THE (FEEVA) of which I’m currently president, have been listening in recent times to members (equine vets) from across Europe concerned about competition horses receiving ongoing drug treatments.

If horses really need long-term medicinal therapy, are they truly fit to compete? Does it matter what the treatment is; does it matter what level they compete at or what discipline they compete in?

The issue was given a new perspective for me by a sports horse breeder employing assisted reproduction techniques to help get their mares in foal: I’d choose to use a stallion that’s not competing over one that is, it reduces the chances he’s on drugs! What is the average competition horse getting, I ask myself?

Oversight exists

Of course there is regulation of drugs use in competition horses; this varies between the sports - racing versus FEI for example; and between levels and locations, e.g. national competition versus FEI international. Such oversight exists for three main reasons:

  • The first is the need to have a level playing field, to have athletes compete on their true merit, and that the betting public should have confidence that the animal they are risking their money on has not had his chances artificially enhanced or reduced by nefarious means - through the administration of ‘uppers’ or ‘downers’.
  • The second reason has broadly to do with equine welfare: the welfare of animals used for sporting purposes must be safeguarded by us, as they cannot do it for themselves. Horses that are ill or injured should be treated and only offered for competition when cured; or at least recovered sufficiently that their welfare will not be adversely affected by the effort we ask of them. Some of the medicines we use to treat disease have the potential to mask clinical signs - making a horse seem better than he truly is and prone to greater harm.
  • The third is about safety - of all participants in horse sports, human and equine. Veterinary medicines are not generally tested in animal athletes performing at peak, but rather in ‘ordinary’ animals living in ‘ordinary’ circumstances. Administration should not cause unintended harms to patients nor the persons working with them in a competition environment. Imagine riding to a fence on a doped horse!

    • Conscious attempt

    A distinction is often made here between drugs that treat disease conditions while having no (or negligible) influence on the animal’s level of performance, and ‘doping’ - the conscious attempt to affect performance using ‘banned’ drugs that should never be found in a competition horse’s system.

    For example, antibiotics are not generally considered an issue - on the basis that they do not enhance athletic performance above that which the horse is naturally capable of. In contrast, pain-killers (like ‘bute’ and flunixin) have the potential to mask lameness and improve performance.

    But some ask, ‘if the horse needs ongoing treatment (of any sort) is he actually fit to compete?’ Many would say ‘not so’, until treatment has ceased and a withdrawal period, if relevant, has elapsed - to protect a level playing field, equine welfare and the safety of all participants. More complex is the situation where a health condition is ongoing and thus the need for medicinal treatment remains - Cushing’s Disease is often managed by long-term administration of pergolide, gastric ulceration with omeprazole or similars, Sweet Itch by injected corticosteroids etc.

    Should such horses be allowed to continue to compete, in what disciplines, and at what level? Doing the job they were bred and trained for, perhaps very successful at? Or retired; sold on; discarded? Might it help if all ongoing treatment was openly declared - with a Therapeutic Use Exemption (TUE) granted for some; or does this just cause another headache for organisers and regulators?

    Nuanced argument

    Many feel the pressure is growing from the non-horsey general public regarding the use of horses in competition - the social-licence-to-operate discussion. Some feel we should be positive, proactive and willing to make the nuanced argument in favour of treatments that are in the animal’s best interest but don’t affect performance, welfare or safety, and that allow for an ongoing competitive career. Others feel that the best course of action to preserve long-term approval (or at least not attract disapproval) is to advocate for entirely drug-free competition - simple, black-and-white, no complex explanation needed, reduced pressure on owners/trainers/riders/vets - if the horse needs medication, treat out of competition only. Then, as a small aside, the breeder choosing stallions would have no reason to compare in with out of competition sires!