“Horses actually are tested for more drugs at a lower level than in any other sport,” Arthur said.
When horsemen are notified of altered testing regimens, they tend to alter their use of drugs. Anabolic steroids weren’t illegal in the U.S. until a couple of years ago, but once racing decided to ban their presence on race day, horsemen almost universally complied. Dr. Adam Negrusz, the director of the Illinois laboratory, said his lab had found just four anabolic steroid overages in the course of its testing.
There does exist the belief that committed cheaters will stay one step ahead of lab chemists. Really, only a blunderer would try to cheat with a medication on the ARCI Class 1 list. There clearly is a better chance of getting away with using a medication that is not well known, though the best testing equipment is supposed to detect anything unusual, identifiable or not.
“I guess I scratch my head at why six or seven guys can be 75 percent win off the claim,” New York trainer John Kimmel said. “That’s a hard thing to figure out. There are some medications we seem to be ignorant about that are obviously getting through.”
In this regard, Kimmel praised the new trend toward unannounced, out-of-competition testing at private farms or sometime in the middle of a training cycle when a race isn’t at hand. Out-of-competition testing has gained popularity in the U.S., with Kentucky recently approving the practice, and it is already widely employed in England, according to Dr. Tim Morris, director of equine science and welfare for the British Horseracing Authority. Morris said England has moved away from the blind screening of one winner and one randomly selected horse from a given race – the way things are usually done in this country – and toward intelligence-led target testing.
“We’ve moved away from post-race testing,” Morris said. “Still the majority is post-race, but we have much wider criteria: Betting patterns, performance on the day, stewards watching the race, vets with information. It’s no longer the only way, no longer formulaic. We also do pre-race testing and out-of-competition testing, and all that is driven by intelligence. We use the structures that law enforcement uses to gather information. We rely on patterns building up. It’s good use of racing’s resources, but it’s also more effective.”
England has one centralized laboratory where all testing is performed. So does Canada. In the United States, however, testing is done at many laboratories, some with different types of equipment, making uniform testing procedures impossible. Moreover, guidance on withdrawal times for therapeutic medications in the U.S. is a hodgepodge: A single drug, such as the common tranquilizer acepromazine, has a bevy of recommended withdrawal times listed, depending on the state in which a horse is racing. In Canada, it’s one lab and one national book of therapeutic medications with recommended withdrawal times.
“It’s a universal desire to have a national regulatory scheme so there aren’t different rules in different jurisdictions,” said Dr. Scollay. “It’s tough on horsemen, horses, vets, and presents concerns for the wagering public. Every aspect of the industry is working toward that.”
One aspect in particular is engaged in heavy lifting – the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium. The RMTC had its genesis about 10 years ago. A board of directors comprising 25 racing-industry stakeholders governs the organization, based in Lexington, Ky., and headed by Dr. Scot Waterman.
...
The RMTC is establishing threshold levels for commonly used therapeutic drugs. First, the group funds and administers scientific studies. After analysis, the RMTC can approve a threshold level, at which point a recommendation is passed onto the ARCI. If the ARCI also approves it, the threshold is sent out in the form of a model rule to the 37 states that follow ARCI guidelines. Note the term, “model rule.” Neither the ARCI nor any other national organization has the power to enforce drug standards: They can only establish guidelines and hope that the various state regulatory agencies follow them.
Global cooperation, however, could help reduce the future cost of doing the science that can strengthen medication policy.
“The neat thing for us is we’ve been able to make some nice connections with our European counterparts,” Waterman said. “It looks like we’re going to start sharing information.”
What might be more difficult to obtain is public support. Both the general public and a great number of racing fans continue to vociferously question the role of drugs – therapeutic or otherwise – in Thoroughbred racing.
“What in God’s name has happened to the sport of kings?” wrote a commenter on an article detailing the Canterbury drug positives on the Thoroughbred Times website. “It has turned to the sport of narcotics.”
The Internet is awash with such comments. And it is also true that racing is awash in therapeutic medications.
“There definitely is a culture of medication in this country,” Waterman said. “There’s no question about it. We lose on that comparison. That’s the way it is. This has been 30 years in the making.”
“Hay, oats, water? Where is hay, oats, and water?” Pletcher said. “Is it 24 hours out? Forty-eight hours out? Seventy-two hours out? Six months out? What is it? It’s foolish to think that horses are not going to have problems. We’re going to have to treat those in some way. Again – where’s the guideline? If hay, oats, and water means nothing can be given seven days out, then let everybody know that. Fourteen days out, whatever you want it to be. I don’t think it’s very practical. I think it’s in the horse’s best interest not to do that, but if they want to do it, everyone will adhere as long as they know where it is.”
Right now, few seem to know while many are being caught up in the chaos. And that is a situation for which there should be zero tolerance.
|