Archive for the ‘drug testing’ Category

The commentary by Pincus was in response to an earlier article published in the Paulick Report concerning a flurry of positive tests in Pennsylvania for lobeline, a medication found in nicotine patches that are used to help people quit smoking. There have been more than 50 positive tests in Pennsylvania for Lobeline, which many believe has resulted from feed contaminated by the lobelia inflate plant that grows wild in many parts of the Midwest and Northeast.

Among those who wrote with a counterpoint to Pincus is Rick Abbott, a former longtime member and chairman of the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission. Abbott is also a horseman who operates Charlton Bloodstock in Chester County, Pa., with his wife, Dixie. — Ray Paulick

In the case of clenbuterol, Pennsylvania experienced a rash of positives when the Pennsylvania Equine Testing and Research Laboratory (PETRL) began testing for the drug in plasma in addition to urine. It turned out the drug was being administered at “bridle time” so that it would not have been in the horse long enough to be found in the urine when post race samples were taken. There were over 50 positives for clenbuterol in the week that plasma testing began and, miraculously, none in the week after the positives were called. The positives stopped overnight. All of the cases were adjudicated in favor of the racing commission, even those appealed to Commonwealth Court.

Aminorex presented a thornier problem. The first cases appeared in Canada and then showed up in Ohio. From there they migrated east, first to the Meadows, a harness track near Pittsburgh, and then to Penn National and Philadelphia Park. The problem for the racing commission was that the drug (a powerful stimulant) had not been commercially available for over 20 years and there was no research on its pharmacological effect on the horse. We knew aminorex was a strong “upper” but had no data as to the level at which it would effect a horse’s performance. In fact, the first few trainers who had positives took their days and paid their fines.

After the lab confirmed 30 positives the racing commission met with representatives of the horsemen and asked them to provide samples of any feed supplements they were using in the hope that we could identify the source of the positives. Some provided those samples but the lab was unable to find a source. After another meeting with the horsemen, including attorney Pincus, the racing commission agreed to ask Dr. Lawrence Soma at New Bolton Center to try to determine the level at which aminorex would affect performance.

Originally, Dr. Soma’s attempts to conduct this research were stymied by his inability to obtain the drug so that he could do administration studies. Eventually he was able to obtain some of the drug from the University of Georgia and the studies were performed. The results of those studies showed that the drug was very short acting and would have to have been administered in the post parade to have had a performance enhancing effect. The racing commission was never able to identify the source of the drug.

All of the aminorex cases were dropped and the trainers who had taken their punishment were made whole (including lost purse money). This was done in cooperation with the horsemen, and second-place horses that would have been moved up were awarded first money out of a sense of fairness.

Interestingly, aminorex, while still tested, has disappeared from racing.

Pennsylvania’s testing integrity has never been questioned by anyone but attorney Pincus in his representation of horsemen with positive tests. Commonwealth Court and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania have consistently upheld the testing and due process procedures of the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission. 

I am sure that the current Commissioners will handle this new rash of positives for lobeline with sensitivity to the rights of the individuals involved, including the rights of the horsemen whose horses finished behind the horses that tested positive. I’m also sure that lobeline will stop appearing in the tests of horses racing in Pennsylvania.

UPDATE: We received the following response from Alan Pincus to the above editorial.

The sample subsequently arrives at the test laboratory with a big “cheater” sticker on it, and the lab technicians spend all of their waking hours testing it. Meanwhile, these same conspiracy theorists are convinced that some trainers never have their horses tested for drugs no matter how many races they win because they wear white hats and are given preferential treatment by stewards, racing commissions and chemists.

It reminds me of the old Smothers Brothers routine, “Mom Always Liked You Best.”

A number of trainers at Del Mar expressed the belief that former California Horse Racing Board executive director Ingrid Fermin has a bias against them and should not be allowed to judge races they are involved in from the steward’s stand. Others have said Fermin has a conflict of interest because her sister is married to trainer Bruce Headley.

We decided to ask a few questions about the protocol for drug testing in California to see just how easy it is to discriminate in the testing of post-race samples. Turns out these folks actually have a system to protect the integrity of the process.

Veterinarian Rick Arthur, equine medical director for the CHRB, told the Paulick Report: “We never alter the standard protocol for any test associated with a race sample. All samples are treated the same per the lab’s SOP. This is one of the advantages of having an accredited lab; all samples are treated the same and every step is documented to confirm that is the case. In rare instances we will go back on a sample if we have seen something suspicious in the lab or we have some intelligence, but that sample, once it has passed the SOP protocol, is considered cleared.

“Any special testing is done to improve the lab and testing protocol going forward,” Arthur said. “We have never filed a complaint on the rare sample that has received special attention after the sample has cleared. I doubt we ever would unless there were exceptional circumstances, i.e., the drug was something especially egregious–cobra or snail venom would be examples. Regardless, due to the documentation process required in accredited labs, any special attention to a sample is recorded and would be open to scrutiny if any regulatory action was taken.

“A few trainers who have had repeated problems with drug positives claim they have been targeted,” Arthur continued. “That is pure fantasy to deflect their personal responsibility for their drug violation records. Samples go into the lab as numbered samples and they are reported out by sample numbers. The sample custodian at CHRB headquarters in Sacramento has the paperwork that decodes the sample numbers to the horse and trainer. Only then does anyone know what sample is tied to what horse and trainer.

“Any trainer who thinks the system is corrupt overvalues their importance,” said Arthur. “Who is going to bother with a vast conspiracy involving multiple people at the CHRB and the University of California? Get real; no one cares. If someone is breaking the rules they will trip up sooner or later. We don’t need to go looking.”

Dr. Scott Stanley heads the Ken Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of California-Davis, the official lab for the CHRB. Stanley made a couple of additional points about California’s testing protocol.

“First, California also maintains a small portion of the original sample which can be used for retrospective testing,” said Stanley. “The retrospective samples are maintained for two years; while the lab still does not have the information on the horse or the trainer the CHRB can use these samples to identify new drugs or patterns for previously undetected drugs. Second, the testing scheme at UC Davis includes an extensive drug panel equal to or greater than most laboratory’s TOBA testing panel. All samples, from claiming races to graded stakes, receive the same test so there isn’t any one individual trainer or horse singled out or held to a different standard.”

Arthur said out-of-competition testing is somewhat different than post-race tests. “We will alter protocol depending on the circumstances, but again, all samples are treated the same. For example, we had intelligence of an andrenergic drug being used in Quarter horses. Besides testing for EPO in our out-of-competition samples we did additional testing for the rumored drug and other anabolic drugs. Usually we just concentrate on blood doping agents in our out-of-competition testing; the additional tests were a modification of protocol. FYI…the additional drugs we tested in the out-of-competition testing are covered in our standard race testing protocol.”

So, according to those most closely involved in California’s drug-testing procedures, there really isn’t the opportunity to discriminate. Not that the facts are ever going to change anyone’s mind.

By the way, I heard that the Smothers brothers’ mother didn’t play favorites, either.