Legislation in Minnesota establishing therapeutic drug limits signed into law

by | 05.21.2012 | 1:20pm
  • click above & share!
    X
  • click above & share!
    X


  • click above & share!
    X
  • click above & share!
    X

The Minnesota Racing Commission (MRC), which regulates horse racing and card clubs at race tracks in the state, announces the passage and signing into law of MRC sponsored legislation facilitating the establishment of therapeutic drug threshold limits for race horses.

The sophistication of new drug testing technologies can now detect drugs to minuscule levels. Often these trace levels of drugs have no pharmacological impact or performance enhancing benefit to the race horse but are the residue from legitimate drug treatment. The MRC will complete within a month the rule making process to establish the new therapeutic drug threshold limits based on the latest science, testing technology and veterinarian expertise.

“This legislation is critically important to assure race horses are given proper medication therapy while preventing any potential abuse,” states Jesse Overton, Chair of the Minnesota Racing Commission. “The MRC uses highly regarded and accredited drug testing laboratories who have leading-edge technology that can, for the first time, detect trace levels of drugs. It is imperative that we reexamine the medication thresholds and establish new levels which prevent any performance enhancing benefits but still assure the horses get their needed treatments.”

Additionally, an amendment to the bill allows additional card playing tables at the state horse racing tracks and permits pari-mutuel betting at the tribal casinos. The additional tables will benefit the purses and encourage the breeding and racing of more quality horses.

New to the Paulick Report? Click here to sign up for our daily email newsletter to keep up on this and other stories happening in the Thoroughbred industry
  • ManuelB

    Another attempt to live with a drug-using culture. In human athletics there is no excuse: you test positive you lose. Legitimate uses of drugs should allow sufficient time for the horse to clear the drug from its system before it runs. There should not be a lower limit for the presence of drugs in a horse race.

  • joeS

    The question is what is sufficient time for even an aspirin to get you fined and suspended.

  • maggi moss

    minnesota only racing jurisdiction to get this right-    they are absolutely correct;   therapeutic drugs are not cheating and calling some of these “positives” at the miniscule levels they do is simply ludicrous.  They have absolutely no affect on horses, any more than a persons morning aspirin
    kudos to minnesota.

  • Frank L.

    Maggie —

    As someone who understands the
    business, I applaud your frankness! You will not be able to convince
    the media dependent public because their perception has already been
    shaped/influenced.

    As I have always said — Ignorance is
    easily shaped/led/influenced/directed, even if in the wrong
    direction. Perception is a faulty gauge of truth — shaping
    perception is the job of marketing, commercials, and the agenda
    driven, storytelling, media.

  • Tinky

    When “therapeutic” drugs are abused, it certainly is cheating.

    Furthermore, all trainers use such drugs in the U.S., yet only a smallish subset end up with long lists of positives. That is damning circumstantial evidence of either serial abuse, ignorant business practices, or both.

    How often have the likes of Clement and Motion been fined for trace level overages? Look it up.

    Finally, Ms. Moss, you are far from objective, given that you have both employed and worked for some of the worst offenders.

  • guest

    In human athletics they compete on all kinds of therapeutic medication- don’t kid yourself.  

  • Maggi

    Frank l. Well reasoned and brilliantly composed. Tinky(is that a name?). I prefer to learn, listen, and become educated by those that work in the industry with the horses day in and day out —– not those that sit in the stands and throw rotten fruit

  • Frank L.

    Maggi Moss —

    Please disregard Tinky’s blabbering
    — he reads more than spending time at an actual barn to gain some
    much needed “actual” barn experience. He thinks he knows, but,
    has proven that he “understands” little. His comment blasting
    you should prove, at least to you, his lack of understanding!! He
    seems to be a “fanatical” disillusioned owner.

    I wonder Tinky, how many traffic
    violations have you had in the last 10 years? Are YOU divorced?
    Have you ever had a DUI? These may seem like personal, unimportant
    questions, having nothing to do with what we are talking about, BUT,
    there are people that could answer 0, no, and no. Does that mean
    that they are a better person than YOU — absolutely not. One would
    have to know/examine the particulars surrounding each person being
    looked at. One thing that does jump out at me, in your comparisons,
    is the amount of starts between the 0 violation trainers and the
    others!! Starts do make a BIG, BIG, difference!

  • Tinky

    Do you also represent your clients with ad hominem attacks?

    The fact that you failed to address a single one of the substantive points that I made should tell readers all that they need to know.

  • Tinky

    If ad hominem attacks paid dividends, you could retire, Frank.

  • Frank L.

    Tinky —

    First, as usual,
    you didn’t answer my questions? Hiding behind the “ad
    homonym attacks card” is getting rather old. Why don’t “YOU”
    just address my questions? Second,
    what points do you “think” you made? Blabbering is “NOT”
    making points!! But, again, we are talking “understanding”!!!

  • Frank L.

    Tinky —
    Again, what points do you think you made?

  • Frank L.

    Maggi —

    You are now talking way over the head
    of Tinky! Remember, most of what you say requires “understanding”
    of what you are talking about — Tinky lacks that understanding,
    because he lacks proper barn experience. You are completely right in
    your evaluation of “WHO” to listen to!!!

  • SteveG

    No one with a shred of sense would surmise that nano amounts of trace medication is indicative of performance-enhancing intent. 

    However, it is indicative of a mind-set whereby aggressive pharmaceutical protocol is routine.  Even with the understanding that athletes will require more “therapy” than their sedentary counterparts, what one needs to question is whether treatment with meds as a reflexive, first solution is correct practice.

    That’s the fundamental issue, as I see it.  Of course, if one accepts current practices, which rely so significantly on drug intervention at the expense of more conservative first practices, then Minnesota’s move makes eminent sense.

    However, those of us who believe over reliance on medication is a fundamentally flawed process in a fundamentally flawed model will view Minnesota’s actions as an effort to contain, a reactionary, rather than a progressive initiative. 

  • Frank L.

    Steve G —

    Its hypocritical to talk about
    alternative ways of treating horses, horses, BUT, not people. You
    are NOT going to change racing unless you first change the way
    society, itself, views medications. If society view medications as
    safe, necessary, and helpful for humans — the highest form of the
    animal kingdom — then it should be viewed as safe, necessary, and
    helpful, for horses, as does most trainers do. A simple transfer of
    what one is brought up to see/ believe/accept, through their “actual”
    experience of life. No difference!!

  • SteveG

    I can’t think of a more vapid justification for an over-reliance on medication for racehorses than the fact we humans, especially we Americans, overmedicate ourselves.

    The media you tend to rail about doesn’t hold a candle to big pharma when it comes to propagandizing a profitable point of view.

    More meds, please!

Twitter

follow us on twitter »