can't help feeling that it will be open to abuse.... before we know it every horse will be taking it for one-thing or another and I am sure they will have 'Good Reasons' and vets willing to back them up. 
The No Tolerance Rule stood for something, this just makes our sport look like a joke - when we don't like the rules we change them??


----------



## ahpe (23 November 2009)

Hi,

This is my first post here and please forgive my bad english - I'm german  
	
	
		
		
	


	




.

Please support me and my friend who have just started an online petition against FEI's progressive list. You can find it here:

http://www.no-fei.com/

It also got some english explanations on it, so don't worry you have to learn german.  
	
	
		
		
	


	





All great European Rider nations should stick together and vote against this horrible decision the FEI made last week.

Thx a lot !!!


----------



## emmasingh (24 November 2009)

They will have to test every single horse to make sure they are not above the allowed dosage for fair competition. 
They have already spent 1.8 million euros keeping the sport clean but they will now have to spend more on testing and vets to make sure misuse doesnt occur. 
At least before everyone competiting knew where they stood-there was zero-tolerance on the drug. Now how easy would it to say oh well i didnt realise i couldnt put that much in. 
its argued that a horse that had colic should be able to compete because it needed it and it wasnt to mask lameness. However, they had to draw a line somewhere. 

Apparantly the dosage is enough to be performance enhancing. it will allow horses that should be retired/or lame to continue competing. Not only does that completely contradict everything the FEI says about the spirit of competition and so on. It means horses winning on bute, will be selected for breeding. This means that top performance horses are being breed with possible Hereditary faults. 
Fractures also produce mild lameness, what happens if horse is put on bute then goes to do x-country on a fracture!! 
X-country is not as demanding as it used to be with the tracks and roads and steeple chasing taken out of the equation, so why should a horse be allowed to compete with bute in its system?
Also what about the buying and selling of horses? You could get a top-priced eventer vetted and it will have bute in its system. The owner will say well we went to a competition at the weekend. it may have another problem??
legalising bute will make everything more complicated and open to abuse.


----------



## Munchkin (24 November 2009)

ahpe - well done - you made the front page of HHO 
	
	
		
		
	


	





I have signed, as I am against this, at least without thorough discussion and evidence of how guidelines will be put in place.


----------



## ahpe (24 November 2009)

Wow! To be honest I'm quite honored and very thankful!  
	
	
		
		
	


	




Lots of thanks to the ones responsible for this site for supporting us!
Also a big "Thank you" to the ones who have already signed. I noticed a lot of english names in the list


----------



## Rouletterose (24 November 2009)

[ QUOTE ]
Wow! To be honest I'm quite honored and very thankful!  
	
	
		
		
	


	




Lots of thanks to the ones responsible for this site for supporting us!
Also a big "Thank you" to the ones who have already signed. I noticed a lot of english names in the list  
	
	
		
		
	


	





[/ QUOTE ]

Signed today.


----------



## Rouletterose (24 November 2009)

Agree with every word you have said, a very sad day for horse sport in this country


----------

