Posts Tagged ‘drug testing’
Wednesday, October 14th, 2009
The Paulick Report heard from several officials involved in the regulation of horse racing and drug testing following Monday’s publication of a commentary by attorney Alan Pincus regarding the state of Pennsylvania’s zero-tolerance medication policy. Pincus asserted that ultra-sensitive testing is picking up trace elements of prohibited substances that are so small they are caused by environmental contamination or have no influence on the racing performance of a horse.
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
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By Rick Abbott
I recently retired from the Pennsylvania State Horse Racing Commission (PAHRC) after 13 years as a commissioner and several as chairman. Throughout that time I had many occasions to interact with attorney Alan Pincus, as he is the unofficial house attorney for both the Pennsylvania Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association and the Pennsylvania HBPA when it comes to the defense of drug positives. During my term I cannot recall attorney Pincus winning one case on appeal from a ruling by the Stewards nor, I believe, did he win one of his appeals to Commonwealth Court or the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. He did, however, collect considerable fees in the process.
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.
I read the comments by Commissioner Abbott and I think they are illustrative of the problems with supersensitive testing. I’m sure he is a fine man and is loved by his family. However, he is intellectually dishonest in these matters. When it comes to the testing of various drugs including aminorex and lobeline there are only two possible answers. Either a huge number of trainers (30+ aminorex, 50+ lobeline) are purposely or negligently giving the substance to their horses or because of testing to such minute levels some type of innocent environmental contamination is showing up in the samples and the trainers are actually innocent. Commissioner Abbott will not state which one of these choices is the true answer. I challenge Mr. Abbott to state whether these trainers are guilty or innocent.
Let’s look at aminorex for a moment. The trainers all had a confirmed amount of a class 1 drug in their horses. This would call for a suspension from 3 months to a year. The only thing that stopped those suspensions from happening was the sheer volume of positives. Even Mr. Abbott had to admit that punishing these people would be wrong but he will not admit that the problem was caused by his lab and not the trainers. His lack of sensitivity is shown by his statement that the trainers were made whole. Yes, they were not suspended and their owners eventually got their purse money back but they were forced to endure a year with class 1 positives hanging over their heads and the anxiety that comes with it. I assure you, Mr. Abbott, that horsemen are human beings with human feelings.
Abbott states, "Interestingly, aminorex, while still tested, has disappeared from racing." His implication is the trainers have stopped giving it to their horses. The real reason is the lab stopped calling positives for aminorex at such low levels. You will see lobeline positives disappear from racing when they stop calling positives at current low levels also. It will all be done in secret and no admissions will ever be made by the Commission. So, Mr. Abbott, you again have the opportunity to state whether the aminorex trainers were guilty or innocent. Let’s hear your answer.
Tags: alan pincus, aminorex, Charlton Bloodstock, clenbuterol, Dixie Abbott, drug testing, equine drug testing, lawrence soma, lobeline, Paulick Report, Pennsylvania Equine Testing and Research Laboratory, pennsylvania horse racing commission, PETRL, Ray Paulick, Richard Abbott, Rick Abbott Posted in Medication, Pennsylvania, drug testing | 25 Comments »
Sunday, October 11th, 2009
Three weeks ago, the Paulick Report broke the news of a drug-testing mystery in Pennsylvania involving dozens of positive tests in Thoroughbreds and Standardbreds for a Class 2 prohibited substance called lobeline, used in nicotine patches to help people quit smoking but which traces from the lobelia inflata plant that is indigenous to the northeastern United States. The hearings for trainers who received many of these positive tests—most of which uncovered extremely minute levels of the drug–have been postponed by stewards while Dr. Lawrence Soma researches how lobeline may have found its way into the system of so many horses across the state.
Since then, the Paulick Report has heard of a cluster of positive tests in Pennsylvania for another human drug, the prohibited Class 3 medication bitolterol, which is used in asthma inhalers. These tests also have allegedly been called on quantities in the picogram (one trillionth of a gram) level.
Alan Pincus, an attorney in Pennsylvania, is familiar with Pennsylvania’s equine drug testing laboratory, having represented a dozen trainers who were implicated in a case involving aminorex, a prohibited Class 1 drug. The aminorex charges were eventually dropped by the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission. Pincus has also been contacted by several of the trainers involved in the current lobeline positives.
Pincus wrote the following commentary concerning zero-tolerance regulations, which were written years ago when drug tests were not nearly as sensitive as they are today. — Ray Paulick
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
By Alan Pincus
Over the years many people have been injured by the testing procedures of the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission. The problem stems from the way the regulations were written 20 to 30 years ago. In Pennsylvania, the regulations state that no foreign substance shall appear in a post-race test. This is what they call zero tolerance and is true for all but a few drugs (phenylbutazone, etc.), which do have tolerance levels.
At the time the regulations were written the testing was at the nanogram (one partical per billion) level. Any horse found to have an illegal substance most likely had a performance affecting level in its system. Also, the chances were high that the trainer was responsible. Now, they have testing to the picogram level (one partical per trillion). There are 1,000 picograms in a nanogram, so you can conclude that testing today is 1,000 times more sensitive than when the regulations were written.
Over the years as testing became more sensitive, anomalies started to occur as trace levels of drugs were found in horses even though trainers were withdrawing the horses from the drugs per the recommended guidelines. Many people were punished for procaine, isoxsuprine or clenbuterol for no other reason than the fact the withdrawal guidelines did not anticipate testing at such low levels. Also, testing at such low levels started to find positives which were the result of environmental contamination. Almost all cocaine positives are the result of environmental contamination. Many innocent trainers have been punished.
It reached its peak with aminorex, where scores of trainers were subjected to great stress and positive tests of a Class 1 drug. In Canada, the initial penalties for aminorex were three-year suspensions. In Ohio, they were one year.
This scenario is playing out again with lobeline (see the Paulick Report article on the lobeline positives in Pennsylania by clicking here).It is the Pennsylvania Horse Racing Commission’s failure to admit the trainers are innocent that allows the problem to continue to the next drug.
The testing lab must justify itself. They get newer equipment that tests at lower levels and they find positive tests, which they believe are catching cheaters. They congratulate themselves and leave the trainers to suffer. Only if a large amount of trainers have positives for the same drug do the trainers have any chance at all. Think of what would happen if there were only two or three lobeline positives (there are at least 30). The trainers would already be doing their days.
Making things worse is the fact the trainers of the second- and third-place horses want the winners disqualified and thus the horsemen are not united. In the aminorex cases, the eventual dismissals were only made after Dr. Lawrence Soma agreed that the levels were not performance enhancing. I believe that calling a positive for 7 picograms of any substance is irresponsible as it is inconceivable that it could affect performance. In the modern era of testing, there should be a level for every drug and it should be at the level that affects performance.
If you look at the Class 1 drug positives in Pennsylvania over the last 10 years (notably aminorex and cocaine), you’ll find that over 90% were the result of environmental contamination and the trainers were totally innocent. The commission, which always presumes the trainers were negligent or cheaters, has no concern about the grief trainers go through when they receive a positive test. This is true even when the trainers are eventually cleared.
One thing you can count on no matter how the lobeline issue is resolved is the fact that the Commission will never say they were wrong.
Tags: alan pincus, aminorex, bitolertol, drug testing, drugs in horse racing, equine drug testing, Horse Racing, lobelia inflata, lobeline, nicotine patches, Paulick Report, pennsylvania horse racing commission, Ray Paulick Posted in Medication, Pennsylvania, drug testing | 37 Comments »
Tuesday, July 28th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
There seems to be a belief among more than a few people in horse racing, including some trainers, that a state racing commission’s drug testing protocol goes something like this: Stewards call the testing lab and say, “The guy that won this race is a known cheater, and we don’t like him. Make sure you test his horse’s urine for everything under the sun.”
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.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Savvy businesses recognize value. Advertise in the Paulick Report.
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: bruce headley, California Horse Racing Board, CHRB, cobra venom, drug testing, ingrid fermin, ken maddy equine analytical chemistry laboratory, ken maddy lab, out of competition testing, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, rick arthur, scott stanley, smothers brothers, snail venom Posted in California, California Horse Racing Board, Medication, Regulatory Issues, drug testing | 11 Comments »
Wednesday, February 18th, 2009
By Ray Paulick
Whenever I think about horse racing’s crazy-quilt regulatory system that has ruling bodies in 38 different states, I recall the time an official at some racetrack asked Hall of Famer Bill Mott to show his trainer’s license before entering a restricted area. Mott reached into his Wrangler’s and pulled out what appeared to be a full deck of laminated playing cards, held together by a rubber band wrapped around the outside.
“It’s in here somewhere,” Mott said, fumbling through individual licenses for Florida, New York, Kentucky, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Texas, Illinois, Delaware, Virginia, Louisiana, and maybe even his home state of South Dakota, among others.
Uniform licensing is a concept the industry has been working on for, oh, 50 years or so. They still haven’t got it figured out. In this regard, owners, trainers and other licensees are subjected to some of the most ridiculous regulatory inefficiencies any industry has ever seen. Why?
I thought about this absurdity as I read the racing industry’s latest “white paper,” this one authored by a well-intentioned group of equine veterinarians at the American Association of Equine Practitioners that suggests we all follow their recommendations, pull together, and work in concert for the overall good of the industry.
The average meaningful life of a Thoroughbred industry white paper is about 10 to 14 days – or at least it used to be. That’s about how long it took for the weekly trade magazines to dutifully detail the highlights, and then mail the magazine to their subscribers. The typical reader reaction was a collective yawn. They know how the industry works … or doesn’t. The lifespan of an industry white paper might be shorter today, given the access to the information on various Web sites.
For those who haven’t seen the AAEP treatise, it’s called “Putting the Horse First: Veterinary Recommendations for the Safety and Welfare of the Thoroughbred Racehorse.” Click here to read the entire nine-page report.
For those who want the abbreviated version, here it is: 1) the AAEP believes it is “imperative that the industry urgently demonstrate an ability to affect sweeping change without government intervention”; 2) we need to hold hands and sit around a campfire singing songs until we can reach agreement on issues related to the welfare of the horse 3) horses should not be permitted to race without at least 10 days between starts; 4) some racing secretaries are evil and racetrack management is increasingly clueless about horses; 5) more study is needed in the areas of racing, training and selling 2-year-olds; 6) adopt new whip rules; 7) keep holding hands and singing campfire songs; 8) it’s no longer acceptable for owners to heartlessly discard ex-racehorses, and it’s imperative that all jurisdictions establish and support rehabilitation, retraining and adoption agencies 9) claiming races need reform, with purses no more than 50% higher than the claiming price, drug testing of all claimed horses, and claims for horses that fail to finish a race being voided; 10) develop and adopt uniform rules, penalties, drug testing protocols, violation reporting procedures (stop me if you’ve heard this one before); and 11) keep singing and holding hands, and will someone please throw some more logs on the fire?
This industry is amazing, if for no other reason than for its ability to clear its throat and harrumph when the situation is dire. Since Eight Belles died on the track at Churchill Downs and we celebrated the highs and lows of Big Brown, an anabolic steroid-pumped Kentucky Derby winner (surely not the only one), we have had more task forces, committees, blue-ribbon panels, and alliances than we’ve mustered up before in this short a time. We’ve had the Jockey Club, the National Thoroughbred Racing Association, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, and now the American Association of Equine Practitioners sounding off (and I know I’m forgetting some of the other alphabet soup orgs).
And still, Bill Mott has a pocketful of racing licenses. If we can’t do the simple things, what makes the AAEP or any other group think we are going to convince 38 state racing commissions that a $12,500 purse is too high for $8,000 claimers, or that a horse needs 10 days off before racing again?
Let’s look at the first premise of the AAEP’s white paper, that we need to “urgently demonstrate an ability” to make change without government intervention. Haven’t we had enough chances to demonstrate our ability to do so? (I enter Bill Mott’s expired trainer’s licenses into evidence.)
Why and how has the AAEP, a group of veterinarians, taken it upon themselves to state that we must do this without government assistance? I suppose if they were involved in the cattle or poultry or peanut business, they’d suggest we would be better off producing meat and other foodstuffs without interference from the United States Department of Agriculture.
The point is, we need government to help us overcome the dysfunctional regulatory structure that has led us to this mess we are in. We just need to be able to be part of the process, and not be in the adversarial role many in this industry are setting us up to be in. If we repeat the mantra that “government is enemy, government is enemy,” how do you think government is going to respond?
So with all due respect to the AAEP and its veterinarians, please stick to what you know best. In fact, this white paper completely ignores what vets know best, which is the care of horses. Nowhere in the white paper are there recommendations on such procedures as pin firing of shins of young horses, or permitting horses to race just days after receiving joint injections. To be fair, AAEP executive director David Foley said further recommendations will be forthcoming, but should those recommendations have come first, so that their own house is in order?
Tell us what you think about the chances the AAEP’s white paper recommendations will ever be implemented. Read the full report. Take our poll on the left-hand column of the Paulick Report home page, and leave your comments in the space provided below.
Copyright © 2009, The Paulick Report
Sign up for our Email flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Tags: aaep, AAEP white paper, american association of equine practitioners, anabolic steroids, Big Brown, bill mott, claiming races, david foley, drug testing, drugs in horse racing, eight belles, Horse Racing, Jockey Club, National Thoroughbred Racing Association, NTRA, Paulick Report, putting the horse first: veterinary recommendations for the safety and welfare of the thoroughbred racehorse, racing regulations, racing secretaries, Ray Paulick, Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, TOBA, uniform licensing, uniform rules Posted in Horse Health, Horse Welfare, Industry Organizations, Industry Reform, Medication, Regulatory Issues | 54 Comments »
Tuesday, September 30th, 2008
By Ray Paulick
The horse business is Kentucky’s signature industry, employing tens of thousands of people, generating over a billion dollars of revenue throughout the year, and putting the international spotlight on the Commonwealth each spring at the Kentucky Derby. Yet, in many ways, legislators and other government officials have been dealing with the industry almost as an afterthought.
Tax breaks given to lesser industries have not been granted to farmers whose agricultural product happens to be a horse instead of a cow. Kentucky’s legislature was late to the party to create an incentive fund to reward breeders for doing business in the Bluegrass State rather than shipping their breeding stock (and jobs) out of state where more lucrative incentives have been created. And now, one of the most troublesome challenges the racing industry faces – questions about the integrity of the sport and its pari-mutuel wagering foundation – has been hampered by ongoing budgetary shortfalls at the state agency that regulates racing.
Simply put, the integrity of racing in Kentucky is being jeopardized by indifference by some at the legislative and executive level to properly fund the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission.
The problem goes back nearly eight years ago to the administration of Gov. Paul Patton, who cut $1 million dollars – nearly one-third – out of what was then known as the Kentucky Horse Racing Authority. Frank Shoop, then the chairman of the regulatory body, told the Paulick Report he thought the cuts were temporary and would be restored; they weren’t. Instead, the Racing Authority began assessing racetracks as much as $3,500 a day to pay for many of the functions that would previously have been funded by the state. “It’s so important to the signature industry of the state,” Shoop said. “They should have proper money to regulate the industry: transportation, insurance and other departments have proper regulatory budgets. This department has been short of money and short of money for years.
“I don’t know what the proper funding action should be,” Shoop added, “but something needs to be done that the legislature and governor can agree on.”
If something isn’t done, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission will run out of money by Jan. 1, according to Tracy Farmer, a Thoroughbred owner and breeder and high-level operative in the Democratic Party that helped elect Gov. Steve Beshear last November. Farmer was named by Beshear to the current horse racing commission, where he serves as vice chairman, and is heading up a special Task Force on the Future of Horse Racing examining numerous issues related to racing and breeding.
Farmer told the Paulick Report that Kentucky’s General Assembly had $2 million set aside for the racing commission for the current fiscal year but they subsequently “raided our accounts to balance the (state) budget.” Farmer said he and others are looking at ways to fund the commission through such revenue items as the tax on claiming horses, which he estimated generates $2 million per year. “Money is being generated that’s not being put back into the industry,” Farmer said. “We’re looking at several different methodologies and will recommend one of them. This is the largest industry in the state. We have to fund the people who oversee it.”
State Sen. Damon Thayer, a Republican from Georgetown and a consultant in the racing industry who helped create the breeders’ incentive fund through existing revenue drawn from the tax on stallion seasons, pushed for legislation that would have Kentucky’s General Fund provide for the commission’s budget. That legislation failed, Thayer said, despite bi-partisan efforts to get it passed.
“The racetracks are struggling, the commission is without money, and the state is in a budget crisis,” Thayer said. “We need more money for the commission to have boots on the ground to do their job. And we were saying this before Eight Belles and Big Brown.”
The death of Eight Belles in this year’s Kentucky Derby and the admission by trainer Rick Dutrow that Derby winner Big Brown raced on anabolic steroids (then legal) has prompted an outcry for tighter regulations, stricter medication rules, and more comprehensive drug testing. Anabolic steroids have recently been banned in Kentucky and several other states, and that ban requires additional testing be added to the existing drug testing program.
Thayer plans to introduce new legislation during the next session of the General Assembly.
“What needs to happen is Gov. Beshear needs to get behind legislation drafted by Sen. Ed Worley (D-Richmond) and me that would set up a reliable, recurring source of revenue for the racing commission so the tracks do not pay for drug testing and their own regulation. The racing commission needs to be funded by the pari-mutuel excise tax so we can expand drug testing to a respectable level.”
According to Thayer, the pari-mutuel tax currently helps fund the Kentucky Thoroughbred Development Fund, equine drug research and the University of Louisville’s equine business program.
The lack of funding came to a head at a recent meeting of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission when it was disclosed testing was not conducted for performance-enhancing milkshakes (TCO2 levels or bicarbonate loading) at Ellis Park this summer because of a personnel shortage. Since that disclosure, the commission’s chief veterinarian resigned his position.
“We were shocked to learn that no testing was conducted,” said Farmer.
It may have taken weeks for commission members to learn that there was no testing for milkshakes, but trainers probably knew instantly, permitting cheaters to prosper. The absence of testing shook the confidence of many horseplayers about whether the state is doing enough to stop performance-enhancing drugs from giving an edge to some trainers.
The racing commission’s executive director, Lisa Underwood, who was hired during the previous administration of Republican Gov. Ernie Fletcher, has plans to expand the size of the staff if funding is provided. She has submitted a plan to add investigators, state veterinarians and other full and part-time staff to better regulate racing and ensure its integrity.
Ed Martin, president of the Association of Racing Commissioners International, told the Task Force on the Future of Horse Racing when he became aware of how little was committed to Kentucky’s commission that he was “shocked at how low a priority the integrity of racing apparently was, especially considering how important the racing industry is to the state’s economy and identity.”
Martin compiled a study of how much is committed to integrity issues in other major racing states and found that Kentucky, “instead of being first, is last.”
His study showed Kentucky commits $7,692 per race day, less than half of the $17,948 committed by Florida for integrity enforcement. Martin said the Kentucky commission is sorely lacking investigators to monitor backstretch activities. Kentucky has two investigators, he said, compared with 14 in New York, 15 in Pennsylvania, 17 in Florida, and 18 in California.
“ Perhaps the most glaring weakness in the funding can be seen in the fact that no resources have been dedicated to policing the pari-mutuel system,” Martin said.“Kentucky in the past has dedicated nothing in this area while other major racing states have made a considerable commitment in this area, not only in terms of staff, but to ensure that an independent computerized monitoring system is deployed to protect against past posting, odds manipulations, cyber crime, and larceny. In public forum after public forum, large bettors have expressed a growing concern about the lack of commitment to wagering security.
“ While some states have committed as many as six people to wagering security and made arrangements for independent monitoring, Kentucky has yet to commit one.”
Many bettors are convinced the technology used in today’s pari-mutuel wagering system is archaic and able to be exploited by techno-savvy players who are making bets after the gates to a race have been opened. One member of the Kentucky Racing Commission who asked not to be named agreed: “There is no question people are betting after the horses are out of the gate,” he said. “They are somehow getting into the pool. It’s frightening.”
Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Visit the Paulick Report for all the latest news throughout the racing world.
Tags: association of racing commissioners international, bicarbonate loading, Big Brown, bluegrass state, churchill downs, damon thayer, drug testing, ed martin, ed worley, eight belles, ellis park, ernie fletcher, frank shoop, Horse Racing, Keeneland, kentucky horse racing, kentucky horse racing authority, kentucky horse racing commission, kentucky thoroughbred development fund, lisa underwood, pari-mutuel wagering, paul patton, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, RCI, steve beshear, task force on the future of horse racing, tco2, thoroughbred racing, tracy farmer, turfway park, university of louisville equiine business program, wagering integrity Posted in Horse Racing, Industry Organizations, Kentucky, Medication, Regulatory Issues, Tote System, Wagering | 2 Comments »
Wednesday, August 20th, 2008
By Ray Paulick
What’s different this time, different enough to herd the cats that refuse to be herded?
Speakers at the Jockey Club Round Table on Matters Pertaining to Racing have been calling, encouraging and hoping for change for most of the 50-plus years that this annual gathering has been going on. Whether it’s uniform licensing, uniform medication rules and penalties, uniform marketing, a uniform spirit of cooperation or a uniform approach to fixing an archaic tote system, the disparate groups in this industry refuse to put on the same uniform.
So there was the death in this year’s Kentucky Derby of the filly Eight Belles. There was also the admission by trainer Rick Dutrow that he routinely gave anabolic steroids (legally, it should be added) to his horses, including Kentucky Derby winner Big Brown. (Hell, it wasn’t that long ago that Kentucky allowed bicarbonate loading, or milkshakes, to be given to horses.) In recent years there have been highly publicized suspensions or positive tests for medication violations of the conditioner who has won the last four Eclipse Awards as outstanding trainer; the trainer of the reigning Horse of the Year; the trainer of the Kentucky Derby winner; and the trainer of the Kentucky Oaks winner. There is scientific data showing that toe grabs can increase the incidence of catastrophic injuries, yet most states still allow these racing plates to be used.
Racing has had high profile fatalities before, anabolic steroids like Winstrol have been called a therapeutic medication and advertised for years in the trade magazines, and successful trainers have been charged with medication violations. Those incidents were never enough to move the needle; why should it be any different this time?
Maybe, just maybe, it’s the threat of federal intervention. People like Congressman Ed Whitfield of Kentucky are telling the industry “fix your problems or we’ll fix them for you.” That’s a scary thought to many. Perhaps, however, that’s the only way significant change will occur.
Many (but not all) within the industry sense the serious nature of the threat and understand that change is no longer an option if we want to turn the tide of negative publicity, declining popularity and serious economic challenges. Unfortunately, the group responsible for making many of the desired changes in policies related to medication, drug testing and other regulatory matters have the least invested in the industry. These are the state regulators, the “gnomes” as former Churchill Downs CEO Tom Meeker once referred to them. In many cases they are political appointees with little or no knowledge of the racing industry and who fail to see how their myopic maneuverings negatively impact the industry’s big picture.
Let’s look at the establishment of drug testing laboratory standards and the possible creation of a national laboratory (or regional labs), one of the centerpieces of the Jockey Club Safety Committee recommendations announced at Sunday’s Round Table. Which racing commission is going to be the first to jettison it own state college or university lab? California, New York, Florida? Which commissions will redirect funding from labs within their state to out-of-state facilities?
The makeup of the safety committee was strategically formulated by the Jockey Club. Its members include Don Dizney from Florida, John Barr from California, Kentuckians Jimmy Bell, Hiram Polk and Dell Hancock, and chairman Stuart Janney from Maryland. But will those individuals be able to convince regulators in their home states and others around them to support the committee’s various recommendations?
Industry conferences, whether it’s the Jockey Club Round Table, University of Arizona Symposium on Racing, or Thoroughbred Racing Association/Harness Tracks of America Simulcast Conference tend to produced short-lived enthusiasm. Does anyone remember the report Rudy Giuliani delivered on wagering integrity, less than one year after the Breeders’ Cup Pick Six Scandal, at the 2003 Jockey Club Round Table? Several inches of dust have gathered on that report and on Giuliani’s very specific recommendations for fixing a tote system that is hideously outdated.
The industry would not work together to address that problem, and five years later there are racetrack operators who are unconvinced that their pools are not being manipulated by past-post betting. Tote problems represent a giant accident waiting to happen.
I hope I’m wrong. It would be nice to see every state racing commission adopt uniform medication rules, including the abolition of anabolic steroids, and ban toe grabs and other racing plates that lead to catastrophic injuries. It would be productive for the various laboratories to work together instead of competing with each other. If the industry developed a national laboratory and had the funding for serious research and development, it’s possible we could eradicate some of the designer drugs that are currently undetectable that many in the game feel are prevalent.
The industry has faced crises before, and it’s failed to act on its own accord. What makes this crisis any different?
Copyright © 2008, The Paulick Report
Support the Paulick Report. Make a donation today.
Sign up for our Email Flashes to get the latest news, analysis and commentary from Ray Paulick
Tags: anabolic steroids, Big Brown, dell hancock, Dinny Phipps, don dizney, drug testing, ed whitfield, eight belles, hiram polk, Horse Racing, jimmy bell, Jockey Club, jockey club round table, john barr, kentucky derby, Ogden Mills Phipps, Paulick Report, Ray Paulick, rick dutrow, rudy giuliani, Simulcasting, stuart janney, symposium on racing, tom meeker, totalizator, wagering integrity, Winstrol Posted in Industry Organizations, Jockey Club, Medication, Regulatory Issues | 3 Comments »
Monday, August 18th, 2008
Alan Foreman, CEO of the Thoroughbred Horesemen’s Association, laid it on the line in discussing the industry’s real and perceived problems regarding medication and drug testing at Sunday’s Jockey Club Round Table in Saratoga Springs, N.Y. Foreman identifies the problems facing the Thoroughbred industry relative to medication and testing and also provides a roadmap for how to address those issues.
Foreman’s talk was one of many presentations on a day that focused on medication and safety issues of the racehorse in the wake of the death of Eight Belles in this year’s Kentucky Derby and a subsequent Congressional hearing where the threat of federal intervention was raised. I’ll have my own commentary on these issues in the days to come.
Following are the remarks of Alan Foreman, in their entirety. — Ray Paulick
Last year’s Conference focused, in part, on the scandals plaguing other major sports arising from the use of performance enhancing drugs. I was unhappy and a bit perplexed because I thought we had a positive story to tell and that we could distance our sport from the others. I took particular exception, on behalf of the thousands of horsemen who dedicate themselves to the welfare of the horse and the integrity of our sport, to the suggestion that horse racing is consumed by a raging wildfire of illegal drugging.
Unlike the other sports, we do not allow our athletes to medicate themselves for headaches, backaches, joint pains, broken bones and cuts on the day of and during competition to allow them to compete. Our athletes aren’t sent to the sidelines or the locker room for treatment in order to return to competition.
Except for the controlled use of Lasix, we are a sport that does not allow our athletes to compete with drugs in their bodies. We have a supposedly world-class detection system designed to deter anyone who would corrupt our competitions with performance enhancing drugs.
We spend $30 million annually to support drug testing, more than any other sport. We have dedicated scientists who test thousands of urine and blood samples collected from horses each day and who study the pharmacologic effects of drugs on horses, all in an effort to insure that our sport is clean.
Nonetheless, there was a larger message conveyed here last year. Polling of racing’s core fans, done in the midst of the scandals plaguing other sports, showed that one-third of them believed that racing also had serious integrity problems and that illegal, performance enhancing drugs was the number one problem.
We were warned that the lack of consumer confidence in the integrity of our product could cause irreparable damage. I dismissed this perception as a reflection of the time.
Not long after last year’s Conference, we moved in a highly publicized and somewhat controversial way, to restrict or prohibit the use of steroids. It was the right thing to do, but it exposed many of our problems. And then there was the EIGHT BELLES tragedy. The ensuing furor unleashed every negative perception and stereotype about our sport. The reaction was visceral. In its wake, recent polling done of casual fans of racing, our core fans and those within our industry has revealed an alarming increase in the negative perceptions reported last year. Of those, the perception of illegal drugging is by far and uniformly their single biggest concern.
Yes, we are a sport that has and always will be confronted by those few who disregard the well-being and integrity of our sport for short term gain. However, in the court of public opinion, which in today’s world is the only thing that truly matters, the perception is that our sport is not clean. In today’s world, perception is reality no matter how unfair or inaccurate that perception may be.
I wasn’t born yesterday. The negative perceptions of our sport have always been there. But not in the significant numbers that we are now seeing, regardless of how we defend ourselves. The simple fact is, we are living in a different world than we have known. Communication is instantaneous and opinions are formed instantly. Standards and expectations are higher and the margin for error is lower. There are few gray areas anymore. Judgment is no longer reserved. Perceptions are difficult to change. If our brand, our great sport, is to survive this rough patch and restore itself to its previous glory, then we have to substantively address the issues that concern our consumers and our fellow participants. It is expected of us. And, we have to do it now, because we do not have the luxury of time. Anyone who doesn’t believe we are in trouble is in denial. We cannot talk our way out of our problems and we cannot take steps that are perceived as mere window dressing.
Can we reverse the negative perceptions of our sport, particularly as it relates to the perception of rampant and illegal drug use? Can we truly say that our sport is clean? I think we can and I am going to suggest to you how we can do it. But we had better move quickly.
The first step is to acknowledge the problem. We spend approximately $30 million annually on drug testing, but that funding is spread among 18 different laboratories servicing 38 racing jurisdictions. The dollars are not spread evenly.
There is a wide variation among our laboratories in the number and types of tests performed on test samples. Even our best don’t have the resources to do the testing that should be done.
In 1989, when the industry was far healthier, we spent $27.6 million on drug testing. So we’re basically spending the same amount on drug testing as we did 20 years ago, while much has changed.
This is not new information. Scott Waterman told you this last year. The difference this year, and for the foreseeable future, is that our federal and state governments are in economic free-fall.
Our laboratories operate by virtue of written contracts with state governments, state or land-grant universities or through private companies who bid for our work through a procurement process that rewards the lowest bidder. Budget cuts in the face of enormous deficits mean inevitable cuts for drug testing of race horses.
What politician would rather allocate money to drug testing of race horses rather than fund health care, education or other taxpayer needs? What laboratory doing drug testing for horse racing right now isn’t facing significant budget cuts?
This, in the face of an industry- imposed steroid policy that requires our laboratories to do a whole new level of mandatory testing without the funds or equipment to do it. Simply put, our system worked decades ago. It won’t work now if we are intent on restoring consumer confidence without major changes.
We have too many laboratories feeding off the same revenue stream. They are understaffed and lack the necessary equipment that will allow us to do what we need to do.
We have little, if any, research and development underway, nor are we preparing for the “future” generation of drugs, which may, in fact, already be upon us. For years, we have been consumed with concerns about tranquilizers and therapeutic medications that have been around for decades.
While we should certainly be chasing all drugs that have the potential to affect performance, there are a new generation of doping agents entering the world of sports unlike anything we have seen before—genetic manipulators—and we are unprepared. We have neither the resources nor the mechanism to address this emerging threat.
This leads me to something that no one has talked about, but which poses a major problem for the future of our sport. The names Maylin, Soma, Tobin, Sams, Stanley, Lomangino, Strug, Hyde, Lorimar, Uboh to name a few, are synonymous with equine drug testing and pharmacology in this industry. They have been our Army, Navy, Air Force and Marine Corps.
They have been our scientists leading the integrity battle. They are the unsung heroes of our sport. They would be the first to tell you that they could do better with more money, better equipment and more staff.
However, there is going to come a time when they are no longer available to us. There is no bench. There is no farm system. There is no talent pool waiting in the wings to do our critical work. We are unable to compete with private industry nor do others want to work within the constraints of government or university bureaucracy.
Basically, we are not training the next generation of scientists to do drug testing and be our experts in blood doping, gene manipulation and other emerging threats.
Well, I think you get the picture. Can we truly make the case that our sport is clean, which, by the way, I think it is, or succumb to the perception that we are not, when we can’t forcefully answer the question because our system is flawed?
Does anyone in this room dispute the belief that solving these problems is critical to the future of our sport? If we are going to change the perception of our sport and if we are going to restore consumer confidence in our brand, then we need to take substantive steps and I suggest the following:
1. We need to establish a reference, research and testing laboratory controlled by the racing industry. We can no longer afford to be at the mercy of states and private entities for our testing and research needs. We’ve known of this need. McKinsey told us 20 years ago. The THA called for it 8 years ago. The RMTC has recognized its need. Yet, we’ve done nothing. We must explore the possibility of a public/private partnership or look at the feasibility of joining with our colleagues in the performance horse industry who share our problems, concerns and ideals. Whatever the case, we need to move on this and do it now, with specific and demonstrable timelines for implementation.
2. We need to establish strict industry laboratory standards for drug testing in this country and implement them in the quickest and most practical means possible. These standards must address current technology, equipment, staffing, proficiency, number of tests, types of tests, minimum concentration levels and compliance. They should be established by our scientists who know of our needs–not horsemen, breeders, track operators, regulators or the federal government. Our scientists must be directed to create the standards for the best and most effective comprehensive state-of-the-art drug testing system for racing and we need to listen to them by implementing their recommendations. I ask the Jockey Club to support this effort and for the RMTC to begin this process immediately, with specific and demonstrable timelines for implementation.
3. We need to consolidate our drug testing laboratory system and significantly reduce the number of laboratories conducting testing for the racing industry. A regional system makes the most sense. We must pool and reallocate the financial resources we now have within a new streamlined, stronger and more efficient system. We can accomplish this in the first instance by requiring any laboratory that intends to conduct drug testing for racing to meet the strict standards that are established for the industry. Those laboratories that cannot meet the standards should look for work elsewhere. I call on the Graded Stakes Committee to condition the grading and running of any graded race, and the Breeders’ Cup to condition the funding and running of any Breeders’ Cup related race, on drug testing being conducted for those races only by a laboratory that has met the new industry standards. Churchill Downs, Magna and NYRA need to do the same for the Triple Crown races. Eventually, this must cover all of our races at all of our tracks. When appropriate, we will need to publicly identify those racetracks that do not have their testing performed by a laboratory that meets the new industry standards and demand their compliance. We need to require that all positive tests for which confirmation is requested be performed by one of the industry recognized laboratories. We will need the help of our regulators to make this recommendation a reality and we will look to the ARCI for its help.
4. We need to invest in research and development now, before it is too late. This presents a perfect opportunity for a new racing research and reference center. We need to begin research into gene doping, gene manipulation and other emerging integrity threats. If laboratory mice can be injected with targeted genes with reported astonishing results, how long will it be before someone attempts to manipulate a race horse? If necessary, we need to contract this work to researchers and universities already studying this emerging problem. We need to look to partner our efforts with other major sports leagues who have begun to devote significant research dollars to doping concerns.
5. We need to start developing a new generation of scientists — toxicologists and pharmacologists — who will lead our integrity efforts. On this issue in particular, we do not have the luxury of time. Given the importance of this issue to our overall integrity efforts, I am pleased that the THA will continue to lead by example. Eight years ago, the THA called for the creation of a national drug testing and research consortium that ultimately became the RMTC. We committed permanent funding for it when others were on the fence. Recently, the New York THA, working in partnership with the State of New York, allocated $500,000 from its revenues that would otherwise be dedicated to backstretch programs and equine research, to purchase the state-of-the art equipment necessary for the New York Equine Drug Testing Laboratory to conduct steroid testing and testing for the new generation of drugs. Today, the THA is pleased to announce that it will commit additional funds , and we ask every racetrack and industry organization to match our commitment, to recruit and support post graduate students interested in a career in equine drug testing and research. We will ask our experts and those conducting cutting- edge research to allow us to place interested students to work and learn beside them, and we will pay for it. What better way to invest in the future.
6. The THA is going to ask the RMTC to revisit and recommend uniform withdrawal time guidelines based on existing and historic research. We can no longer get by with just publishing each State’s recommendations, which vary. We must eliminate positive tests. They give us a black eye, no matter that they demonstrate our deterrence system at work. Notwithstanding that most of our positive tests are the result of sloppy or errant administrations of therapeutic medications, to the public, a drug is a drug and there is no difference. All horsemen and veterinarians need to do their part by strictly adhering to these guidelines when published.
7. Finally, we need this industry to recognize the importance of, and the significant work performed by, the RMTC. It is the best organization we have ever had in racing on medication issues and policy. It has forged unprecedented and necessary collaboration among our scientific community. It is truly a national voice on medication. And, it is the best response to the threat of federal intervention.
It is always an honor to be invited to speak at this forum. However, I didn’t come here today to give a nice speech that my children and grandchildren can access in the archives of the Jockey Club’s website. I am here because I want to make a difference and encourage change. I thank the Jockey Club Safety Committee for giving me the opportunity over the past few weeks to express my views on this subject. I am encouraged by their strong interest. I am also encouraged by the positive response from horsemen across the country with whom I have shared these recommendations.
Everyone in this room is the steward of a national treasure, a great sport, a great tradition. What began as a sport more than a century ago is now a diverse and dynamic industry that is a part of the history, economy and social fabric of this country.
But, we’re in the 21st century and the world is a vastly different place. We are clearly struggling to adapt. We have an obligation to preserve and protect this institution for our next generation. We are well known for arguing and disagreeing about everything. If we don’t address this drug testing issue now and let it become a catalyst for what can be a change in the perception of our sport, then we may not have anything left to argue about. I am willing to drop everything I am doing to make these recommendations a reality. I hope you feel the same sense of urgency. – Alan Foreman, CEO, Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Association
Tags: alan foreman, drug testing, Horse Racing, jockey club round table, Medication, Paulick Report, racing medication and testing consortium, rmtc, tha, thoroughbred horsemen's association Posted in Jockey Club, Medication | 4 Comments »
|
|