- Email: [email protected]
‘I gave him some bute to pass the veterinary inspection’
Br. vet.J. (1994). 150, 401
EDITORIAL 'I GAVE HIM SOME B U T E T O PASS THE VETERINARY INSPECTION'
T h e relationship between h u m a n s and horses is ancient and noble. Horses were first domesticated some 6000 years ago and harnessed for the use o f man. T h e ancient Greeks and Romans raced horses and the foundations of m o d e r n equestrian sports were laid. With the evolution o f horse competition came the n e e d for rules and regulations to govern the events and, increasingly, to safeguard the welfare o f the horses. In their endeavours to m e e t this objective and to protect the integrity o f equestrian sports, today's regulatory bodies rightly place considerable e m p h a s i s on the control o f illicit medication or doping. O f course, the overwhelming majority o f competitors are t h o r o u g h l y professional in their a p p r o a c h and take a p r o p e r ethical view o f medication control measures. But as long as malicious d o p i n g exists, the regulators must e n d e a v o u r to c o n f r o n t and defeat those who deliberately seek to modify a horse's p e r f o r m a n c e by chemical means. In a r e c e n t and thoughtful p a p e r on the welfare o f c o m p e t i n g horses, Alex Atock, H e a d o f the Veterinary D e p a r t m e n t o f the F6d~ration Equestre Internationale (FEI) and Barry Williams, a British Jockey Club Veterinary Officer, argue that the dividing line between using medication to treat injury and disease on the o n e h a n d and p r e p a r i n g horses for competition on the o t h e r is very narrow and difficult to define (Atock & Williams, 1994). T h e y point out that d o p i n g is an emotive subject and the temptation to cheat the system, w h e t h e r by the rise o f drugs or m o r e sinister means, is omnipresent. FEI samples between 1000 and 2000 horses worldwide each year at a variety o f competitions in dressage, show-jumping, three-day event, driving, e n d u r a n c e riding and vaulting. Between 2.5 and 3% o f horses test positive for a wide range o f prohibited substances from anabolic steroids to opiates. T h e s e statistics may seem alarming but they reflect a m a r k e d i m p r o v e m e n t on earlier years before FEI i n t r o d u c e d a formalized Medication Control P r o g r a m m e employing veterinarians on a daily fee basis to collect samples at events. U n d e r FEI Rules, any horse f o u n d to have a prohibited substance 'in any o f its tissues, body fluids or excreta at an event as a result o f a medication test is automatically disqualified from all competitions at that event'. Certainly the stresses placed on horses c o m p e t i n g at the international level are substantial, and until 1977 FEI freely p e r m i t t e d the use o f non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (M. A. Atock, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . T h e y were then forb i d d e n in dressage events and in all championships. In 1981, a ' m a x i m u m permitted level' for p h e n y l b u t a z o n e (PBZ) alone (at that time 4~tg ml -l plasma) was i n t r o d u c e d for horses c o m p e t i n g u n d e r FEI Rules. This move was particularly wel0007/1935/94/050401-02/$08.00/0
© 1994 Bailli6reTindall
402
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 150, 5
c o m e d by some three-day event and driving connections as it enabled PBZ to be administered after the cross-country phase and perhaps r e d u c e d the chance o f elimination at the following day's veterinary inspection. But, as Atock and Williams argue, for a rider to c o m m e n t 'I gave him some Bute to pass the veterinary inspection' was surely an indication that the welfare o f tile horse was being ignored. After all, there will always be a winner whether PBZ is permitted or not. Ill 1993, the FEI General Assembly meeting in Rio d e J a n e i r o abolished tile PBZ m a x i m u m permitted level amidst considerable (and some ongoing) protest. But it is difficult to see how the old rule could be reconciled with Article 1013 o f the FEI Veterinary Regulations which clearly states that the purpose o f all competitions is to match the talents o f horses and competitors against each o t h e r u n d e r fail" and equal conditions; the rules are i n t e n d e d 'to ensure that tile normal p e r f o r m a n c e of a horse d u r i n g a competition is not affected either deliberately or unintentionally by the influence of drugs and medications or any form o f veterinary treatment'. Moreover, international regulatory bodies c a n n o t ignore national legislation already enacted ill a n u m b e r o f Em'opean countries specifically prohibiting the adminisu'ation o f drugs such as PBZ to horses in competitions. T h e position with some o t h e r substances is less clear. As Atock and Williams indicate, increasingly sophisticated scientific m e t h o d o l o g y means that forensic laboratories can now detect infinitesimal quantities o f substances for longer periods after administration. This is a distinct advantage particularly as drug potencies increase, but it has led to tile need to establish threshold levels for certain substances which may be present in trace a m o u n t s in normal feedstuffs and also for others which are p r o d u c e d endogenously. Additional problems will be posed by developments in molecular biology and the likely arrival of peptides for targeted medication, but challenges are nothing new to regulators and their analysts whose basic aspiration must be to keep o n e step ahead o f tile dopers. Sadly, but perhaps inevitably, there will always be some people who will go to inordinate lengths in their efforts to win. Over the years there have been a number of reports o f abuse as unpleasant as the placing of metal tacks ill stable balldages or hypersensitizing the skin o f the forelimbs by the topical application or intradermai injection of irritants in an e n d e a v o u r to e n h a n c e performance. Fortunately, such incidents are u n c o m m o n but the fact that abuses do still occur necessitates total vigilance, c o n t i n u i n g technological d e v e l o p m e n t and rigorous e n f o r c e m e n t o f the rules. Ill this way international equestrianism can live up to the FEI Code o f C o n d u c t which emphasizes that the wellbeing o f the horse is paramount. Atock and Williams conclude ill their overview that the regulators of equestrian sport can never be complacent; the root m e t a p h o r , they colourfully add, must be the symbiotic unity of mall and horse, mutually i n t e r d e p e n d e n t , rising to heights which neither could achieve alone. What m o r e is to be said? A.J. HIc;~;ms Editor REFERENCE ATO(:K, M. A. & WILLL'~MS,R. B. (1994). Welfare of competition horses. Revue Sdentifique et
Technique. Office intelv~ational des Epizooties 13, 217-32.
EDITORIAL 'I GAVE HIM SOME B U T E T O PASS THE VETERINARY INSPECTION'
T h e relationship between h u m a n s and horses is ancient and noble. Horses were first domesticated some 6000 years ago and harnessed for the use o f man. T h e ancient Greeks and Romans raced horses and the foundations of m o d e r n equestrian sports were laid. With the evolution o f horse competition came the n e e d for rules and regulations to govern the events and, increasingly, to safeguard the welfare o f the horses. In their endeavours to m e e t this objective and to protect the integrity o f equestrian sports, today's regulatory bodies rightly place considerable e m p h a s i s on the control o f illicit medication or doping. O f course, the overwhelming majority o f competitors are t h o r o u g h l y professional in their a p p r o a c h and take a p r o p e r ethical view o f medication control measures. But as long as malicious d o p i n g exists, the regulators must e n d e a v o u r to c o n f r o n t and defeat those who deliberately seek to modify a horse's p e r f o r m a n c e by chemical means. In a r e c e n t and thoughtful p a p e r on the welfare o f c o m p e t i n g horses, Alex Atock, H e a d o f the Veterinary D e p a r t m e n t o f the F6d~ration Equestre Internationale (FEI) and Barry Williams, a British Jockey Club Veterinary Officer, argue that the dividing line between using medication to treat injury and disease on the o n e h a n d and p r e p a r i n g horses for competition on the o t h e r is very narrow and difficult to define (Atock & Williams, 1994). T h e y point out that d o p i n g is an emotive subject and the temptation to cheat the system, w h e t h e r by the rise o f drugs or m o r e sinister means, is omnipresent. FEI samples between 1000 and 2000 horses worldwide each year at a variety o f competitions in dressage, show-jumping, three-day event, driving, e n d u r a n c e riding and vaulting. Between 2.5 and 3% o f horses test positive for a wide range o f prohibited substances from anabolic steroids to opiates. T h e s e statistics may seem alarming but they reflect a m a r k e d i m p r o v e m e n t on earlier years before FEI i n t r o d u c e d a formalized Medication Control P r o g r a m m e employing veterinarians on a daily fee basis to collect samples at events. U n d e r FEI Rules, any horse f o u n d to have a prohibited substance 'in any o f its tissues, body fluids or excreta at an event as a result o f a medication test is automatically disqualified from all competitions at that event'. Certainly the stresses placed on horses c o m p e t i n g at the international level are substantial, and until 1977 FEI freely p e r m i t t e d the use o f non-steroidal antiinflammatory drugs (M. A. Atock, personal c o m m u n i c a t i o n ) . T h e y were then forb i d d e n in dressage events and in all championships. In 1981, a ' m a x i m u m permitted level' for p h e n y l b u t a z o n e (PBZ) alone (at that time 4~tg ml -l plasma) was i n t r o d u c e d for horses c o m p e t i n g u n d e r FEI Rules. This move was particularly wel0007/1935/94/050401-02/$08.00/0
© 1994 Bailli6reTindall
402
BRITISH VETERINARY JOURNAL, 150, 5
c o m e d by some three-day event and driving connections as it enabled PBZ to be administered after the cross-country phase and perhaps r e d u c e d the chance o f elimination at the following day's veterinary inspection. But, as Atock and Williams argue, for a rider to c o m m e n t 'I gave him some Bute to pass the veterinary inspection' was surely an indication that the welfare o f tile horse was being ignored. After all, there will always be a winner whether PBZ is permitted or not. Ill 1993, the FEI General Assembly meeting in Rio d e J a n e i r o abolished tile PBZ m a x i m u m permitted level amidst considerable (and some ongoing) protest. But it is difficult to see how the old rule could be reconciled with Article 1013 o f the FEI Veterinary Regulations which clearly states that the purpose o f all competitions is to match the talents o f horses and competitors against each o t h e r u n d e r fail" and equal conditions; the rules are i n t e n d e d 'to ensure that tile normal p e r f o r m a n c e of a horse d u r i n g a competition is not affected either deliberately or unintentionally by the influence of drugs and medications or any form o f veterinary treatment'. Moreover, international regulatory bodies c a n n o t ignore national legislation already enacted ill a n u m b e r o f Em'opean countries specifically prohibiting the adminisu'ation o f drugs such as PBZ to horses in competitions. T h e position with some o t h e r substances is less clear. As Atock and Williams indicate, increasingly sophisticated scientific m e t h o d o l o g y means that forensic laboratories can now detect infinitesimal quantities o f substances for longer periods after administration. This is a distinct advantage particularly as drug potencies increase, but it has led to tile need to establish threshold levels for certain substances which may be present in trace a m o u n t s in normal feedstuffs and also for others which are p r o d u c e d endogenously. Additional problems will be posed by developments in molecular biology and the likely arrival of peptides for targeted medication, but challenges are nothing new to regulators and their analysts whose basic aspiration must be to keep o n e step ahead o f tile dopers. Sadly, but perhaps inevitably, there will always be some people who will go to inordinate lengths in their efforts to win. Over the years there have been a number of reports o f abuse as unpleasant as the placing of metal tacks ill stable balldages or hypersensitizing the skin o f the forelimbs by the topical application or intradermai injection of irritants in an e n d e a v o u r to e n h a n c e performance. Fortunately, such incidents are u n c o m m o n but the fact that abuses do still occur necessitates total vigilance, c o n t i n u i n g technological d e v e l o p m e n t and rigorous e n f o r c e m e n t o f the rules. Ill this way international equestrianism can live up to the FEI Code o f C o n d u c t which emphasizes that the wellbeing o f the horse is paramount. Atock and Williams conclude ill their overview that the regulators of equestrian sport can never be complacent; the root m e t a p h o r , they colourfully add, must be the symbiotic unity of mall and horse, mutually i n t e r d e p e n d e n t , rising to heights which neither could achieve alone. What m o r e is to be said? A.J. HIc;~;ms Editor REFERENCE ATO(:K, M. A. & WILLL'~MS,R. B. (1994). Welfare of competition horses. Revue Sdentifique et
Technique. Office intelv~ational des Epizooties 13, 217-32.