Come to think of it, that might be the reason I almost never sleep.

Do you have any recommendations to help me sleep? I'm trying to figure out which sleep aid would work best for me.

She'd be with me.

In TAP's case we should not go there....

Not to change the subject but frankly I am surprised by the few here that are going to such great lengths in defending him, there are alot of astute knowledgeble minds that already have brought up great examples of why they believe not all was on the up and up with his stable. You have to be blind to not believe it was possible. I have no problem saying it is my alledged belief that Todd was a juicer, I have very little doubts about this fact.

So basically, what you're saying is that a guy who's had two seperate horses (that won or placed in races) with significant levels of local anesthetic in their systems during the immediate post-race period looks rosier than a guy who had an unused vial of illegal medication sitting in a refridgerator.

A 1.6 nanogram mepivacaine positive - when most states have threshold levels much higher than that - is a "significant level?"

I understand the desire to catch cheaters. I do not understand the mindset that wants to see trainers get "gotcha'd" for using legal medication that jurisdictions tell them they can use, at days out from races that jurisdictions tell them they can use it.

This mindset does more damage, re: drug use, to racing than anything else. Most - so they say, virtually all - positives involve nothing but trivial overages of routine, legal medication. The outside world, which hears only that TRAINER X HAS DRUG POSITIVE (not that trainer x used a legal medication several days, or even weeks, ago, often following the official withdrawal recommendations), can only assume that said positive means that trainer x intentionally gave an performance-affecting medication right before the race for nefarious reasons or else they wouldn't be publicising and punishing him for it. Racing needs to figure out how to handle legal medications in a way that doesn't allow abuse but also doesn't criminalize trainers for using them. How it's handled now is not accomplishing that.

In a word, yes. What you neglected to mention when bringing up the fact that other states allow for threshold levels of mepivacaine was that New York, at the time, did not allow for any level of mepivacaine. Thus, its not a valid comparison. Even a minor trace of mepivacaine proved that the horse was administered the drug in an illegal fashion (within 7 days of the race) as far as the State of New York was concerned (regardless of whether it was used for therapeutic or nefarious reasons).

Mepivacaine is a local anesthetic. While it has therapeutic uses as far as lameness diagnosis and minor surgery goes, it has no business being in a racehorse's system on raceday.

The fact that Pletcher has recently been handed a second violation for another local anesthetic (I realize many here are trying to sugar coat it by calling it an "antibiotic" positive--but Wait A While tested positive for procaine) makes things look anything but rosy. At best the repeat offense makes him look careless, and at worse it makes him look like he's trying to toe the line with what he can "get away" with.

How many nanograms would it take to enhance performance?

Mepivacaine basically allows a horse to run his/her heart out because it dulls any pain to a horse. You can imagine the effect this would have on a horse's performance. Notable trainer's to have tested positive for having Mepivacaine in their horses are Dutrow, Mullins, Asmussen, and Pletcher. The how many nanograms is a mute issue if you ask me, the question should be why was it in a horse's system in the first place, the answer to me is obvious if you see what the common trait of the vast majority of these trainers horses strengths are/were. There's a common thread.

Good post.

Haven't been following this little episode, but it's always great fun watching Pletch twist in the wind.






Would love to see some deranged board member (FGFan perhaps ... lol) give Pletch a wedgie in that Toga winner's circle one of these summers.

Actually the NY rule was changed because the rules that were in effect before were for testing procedures that were dated. The state of New York's rules are the problem in this case hence the change. No one would try to use mepivacaine as a block in a racehorse any more than you would down a 6 pack while waiting in line at a police checkpoint. The levels ARE insignifigant at a certain point. Just about anything can be found in a horses system if you test at low enough levels.

Procaine penn was a bad choice of medications and despite the vet and Pletchers assertions they should have known better. But again no one would use procaine in the manner that ypu suggest he may have. it would be like trying to sneak a rifle through airline security especially at the BC where you know that the testing is going to be very thorough.

Pletcher surely is guilty of violations of the rules but these are not smoking guns that people want them to be. Check out what happened to Noel Hickey in Chicago a few years back to really learn how people cheat.

if Mepivacaine is allowed at some level, it isn't a mute point. if it doesn't actually enhance performance with levels so low you have to go nano to even find it...

though I have never tried the stuff I imagine a nanogram of cocaine won't get you high but cocaine isn't allowed at all.

I remember Brass Hat lost his placing at Dubai because they found something in his system they said he could have.

I have a different metabolism than you and I imagine horses can differ. I'm just saying I don't know if the intent was to cheat or they are clueless. I'm not pro-drug but I imagine it is like Lasix. No one wants to find out on race day that they should have used it. (like EVERYONE else)

There is virtually no medication that could effect performance at the nanogram level. The point of the exercise is dectecting the drug to attempt to determine if the drug was given after the allowed time frame. There is virtually no research done to reach these levels. Often they are randomly determined by the lab doing the testing in conjunction with the state doing the testing. One of the reasons that the RMTC was a good idea is to get all the states to come to grips with having the same testing levels and hopefully one day they will actually determine the levels that a drug can actually still have an effect and come up with an adequate withdrawl time so that we dont have all the gray areas that we currently still have.

ok, What did Noel Hickey do?
What exactly do I need to search on. If I just put in Chicago and cheater - the search engine will never stop finding stories

mepivicaine is regularly used to try to determine where the point of unsoundness. It is hardly a sinister drug unless it was given at high doese close to the race. A few hours after it is given the horse will go back to being unsound. Remember that the testing procedure is strictly a detection device, not a performance enhancement issue.

Mepivacaine is allowed to be in a horses system on race day.

Yes, nanograms matter.

There are dosages at which drugs can influence or affect performance, and dosages at which that is impossible. That is the whole point.

A drug positive is an actionable offense, indeed, but not all drug positives are proof of attempting to influence a horses performance.

I'm curious Chuck what if a trainer is using masking agents such as 'lidocaine', is it possible that would that reduce traces of mepivacaine or other drugs. Everyone seems to be so concerned about the dosage, we tend to neglect the drugs that are not detected.

I got this information from from the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium.

The drug, mepivacaine, is banned on race day in every jurisdiction in the country, a so-called Class 2 drug with a high potential to enhance performance because it can deaden pain in a horse's legs. The concentration found in No End in Sight's postrace tests was powerful - 750 times higher than another recent positive for mepivacaine - and resulted in a six-month suspension for Steve Asmussen, one of the country's most prolific and successful trainers and runner-up the last two years in voting for the Eclipse Award as top trainer.

lidocaine is in the same family of drugs and would cause a positive test as well, it wouldn't be used as a masking agent.

Riot is not saying that the drug can be GIVEN on race day, only that it is allowable in minute amounts in the horses system on race day.

Are there other masking agents that you would know of? Is it a possibilty in your opinion? We've heard about it in other sports.

However, again 4 prominant Trainers have had significant suspensions for using this particular drug, it seems mepivacaine is certainly not allowable when adminstered illegally.

perhaps I missed it, I didn't see any post where someone said it is okay...it should not be given on raceday because it is a strong anesthetic that absolutlely will eliminate pain in an affected joint or foot or whatever. But like Chuck pointed out it is also a valuable diagnostic tool when trying to pinpoint lameness in an animal, and it wears off in several hours (not clears the system).

probably, but I just barely passed chemistry...I don't know what they are.

I did too....barely. :zz:

I guess I just don't want to subscribe to the theory that all horses are racing on hay, oats and water. ;)

Well, my intention in that post wasn't to assert that Pletcher definitively used local anesthetics to block horses. I was just pointing out that, regardless of it being outdated, the NY rule was in a affect and he violated it. Hence the mepivicaine level, however minute, was "significant". Not significant (perhaps) in terms of performance enhancement, but certainly significant in terms of post-race testing.

My second point was that, while a legal and therapeutic medication, local anesthetics such as mepivicaine and procaine can alter soundness dramatically in a short time frame (whether or not no one in their right mind would use them) and thus, IMO, positives of that nature are not on par with things like tranquilizers or anti-inflammatories or muscle relaxants that are more obvious management snafu's.

Just for the record, whoever I was responding to originally did bring up a good point, that there is a huge difference between a positive for a therapeutic medication and one for an altogether illegal medication. All positives are not created equal, and the public should be aware of this. At the same time, however, I don't think that all therapeutic positives are necessarily created equal, either.

It's funny that you can say that its incorrect to assume that a drug positive is definitive proof that there was an attempt to affect performance, but then turn around and say that a drug found at a certain level is definitive proof that there wasn't an attempt to affect performance.

How are these threshold levels determined? Is the research conducted on racehorses? Is the treatment protocol identical to how someone would use it illegally just prior to a race? I doubt it.

Local anesthetics, as the name suggest, are deposited locally and not typically administered directly into a vein, and yet the blood is what is tested. What if I administer a less-than-recommended dose (who says those are necessarily accurate either?) in a single site 4-6 hours prior to post? Since local anesthetics last several hours, couldn't that be sufficient to enhance performance, and if so, is that enough of a time frame to allow drug to be absorbed into the blood stream such that it would test?

Maybe they should think about taking blood samples 2 or 3 days after a race, too.

Great example. Let's compare Asmussen's positive for mepivicaine to Pletchers. Asmussens' has to be (based upon the above info) at least 750 nanograms per ml, but probably a bit higher. But we'll give him the minimum it could be as 750 ng/ml.

Asmussen: 750 ng/ml or higher
Pletcher: 1.6 ng/ml

The allowable level of mepivicaine in California (yes, there are allowable levels that can be found post-raceday test, and they follow what the RMTC wants) is up to 10 nanograms per ml

So again, let's look at who the "horse dopers with mepivicaine" are:

Asmussen horse: 750 ng/ml or higher
Pletcher horse: 1.6 ng/ml
Allowable level in CA and RMTC: 10 ng/ml

No way will I call Pletcher a "horse doper" with mepivicaine based upon the above facts.

As to what the trainers have to deal with - the inconsistency - until the RMTC standards are adopted nationally, look at the following examples:

Mepivicaine allowable dose may be given:
CA: 50 milligrams subcutaneously 96 hours ( 4 days) before post time
FL: 200 milligrams subcutaneously 168 hours (7 days) before post time
MD: no specified dose or route, withdrawal 5 to 7 days
KY: no specified dose or route, withdrawal 96 hours (4 days)

Am I gonna jump on a trainer for a mepivicaine positive of 1.6 ng/ml, when the RMTC allows up to 10 ng/ml to be found race day? No.

Do I think differently of Pletcher's mepivicaine positive, compared to Asmussens? Absolutely.

Masking agents are useless when you are testing at the nanogram and picogram levels. Not that lidocaine would be considered a masking agent. I have said a million times that 95% of the time the drugs that you hear about are not the real problem, it is the ones that there is no testing for or even an awareness level by the authorities for.

In this instance the medication was used on raceday in an attempt to break the rules. Supposedly the shot was to the throat to try to get a horse with breathing problems through a race. (the horse ran up the track as the fav which is why it was tested) According to the information I received about the incident which is from an extremely reliable source, they had been getting away with this until the LA lab began a different test for the drug where before it had not been detected which is why the levels were so high.

The difference in other sports is the allowable levels are far greater than the allowable levels in horses. A masking agent is usually used to just dilute the sample. Not to mention that there is a thousand times more research done on human testing than there is on horses. The recent NFL suspensions were for th presense of masking agents, a diuretic used for weight loss. It is debatable that it would even mask most drugs ested for.

I understand where you are coming from. But racing has done a terrible job of creating fair, uniform and reasonable regulations and has done an even worse job of explaining the system (though if I had a system like they do i would be embarrassed to try to explain it too). Just the fact that NY had neglected to alter it's rule to come into line with modernized testing is embarrasing. The truth of the matter is that the system is so screwed up and arbitrary that if you understand the medications, levels, suggested withdrawls and tesing procedures you could make the analogy of driving down the highway where the speed limits change every few miles but there are no signs to tell you when. Then when you get the ticket there are are rumors that you may have killed someone too because you were caught speeding. Maybe that doesnt make sense to some but the Pletcher mevipicaine positive was really a bad deal for him. The latest though was an error IMO in judgement by Pletcher for taking a chance with a highly volitile medication regardless of what the vet said. But the procaine found in minute levels would have no effect on performance. The big issue horse racing faces is that they really need to explain to everyone that these positives are very rarely performance enhancing and then explain why they are positives if they arent. I for one would like to hear an explanation because everytime I go to a meeting conserning medication with state authorities I ask for a clarification and never get an answer that doesnt involve stammering about funding for research or horseman wanting liberal regulations or some other form of passing the buck.

Here's a question, when you train a horse and you see a trainer winning at 35-40% entering in the same race let's use Wayne Catalano as an example, how do you resist not levelling the playing field? Do you scratch...It can't be fun running for second purse. The reason I ask is what goes on in the mindet of the Trainer's playing it straight.

Good point, that's why we are left speculating who the juicers are and aren't. Any heady horseplayer knows who they are, with or without drug positives.

Mepivicane is also used as a diagnostic tool to find lameness , you block a horse out starting at the foot and work your way up until it blocks out or not .
My thought on the Mepivicane positive is that most likely one of the Asst. had a horse blocked out found the problem treated it and then perhaps didnt bother to tell the boss exactly when the horse was blocked to avoid being entered too early , the boss entered and boom he gets a positive, because I just cant imiagine someone actually thinking they could get away with treating a horse with Mepivicane for a race and thinking thay can get away with it , at least not at the level TAP races at. Once again Im sticking with knocking all the Asst, Trainers heads together and telling them to either pull their heads out of their ass or leave. Its just plain retarded that someone cant keep track of what the hell is going on.

you might have a reasonable point except this was WAIT A WHILE... maybe the best horse in his entire barn and everyone knew where her next start would be, in what race, on what day.

Exactly my point......

so you think the asst trainer f*cked up and gave her the medvipcane too close to race time and didn't tell him for fear of getting fired or something?