No lasix for ARROGATE or GUNRUNNER

[lamboguy]

both horses had their best career performances without the help!

which lends to the question, do these horses really need that stuff to run fast?

[JustRalph]

I find this very interesting.

Did they get anything else as a substitute? Something similar that's legal over there?

[Fager Fan]

I've heard that testing over there is a joke, at least a number of years ago when the person I know worked over there. This is why no allowable race day meds doesn't necessarily make a jurisdiction clean as the driven snow. We need to know how they back it up.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I find this very interesting.

Did they get anything else as a substitute? Something similar that's legal over there?

Lasix is the lazy man's way to dehydrate a horse. It can still be done the old fashioned way, the way it was done before Lasix.

[RacingFan1992]

Lasix is the lazy man's way to dehydrate a horse. It can still be done the old fashioned way, the way it was done before Lasix.

Which is how? I heard old horsemen used to take away food and water from the horse 24 hours prior to the start of the race but many people think that is cruel yet sticking them with needles and running them on pain masking drugs (I'm not saying Lasix is a painkiller) and then having them breakdown in a race resulting in almost certain death is okay?

Good if Arrogate didn't run on Lasix.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Which is how? I heard old horsemen used to take away food and water from the horse 24 hours prior to the start of the race but many people think that is cruel yet sticking them with needles and running them on pain masking drugs (I'm not saying Lasix is a painkiller) and then having them breakdown in a race resulting in almost certain death is okay?

Good if Arrogate didn't run on Lasix.

Right. You refuse the horse water. That is actually a major part of the Lasix discussion. Whether it is more "humane" to use Lasix as opposed to "natural" dehydrating methods for epistaxis.

The point is that you can ban Lasix, but unless you ban other ways of dehydrating a horse, it will still go on.

When you refer to pain masking drugs, are you referring to illegal medications or legal therapeutics? Just curious.

[ronsmac]

both horses had their best career performances without the help!

which lends to the question, do these horses really need that stuff to run fast?I thought Gun Runner's career best was at Oaklawn.

[RacingFan1992]

Right. You refuse the horse water. That is actually a major part of the Lasix discussion. Whether it is more "humane" to use Lasix as opposed to "natural" dehydrating methods for epistaxis.

The point is that you can ban Lasix, but unless you ban other ways of dehydrating a horse, it will still go on.

When you refer to pain masking drugs, are you referring to illegal medications or legal therapeutics? Just curious.

I was referring to the method used by those idiot jackwagons in low level claiming races on horses who have known leg problems and still run them for the sake of maybe getting a few bucks back on their investment. I'm not sure if that cleared up anything.

[onefast99]

I was referring to the method used by those idiot jackwagons in low level claiming races on horses who have known leg problems and still run them for the sake of maybe getting a few bucks back on their investment. I'm not sure if that cleared up anything.They use them on every horse from the very bottom rung to Graded Stakes. If someone can get away with it and it seems many are then why not use it on any horse?

[dilanesp]

They use them on every horse from the very bottom rung to Graded Stakes. If someone can get away with it and it seems many are then why not use it on any horse?

I have 2 problems with Lasix in American racing and that's one of them. (The other is that every CREDIBLE anti-doping agency in the world considers Lasix a masking agent that allows competitors to dope with other substances.)

Specifically, my idea of a medication is something you use to treat a condition. When I was a teenager, we had a bleeders' list in California. Horse bled in a race or a workout, got scoped, and then the track veterinarian authorized the horse to run on Lasix in the next start and listed her. At first, the list was posted at the track, later, Trevor started announcing it, and they eventually put it in the program.

But somewhere along the line, it just became almost everyone runs on Lasix, and there was no requirement that the horse be shown to be a bleeder, in the hope that it will enhance the horse's performance. And I'm sorry, that's not medicating, that's doping.

I don't care if there's some other more natural way to dehydrate a horse. Doping a horse should be illegal as a matter of principle. If they want to bring Lasix back into the realm of medication, that's a separate issue.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

They use them on every horse from the very bottom rung to Graded Stakes. If someone can get away with it and it seems many are then why not use it on any horse?

Are you talking about Lasix or pain-masking drugs?

I'm still wondering whether people are referring to bute and Banamine, are some other illegal drug as pain-masking.

[onefast99]

Are you talking about Lasix or pain-masking drugs?

I'm still wondering whether people are referring to bute and Banamine, are some other illegal drug as pain-masking.
That is the 6 million dollar question, trainers will use what they can get away with whether they are legal or not. If there is a legal substance being used to mask pain please tell us what it is.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I have 2 problems with Lasix in American racing and that's one of them. (The other is that every CREDIBLE anti-doping agency in the world considers Lasix a masking agent that allows competitors to dope with other substances.)


I'm not going to get into a protracted discussion about Lasix. Either you believe Level 3 or 4 bleeders should be treated and allowed to race, or should be retired. If you believe Lasix should be legal and is overused, then rewrite the rules to make it harder to get on the vet's list. If you want to ban Lasix, then be prepared for the alternative, unless you think you can control that too.

Lasix is considered a masking agent for urine testing because it dilutes the sample. The testing in horse racing is both blood and urine. I've talked to testing pharmacologists, and whatever drugs you are trying to mask aren't going to beat the blood testing machine.

The difference with horse racing is that any medication not on the RMTC approved list is zero tolerance. It doesn't matter if they are diluted - a picogram is enough to get you busted. In human testing there are de minimus levels for substances, meaning you have to be above that level for it even to be considered a violation. For example in MLB the minimums (in ng/mL) are

-------------------------------------Test---------Confirmatory Test
Cocaine Metabolites-------------- 300-----------150
Opiates/Metabolites---------------2000---------2000
Phencyclicdine (PCP)----------------25..............25
Cannabinoids------------------------50-----------15

If a horse comes back with 2,000 ng/mL of an opiate, the trainer should prep for a six month vacation.

I'm not picking on you. It's just that the masking agent argument really isn't pertinent in horse racing and hasn't been for a while.

[dilanesp]

Lasix is considered a masking agent for urine testing because it dilutes the sample. The testing in horse racing is both blood and urine. I've talked to testing pharmacologists, and whatever drugs you are trying to mask aren't going to beat the blood testing machine.

The World Anti-Doping Agency, which doesn't rely on horse racing to make its living, is a far more reliable source on whether Lasix is a masking agent. They say it is and will suspend ANYONE who tests positive for it for 2 years.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That is the 6 million dollar question, trainers will use what they can get away with whether they are legal or not. If there is a legal substance being used to mask pain please tell us what it is.

Actually, I had a conversation with Ed Martin president and CEO at ARCI about shifting some testing from post race to looking for designer drugs. I'll be posting that on the blog soon. I've also had some conversations with two of the pre-eminent equine pharmacologists in the country, and they are skeptical about the ability to come up with pain masking agents that are undetectable given testing technology. The general opinion is, big pharma has pretty much figured out what substances kill pain, we know how to test for them, and it's not likely someone in their garage has come up with better pain killers. Stimulants or anabolics, ehhh...maybe.

[SG4]

Lasix is the lazy man's way to dehydrate a horse. It can still be done the old fashioned way, the way it was done before Lasix.

Why is a dehydrated horse preferable? Is it preferable for human runners to be dehydrated for short to mid-distance races as well? I assume less water weight = lighter/faster performance, but hydration & its positive effects don't outweigh that?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The World Anti-Doping Agency, which doesn't rely on horse racing to make its living, is a far more reliable source on whether Lasix is a masking agent. They say it is and will suspend ANYONE who tests positive for it for 2 years.

Yes, and I just explained that it is a masking agent in URINE testing because it dilutes the urine. If you are thinking it makes the other substances undetectable, that wouldn't be the case.

I actually agreed that it is a masking agent and explained why but I'll do it again. The levels in HUMAN urine are important because there are minimums below which you escape the violation. In the words, if you can get the urine level below the de minimus level through dilution, you beat the test. In horse racing, the same substances are zero-tolerance. That means it doesn't matter if you dilute the urine. ANY level is a violation. And you don't have a similar dilution with blood testing. That's why Ron Ellis got popped. The metabolites can stay in your system for a long time after the substance was used and even a small number constitutes a violation.

You don't have to believe me. Look up WADA protocols. Ask an equine pharmacologist. The masking agent argument really isn't pertinent in HORSE RACING and hasn't been for a while.

You are definitely a pit-bull when you sink your teeth into something, and no amount explaining is going to dissuade you.

[dilanesp]

Actually, I had a conversation with Ed Martin president and CEO at ARCI about shifting some testing from post race to looking for designer drugs. I'll be posting that on the blog soon. I've also had some conversations with two of the pre-eminent equine pharmacologists in the country, and they are skeptical about the ability to come up with pain masking agents that are undetectable given testing technology. The general opinion is, big pharma has pretty much figured out what substances kill pain, we know how to test for them, and it's not likely someone in their garage has come up with better pain killers. Stimulants or anabolics, ehhh...maybe.

That conversation is basically contrary to the entire history of doping in athletics (not just horse racing). The pattern has ALWAYS been: (1) new way of doping is invented that is not being detected by current protocols; (2) dopers attain success and the word gets out; (3) tests get developed and some dopers get caught while others get away with it; (4) new way of doping is invented that is not being detected by current protocols; (5) lather, rinse, repeat.

We have gone though many cycles of this over the course of decades. The idea that there is now nothing new under the sun is ridiculous.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Why is a dehydrated horse preferable? Is it preferable for human runners to be dehydrated for short to mid-distance races as well? I assume less water weight = lighter/faster performance, but hydration & its positive effects don't outweigh that?

There are two issues. One is that dehydration through Lasix reduces pulmonary hypertension and limits the bleeding that occurs when the small capillaries burst due to extreme stress during racing. Some level of bleeding is actually common in most horses. However, very few horses (maybe 5%) would be considered serious bleeders.

Yes, as the horse dehydrates it will lose weight, and the simple physics is that the same force applied to an object of lesser weight should improve performance.

And yes, there is a line between being too dehydrated and performance. But the Lasix shot is given only four hours before the race, and doesn't appear to cause enough of a level of dehydration to impede performance.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

That conversation is basically contrary to the entire history of doping in athletics (not just horse racing). The pattern has ALWAYS been: (1) new way of doping is invented that is not being detected by current protocols; (2) dopers attain success and the word gets out; (3) tests get developed and some dopers get caught while others get away with it; (4) new way of doping is invented that is not being detected by current protocols; (5) lather, rinse, repeat.

We have gone though many cycles of this over the course of decades. The idea that there is now nothing new under the sun is ridiculous.

Yes, but the idea some people can't read isn't ridiculous. What I said was that when it comes to pain-killers, the backyard pharmacologists aren't likely to come up with an undetectable substance given modern testing equipment. Pain control is in the big pharma wheelhouse. However, I said it is more likely with stimulants or anabolics. I said no such thing as there is nothing new under the sun.

I've asked some simple questions of all the people who believe there are Balco's out there developing undetectable performance enhancing substances. Where are they and why can't we seem to find them? How do they get the stuff to the trainers? And as small as the backside is, how do you keep it a secret for long? I'm just wondering if you know of a substance that was undetectable but was finally exposed in say, the last ten years?

When McGuire and Sosa and Bonds were juicing it was pretty easy to see the body morph. You think a smart vet would be fooled forever?

[dilanesp]

In the words, if you can get the urine level below the de minimus level through dilution, you beat the test. In horse racing, the same substances are zero-tolerance. That means it doesn't matter if you dilute the urine. ANY level is a violation.

You don't think any level of an anabolic steroid or stimulant is a violation in track and field? There were track and field athletes suspended for the amount of stimulant that is in a cold medication. It's exactly the same as horse racing except WADA classifies Lasix as an illegal masking agent.

Further, the point of masking, it seems to me, is to get the level of a substance in the sample down to a level where it doesn't show up in the test (and is thus "masked"). Any level may be a violation, but that doesn't matter if the amounts are undetectable. And that's what WADA's rule is premised on.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

You don't think any level of an anabolic steroid or stimulant is a violation in track and field? There were track and field athletes suspended for the amount of stimulant that is in a cold medication. It's exactly the same as horse racing except WADA classifies Lasix as an illegal masking agent.

Further, the point of masking, it seems to me, is to get the level of a substance in the sample down to a level where it doesn't show up in the test (and is thus "masked"). Any level may be a violation, but that doesn't matter if the amounts are undetectable. And that's what WADA's rule is premised on.

I'm really not sure what point you are making that differs from what I said. I've already agreed that diuretics function as a masking agent by diluting urine so that substances fall below threshold levels. Since the discussion here was about Lasix in racehorses, the important point is that Lasix as a masking agent is not an issue in horse racing. If that's a reason you don't like Lasix, rest easy. Of the approved therapeutics, there are only two thresholds that are urine only - Acepromazine and Albuterol, and they are low thresholds.

WADA publishes a list of banned substances annually. They do have a therapeutic use exemptions for certain substances. Oddly enough, WADA doesn't ban codeine. But think about the logic of being concerned about dilution in urine. If all your thresholds were zero-tolerance, as long as any of the substance was detectable, you're toast. Diuretics may not get enough dilution to get to zero, but they might get below a threshold, and many substances have threshold levels above zero. For example, the threshold for marijuana is 150 ng/mL in the Olympics, which means even though it is banned you don't get pinched until it gets above that level. The threshold for ephedrine (a stimulant that is also a"banned" substance) is 10 micrograms/mL. Other sports - I already gave you some thresholds for baseball - have different thresholds. Those are all higher than horse racing, not exactly the same.

I don't write about WADA, and I don't really care about WADA's list. I only care about drugs in horseracng. You want to talk about that, I'm your guy. I'm really not interested in an argument comparing the Olympics or baseball or football (check out their thresholds) to horseraicng, other than to say simply that horse racing has the toughest standards in sports.

[Fager Fan]

The World Anti-Doping Agency, which doesn't rely on horse racing to make its living, is a far more reliable source on whether Lasix is a masking agent. They say it is and will suspend ANYONE who tests positive for it for 2 years.

Let's be clear here. It's only a masking agent for a set period of time. This is why most jurisdictions allow for its use only under the conditions which make them no longer a masking agent (meaning far enough out to not mask).

[dilanesp]

Let's be clear here. It's only a masking agent for a set period of time. This is why most jurisdictions allow for its use only under the conditions which make them no longer a masking agent (meaning far enough out to not mask).

And I have no objection to Lasix use when there is no upcoming race. When the horse is going to run, it should be hay oats and water.

[cj]

...other than to say simply that horse racing has the toughest standards in sports.

I don't believe that for a second. There isn't even OOC testing, for starters.

[dilanesp]

I don't believe that for a second. There isn't even OOC testing, for starters.

+1

In track and field, for instance (the sport where I know the most about drug testing), Usain Bolt could get a knock on the door tomorrow asking him for a sample, and if he doesn't provide one, he gets suspended.

The equivalent in horse racing would be to have testers showing up at training centers demanding samples from 2 year olds in training and having the power to bar the horses from racing if the samples are not provided.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I don't believe that for a second. There isn't even OOC testing, for starters.

Why do they do out of competition testing for humans?

The ostensible reason is that the efficacy period of some performance enhancing substances exceeds the detection period for such substances.

Substances like bronchodilators need to be given closer to race time to be effective. So what we're talking about for horses falls into three categories.


blood doping
gene doping
peptide based drugs like toxins and venoms


I've never read about any cases of gene doping in race horses, but the idea is to inject a gene into a horse to stimulate something like muscle growth. It's pretty cutting edge, and it works by measuring variation in red blood cells. The protocol being considered is to develop a baseline biological fingerprint for a horse and then monitor changes. You don't need to do this through out of competition testing. You can just as easily test post race.

Horseracing allows the use of certain anabolic substances - e.g., testosterone - for therapeutic reasons. If you look at the WADA list, they also have exceptions for therapeutic reasons. But, as Ron Ellis found, metabolites stay in a horse's system for quite a while. The therapeutic out of training use of stanozolol is legal (in some jurisdictions), but a picogram gets you busted if your post race comes back positive. Out of competition testing wouldn't help if you were to find a horse used a legal substance. That is not a threshold issue, that is an issue of what is legal and not legal.

Blood doping has to do with boosting red blood cell count through the use of something like EPO. I know there are people who knew a trainer who used EPO and got great results, but you're not going to find an equine pharmacologist that won't tell you increasing the red blood cell count is (1) very dangerous and (2) pretty much useless because of the equine spleen. I'm not going to go over that again. Anybody who wants to can research it very easily.

There is always going to be some sort of tree-frog poison having a moment on the backside, but two things are important to remember. First, it is the rare vet who will risks his livelihood administering that kind of illegal substance. Second, you certainly couldn't trust a trainer not to kill his horse through misdosing.

There is one other reason to do it for humans. Recreational drugs. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, meth. Horses do not take recreational drugs. I'm not familiar with a positive for cocaine or meth that wasn't likely an environmental contamination.

As I mentioned most of the WADA banned substances have de minimus thresholds, whereas horse racing is zero tolerance for anything not on the approved medication list. I won't spend a great amount of time trying to convince you, but I'd still maintain horse racing has tougher thresholds than any other sport. I just don't find the OOC testing argument compelling for horses, even if it is for humans.

Tell me what I didn't mention that indicates OOC testing is necessary in racing?

[cj]

Why do they do out of competition testing for humans?

The ostensible reason is that the efficacy period of some performance enhancing substances exceeds the detection period for such substances.

Substances like bronchodilators need to be given closer to race time to be effective. So what we're talking about for horses falls into three categories.


blood doping
gene doping
peptide based drugs like toxins and venoms


I've never read about any cases of gene doping in race horses, but the idea is to inject a gene into a horse to stimulate something like muscle growth. It's pretty cutting edge, and it works by measuring variation in red blood cells. The protocol being considered is to develop a baseline biological fingerprint for a horse and then monitor changes. You don't need to do this through out of competition testing. You can just as easily test post race.

Horseracing allows the use of certain anabolic substances - e.g., testosterone - for therapeutic reasons. If you look at the WADA list, they also have exceptions for therapeutic reasons. But, as Ron Ellis found, metabolites stay in a horse's system for quite a while. The therapeutic out of training use of stanozolol is legal (in some jurisdictions), but a picogram gets you busted if your post race comes back positive. Out of competition testing wouldn't help if you were to find a horse used a legal substance. That is not a threshold issue, that is an issue of what is legal and not legal.

Blood doping has to do with boosting red blood cell count through the use of something like EPO. I know there are people who knew a trainer who used EPO and got great results, but you're not going to find an equine pharmacologist that won't tell you increasing the red blood cell count is (1) very dangerous and (2) pretty much useless because of the equine spleen. I'm not going to go over that again. Anybody who wants to can research it very easily.

There is always going to be some sort of tree-frog poison having a moment on the backside, but two things are important to remember. First, it is the rare vet who will risks his livelihood administering that kind of illegal substance. Second, you certainly couldn't trust a trainer not to kill his horse through misdosing.

There is one other reason to do it for humans. Recreational drugs. Heroin, cocaine, marijuana, meth. Horses do not take recreational drugs. I'm not familiar with a positive for cocaine or meth that wasn't likely an environmental contamination.

As I mentioned most of the WADA banned substances have de minimus thresholds, whereas horse racing is zero tolerance for anything not on the approved medication list. I won't spend a great amount of time trying to convince you, but I'd still maintain horse racing has tougher thresholds than any other sport. I just don't find the OOC testing argument compelling for horses, even if it is for humans.

Tell me what I didn't mention that indicates OOC testing is necessary in racing?

Just as we all knew something was going on with McGwire and Sosa and Bonds, I see horses defy logic many times. It is the common sense test. If they aren't getting caught post race, I can only conclude they have found a way to beat the tests. The next thing to do is test during training or on the farm.

As for Ellis, OVERUSE caused his problems IMO. That is why the drug stuck around so long. It wasn't a fluke of nature. Brushing it off as such is the attitude that turns many off here IMO with some of your posts.

[dilanesp]

Tell me what I didn't mention that indicates OOC testing is necessary in racing?

I will tell you one thing that you will never admit but which is true, which is that the major players of this sport are extremely dishonest about the entire subject of performance enhancement, including claiming that things are "medicine" that are actually performance enhancers, that things that clearly were intentionally given to horses just accidentally got into the feed supply, and that there is no need for tougher standards or tougher testing of horses.

In other words, the entire power structure of horsemen is biased against strict drug enforcement.

Which means one good reason to do OOC testing is simply that horsemen will hate it and some of them will be caught doping or will be deterred from giving performance enhancing "medications" to their horses.

Really, part of the job of anti-doping agencies is to make it more difficult to cheat. Not impossible, but more difficult. People still cheat in track and field despite WADA. But when you try, you have to worry about the possibility of getting caught, and that possibility is increased by out of competition testing, if for no other reason than that there are more tests.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Just as we all knew something was going on with McGwire and Sosa and Bonds, I see horses defy logic many times. It is the common sense test. If they aren't getting caught post race, I can only conclude they have found a way to beat the tests. The next thing to do is test during training or on the farm.

As for Ellis, OVERUSE caused his problems IMO. That is why the drug suck around so long. It wasn't a fluke of nature.

We knew McGwire, Sosa and Bonds couldn't have developed their looks from the weight room alone. But I've seen thousands of thoroughbreds (you have too) and I'll admit I was never sharp enough to spot the Sammy Sosa look. Have you known anybody who has looked at a horse and immediately said, he's juicing.

I'll ask the same question. Which substance might they be using that has anabolic effects but is illegal? And why would they use an illegal substance when there are legal steroids available?

I'll also suck Dilan in with this. I've read that there are constitutional issues with OOC testing because horses are property. Human athletes sign away their right to privacy and search. I'm sure trainers could do the same, although I don't know what the issues are with forcing them to do so at the farm. Without permission, at least you would need the proper state legislation and something that obviates the need for showing probable cause and getting a search warrant.

I'm friends with Tom Tobin who is a toxicologist, pharmacologist, and veterinarian working at the University of Kentucky. I had a long talk with him a couple of weeks ago about a variety of topics, but specifically we talked a bit about Ellis and Masochistic. I can't tell you how Ellis dosed Masochistic, but when I talked with Tom he said trainers don't realize how long those substances stay in a horse's system, and it can be far longer than the withdrawal times even at recommended doses. Playing with zero-tolerance substances is chancy.

What should be scarier to trainers is that with modern testing machines, they are able to detect smaller and smaller levels accurately. Ever hear of a femtogram? There are machines that can detect that low.

[VeryOldMan]

Just as we all knew something was going on with McGwire and Sosa and Bonds, I see horses defy logic many times. It is the common sense test. If they aren't getting caught post race, I can only conclude they have found a way to beat the tests. The next thing to do is test during training or on the farm.

As for Ellis, OVERUSE caused his problems IMO. That is why the drug stuck around so long. It wasn't a fluke of nature. Brushing it off as such is the attitude that turns many off here IMO with some of your posts.

+1 here

And I appreciate Halv's perspective - these discussions are part of what I love about the board.

[cj]

We knew McGwire, Sosa and Bonds couldn't have developed their looks from the weight room alone. But I've seen thousands of thoroughbreds (you have too) and I'll admit I was never sharp enough to spot the Sammy Sosa look. Have you known anybody who has looked at a horse and immediately said, he's juicing.

I'll ask the same question. Which substance might they be using that has anabolic effects but is illegal? And why would they use an illegal substance when there are legal steroids available?

I'll also suck Dilan in with this. I've read that there are constitutional issues with OOC testing because horses are property. Human athletes sign away their right to privacy and search. I'm sure trainers could do the same, although I don't know what the issues are with forcing them to do so at the farm. Without permission, at least you would need the proper state legislation and something that obviates the need for showing probable cause and getting a search warrant.

I'm friends with Tom Tobin who is a toxicologist, pharmacologist, and veterinarian working at the University of Kentucky. I had a long talk with him a couple of weeks ago about a variety of topics, but specifically we talked a bit about Ellis and Masochistic. I can't tell you how Ellis dosed Masochistic, but when I talked with Tom he said trainers don't realize how long those substances stay in a horse's system, and it can be far longer than the withdrawal times even at recommended doses. Playing with zero-tolerance substances is chancy.

What should be scarier to trainers is that with modern testing machines, they are able to detect smaller and smaller levels accurately. Ever hear of a femtogram? There are machines that can detect that low.

Did you ask him if repeated doses cause steroids to take longer to leave the system? This was far from the horse's first trip to the vet's list for steroids.

As for what substances, how should I know? I didn't know what Bonds used either, nor did anyone else not directly involved.

I wouldn't expect horses could be identified on looks any more than cyclists or runners. Actual performance is often the biggest indicator all.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I will tell you one thing that you will never admit but which is true, which is that the major players of this sport are extremely dishonest about the entire subject of performance enhancement, including claiming that things are "medicine" that are actually performance enhancers, that things that clearly were intentionally given to horses just accidentally got into the feed supply, and that there is no need for tougher standards or tougher testing of horses.

In other words, the entire power structure of horsemen is biased against strict drug enforcement.

Which means one good reason to do OOC testing is simply that horsemen will hate it and some of them will be caught doping or will be deterred from giving performance enhancing "medications" to their horses.

Really, part of the job of anti-doping agencies is to make it more difficult to cheat. Not impossible, but more difficult. People still cheat in track and field despite WADA. But when you try, you have to worry about the possibility of getting caught, and that possibility is increased by out of competition testing, if for no other reason than that there are more tests.

I probably wouldn't agree with a characterization of major players being "extremely dishonest," but I would agree that there are always unscrupulous trainers somewhere looking for a chemical edge.

One of the great conservative economists, Milton Friedman, once pointed out that monopoly can only thrive where there is government regulation. I think the best horsemen realize that when you can't do it with magic elixirs alone, their skill is critical. I'd say regulation is far more favored by the major players than you think.

I'm still wondering which performance enhancing medications either don't have to be used closer to race time (like bronchodilators) or would be preferable to legal PEDs (like testosterone or Winstrol)? I'm just not convinced OOC testing gets us somewhere closer to where we want to be, but I'll grant you if your objective is to irritate horsemen, you'll accomplish that.

Here's my point. If you can't defend OOC testing with hard data regarding its effectiveness, if not cost-effectiveness, then you're not going to get anywhere. And I'm having a hard time with ambiguous arguments based on intuition.

[cj]

As Spalding has pointed out many times, any legal medication that shows even the slightest (perceived or real) performance boost winds up being overused. I think that is part of what dilane is trying to convey here. Trainers can't be trusted to police themselves.

Lasix is the best example but there are many others. They're are way too many drugs being given to horses for no real reason, legal or not. It has to stop. Obviously that is different than overages and bad tested but they are all pay off the same culture of drugs.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Did you ask him if repeated doses cause steroids to take longer to leave the system? This was far from the horse's first trip to the vet's list for steroids.

As for what substances, how should I know? I didn't know what Bonds used either, nor did anyone else not directly involved.

I wouldn't expect horses could be identified on looks any more than cyclists or runners. Actual performance is often the biggest indicator all.

I did. And yes, closer dosing can cause more of a build-up. Unless Ellis tells all, we won't know for sure, but trainers are playing a dangerous game with long term regimens.

Of course we know what Bonds was using. He started with Winstrol. He also took Deca-Durabolin. He was alleged to have used two designer steroids referred to as the Cream and the Clear, as well as insulin, human growth hormone, testosterone decanoate (a fast-acting steroid known as Mexican beans) and trenbolone, a steroid created to improve the muscle quality of cattle. I'm sure you remember reading that.

The other things about Bonds was that he was using cocktails of the PEDs based on the advice of his suppliers.

My point was that the PEDs Bonds, Sosa and McGwire were taking were all in the category of anabolic steroids, and for horses there are anabolics that are legal to use, even if they are not legal to have in a horse's system at race time. I'll say it again. What good does it do you to do OOC testing for Winstrol in CA, when it is legal to use Winstrol? And other than anabolics, what are you testing for OOC?

I'll disagree about the looks issue. Anabolic steroids build excessive muscle. I think sprinters who were juicing did have more of a Barry Bonds look. Ben Johnson comes to mind. I think cyclists used testosterone (it is very effective in speeding muscle recovery) but starting in the 90's it was blood doping that became most important because of oxygenation. I'm sure swimmers used it. Participants in those sports were looking for a specific body type, and none of them look like regular people. The overdeveloped don't usually do well in flexibility sports like swimming and cycling. I'm not an expert, but I'll bet experts had some sort of suspicion based on certain physical characteristics.

There was a great cyclist named Eddie Merckx. I seem to remember reading somewhere that he had so overdeveloped his legs, he actually had to have muscle removed. There's irony for you.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

As Spalding has pointed out many times, any legal medication that shows even the slightest (perceived or real) performance boost winds up being overused. I think that is part of what dilane is trying to convey here. Trainers can't be trusted to police themselves.

Lasix is the best example but there are many others. They're are way too many drugs being given to horses for no real reason, legal or not. It has to stop. Obviously that is different than overages and bad tested but they are all pay off the same culture of drugs.

That's regulation, not testing. As long as Lasix is legal, trainers will use it, either because they have a bleeder or are looking to keep up with everyone else.

I've said this a lot of times. Ban whatever you want, but set fair standards for anything that is legal. But it is like Trump and his taxes. If he took big losses because he was allowed under the law and that reduced his tax burden substantially, if that pisses you off change the law. Don't just complain he sucks for taking advantage of it. There were 370,000 post race samples tested last year. It's not like the authorities are just winking at least at race day levels.

[VeryOldMan]

One of the great conservative economists, Milton Friedman, once pointed out that monopoly can only thrive where there is government regulation.
We're getting far afield, but this is only true over a potentially very long period of time. Monopoly can thrive quite nicely in the absence of government regulation in the meanwhile.

The Sherman Act was enacted as a countermeasure back in 1890, e.g.

[cj]

I certainly didn't mean I don't know what Bonds used now, I meant at the time. I thought that was pretty obvious.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

We're getting far afield, but this is only true over a potentially very long period of time. Monopoly can thrive quite nicely in the absence of government regulation in the meanwhile.

The Sherman Act was enacted as a countermeasure back in 1890, e.g.

There are other things that help monopoly along. Enormous capital requirements will keep most out of the market, and government regulation can impose those requirements. For example, you can't just decide to go into the car building business without meeting all the requirements for safety or emissions, which as car companies will tell you adds quite a bit to the price of a car. How many passenger airplane builders do we have in America and when did the last one go into business?

Monopoly achieved through merit is still legal. I believe it was the nefarious acts and nefarious dealings to preserve the monopoly that spurred the Sherman Act. Forcing your competitors to sell to you, or undercutting them on price to drive them out of business were real problems.

Perhaps I was a little loose with my interpretation of Friedman, but the point was that regulation discourages competition because compliance adds cost.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I certainly didn't mean I don't know what Bonds used now, I meant at the time. I thought that was pretty obvious.

No, we didn't know the ingredients of the cocktail, but we knew there were anabolic steroids involved. The actual substances were details. I see what you were saying though.

[JustRalph]

I went to a Cincy Reds game during the M. McGwire S. Sosa season of home run wars. Before the game McGwire came out and was standing about ten feet in front of us as we were in the front row on the baseline. He was bantering back and forth with some kids.

We were completely blown away by the size of his arms and neck.

I mean it was so outlandish he looked like a Popeye cartoon. It was obvious he was taking something.

Sometimes common sense is all you need

[Nitro]

both horses had their best career performances without the help!

which lends to the question, do these horses really need that stuff to run fast?
Gee Wiz! What a surprise!
You mean they ran the way they did years ago before drugs were legalized here in the States.
Or the way they STILL run at EVERY race event in Europe and of course Hong Kong.
What’s big deal?

All this banter about Lasix makes me nauseous? When will these local racing jurisdictions get it? These horse’s don’t need these drugs, and if they do maybe they shouldn’t be racing. Their solution is rigorous and continuous drug testing by individual jurisdictions. Mine is to create a single Professional National Horse Racing association to regulate and set standards nationwide and of course eliminate racing on drugs all together.

Ever wonder why the majority of the Classy 3-yearolds are running slower and slower each year? (Particularly in the TC series).

I think it’s pathetic that our local game has gone so far in the wrong direction.

[dilanesp]

As Spalding has pointed out many times, any legal medication that shows even the slightest (perceived or real) performance boost winds up being overused. I think that is part of what dilane is trying to convey here. Trainers can't be trusted to police themselves.

Lasix is the best example but there are many others. They're are way too many drugs being given to horses for no real reason, legal or not. It has to stop. Obviously that is different than overages and bad tested but they are all pay off the same culture of drugs.

Thanks, cj, you made my point better than I did.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I usually have to make this caveat at some point. I'm not in favor of willy-nilly drug use. I believe a couple of things.

- The Lasix discussion needs to be centered around a couple of things. One, whether or not Level 3 or 4 bleeders should be allowed to race, and if so should they qualify for Lasix; and two, what alternatives trainers would employ in the absence of Lasix and whether those alternatives will lead to inhumane treatment. I'm just saying the ban-them-all people have to recognize the impacts on racing of banning therapeutics to ensure they don't show up on race day. If everyone can live with that, great.

- If you're going to have such a thing as a legal therapeutic, then set the thresholds fairly and based on sound science.

[cj]

I usually have to make this caveat at some point. I'm not in favor of willy-nilly drug use. I believe a couple of things.

- The Lasix discussion needs to be centered around a couple of things. One, whether or not Level 3 or 4 bleeders should be allowed to race, and if so should they qualify for Lasix; and two, what alternatives trainers would employ in the absence of Lasix and whether those alternatives will lead to inhumane treatment. I'm just saying the ban-them-all people have to recognize the impacts on racing of banning therapeutics to ensure they don't show up on race day. If everyone can live with that, great.

- If you're going to have such a thing as a legal therapeutic, then set the thresholds fairly and based on sound science.

I actually don't have a big problem with Lasix on its own merit. The problem is there is no incentive not to use it. Trainers believe (I do too, think it is undeniable) that horses that don't use it are competing at a disadvantage. I can't blame them for that. Horses with Lasix were beating the crap in of horses without, all other things being equal.

What needs to be done is some sort of equalizer that will keep those that need it racing and those that don't need it to not use it. A weight break or penalty is the most obvious answer, but there are probably other ways too.

[Nitro]

I usually have to make this caveat at some point. I'm not in favor of willy-nilly drug use. I believe a couple of things.

- The Lasix discussion needs to be centered around a couple of things. One, whether or not Level 3 or 4 bleeders should be allowed to race, and if so should they qualify for Lasix; and two, what alternatives trainers would employ in the absence of Lasix and whether those alternatives will lead to inhumane treatment. I'm just saying the ban-them-all people have to recognize the impacts on racing of banning therapeutics to ensure they don't show up on race day. If everyone can live with that, great.

- If you're going to have such a thing as a legal therapeutic, then set the thresholds fairly and based on sound science.
Well those in Hong Kong certainly have. If the result of their complete drug ban is any indication of how it impacts racing, I would think that even the most ignorant of those officiating at our local racing jurisdictions might recognize how the patrons of HK racing appreciate the integrity and transparency of their game as evidenced by their incredible handle. Their insurance is very simple: Break the rules once and you’re heavily penalized and suspended. Break them again and your history.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I actually don't have a big problem with Lasix on its own merit. The problem is there is no incentive not to use it. Trainers believe (I do too, think it is undeniable) that horses that don't use it are competing at a disadvantage. I can't blame them for that. Horses with Lasix were beating the crap in of horses without, all other things being equal.

What needs to be done is some sort of equalizer that will keep those that need it racing and those that don't need it to not use it. A weight break or penalty is the most obvious answer, but there are probably other ways too.

I agree with you. The problem is that horses will have detectable blood in the lungs after a race and that is enough to get them on the Lasix list. Ultimately it seems all horses end up there.

The irony is that it is not uncommon for horses to bleed through the Lasix. It's not the perfect medication.

You'd think as much discussion as there has been about Lasix, they'd have figured out the answer by now.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Well those in Hong Kong certainly have. If the result of their complete drug ban is any indication of how it impacts racing, I would think that even the most ignorant of those officiating at our local racing jurisdictions might recognize how the patrons of HK racing appreciate the integrity and transparency of their game as evidenced by their incredible handle. Their insurance is very simple: Break the rules once and you’re heavily penalized and suspended. Break them again and your history.

Ah yes, Hong Kong. Two race tracks. 82 days of racing. 820 races a year. That would be as many races as there are in North America on a long weekend in August.

We can be Hong Kong. On a given day we would have 3-5 tracks open in North America - maybe one or two east coast, one or two midwest, one or two west coast. Could be different tracks on different days. We would have 14 horse fields, no Lasix because we could get plenty of horses able to run Lasix free if we were only running 30 -50 races nationwide a day. and we wouldn't need the field fillers, the marginal horses, and we wouldn't have to worry about all those small tracks where the lesser horses have to make a living.

We would also have control over every aspect of racing just like HKJC. Everyone who had anything to do with the track except owners and trainers would be an employee of our racing corporation. We'd control the grooms, the veterinarians, and everybody else. We'd control testing labs. We'd make sure we'd have a monopoly on gambling.

When I said impacts on racing I was thinking of North America with 100 tracks, a lot of which are Class Double A ball. We're already suffering from too many cheap and small fields.Would trainers just shrug and start the horses without Lasix? What about banning all the other therapeutics? Would that not have an impact? Would trainers resort to the "old" methods of dehydrating horses?

We'd all love Hong Kong here in America. Can you imagine all the betting dollars going into a few tracks in a day? $100 million handle. Drug free. Just gotta present the business plan.

I'm not making light. I'm just saying becoming Hong Kong would be a really heavy lift. Nothing is that simple in America.

[Fager Fan]

Not one response to my post. The idea that a jurisdiction is running clean because they publicly don't allow raceday meds is just smoke and mirrors if they don't thoroughly test the horses.

Who did they test after the DWC and what did they test for?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Not one response to my post. The idea that a jurisdiction is running clean because they publicly don't allow raceday meds is just smoke and mirrors if they don't thoroughly test the horses.

Who did they test after the DWC and what did they test for?

I think the lack of response is a reflection of the fact that nobody has a clue how they test. I'm not even sure how you'd go about looking into it.

[chadk66]

my personal belief is that humidity level plays a huge role in bleeding. I'd bet it was extremely dry there in the desert

[cj]

my personal belief is that humidity level plays a huge role in bleeding. I'd bet it was extremely dry there in the desert

It rained much of the day.

[chadk66]

It rained much of the day.well there goes that theory :pound:

[onefast99]

my personal belief is that humidity level plays a huge role in bleeding. I'd bet it was extremely dry there in the desert
I have seen where the heat can play a huge part in a horse having a bleeding issue. We had one claimer that we gave off from June to September every year. He got claimed and ran at GPW in August he got put on the vets list as a bleeder and hasn't run since it's been 7 months!

[cj]

http://live.drf.com/nuggets/35885

[lamboguy]

http://live.drf.com/nuggets/35885that guy is the top quarter horse trainer, not that we didn't know how he did it along with others, i am glad that they put him on the bench.

not only do most here know what is going on, but most of the weekend players do and they have taken up other things instead of racing.

[whodoyoulike]

my personal belief is that humidity level plays a huge role in bleeding. I'd bet it was extremely dry there in the desert

I must have missed it and I take it you're referring to the DWC. And, that the high humidity and dryness in the desert would cause or encourage bleeding while racing.

:1: Is this what you meant or is it just the opposite?

:2: Did either Arrogate or Gun Runner bleed in that race?

[Fager Fan]

I think the lack of response is a reflection of the fact that nobody has a clue how they test. I'm not even sure how you'd go about looking into it.

In all the raceday meds ad drugs in racing discussions, this is the huge missing part that has to be included to have a worthwhile discussion. But all of us are really pretty clueless. We have this huge announcement to start the thread that the DWC proved Arrogate doesn't need Lasix, so damnit, we don't need it here. But how do we know that Lasix wasn't used? Do they test for it? As I stated early on, I know someone who worked for the Sheikh's horses over there and he said the testing is a joke, basically non-existent.

I've also heard that we have far more comprehensive testing here than in Europe, yet Europe is as clean as new snow and we're the dirty snow on the side of the road.

So we keep beating up on US racing when it may just be perception and the reality is that we're cleaner than others.

Maybe some journalists out there could do us a favor and instead of the usual puff pieces really dig into drugs and testing.

[Fager Fan]

PS: Remember Silver Charm? He may be the only top horse that it was publicized that he was a bonafide bleeder. Yet he won the DWC. So did he not need Lasix to not bleed and win the DWC, or did he get Lasix anyway, or did he get something else?

[chadk66]

I have seen where the heat can play a huge part in a horse having a bleeding issue. We had one claimer that we gave off from June to September every year. He got claimed and ran at GPW in August he got put on the vets list as a bleeder and hasn't run since it's been 7 months!I agree with that. High heat index is a huge factor

[dilanesp]

PS: Remember Silver Charm? He may be the only top horse that it was publicized that he was a bonafide bleeder. Yet he won the DWC. So did he not need Lasix to not bleed and win the DWC, or did he get Lasix anyway, or did he get something else?

Well, Prescisionist was a chronic bleeder and won the 1985 BC Sprint off lasix (and NY did test in those days), so there are other treatments.

[chadk66]

there's plenty of other treatments.

[Ruffian1]

Well, Prescisionist was a chronic bleeder and won the 1985 BC Sprint off lasix (and NY did test in those days), so there are other treatments.


New York allowed so many different drugs in lieu of Bute and Lasix in 1985 that I was blown away when the vet told me the list I could use for my ship in.

The vast majority of those drugs, if memory serves, were not used in Maryland when Bute and Lasix was in 1985.

I had not even heard of many of them

Always got a kick out of hay, oats and water stuff.

What a farce that was.

[chadk66]

New York allowed so many different drugs in lieu of Bute and Lasix in 1985 that I was blown away when the vet told me the list I could use for my ship in.

The vast majority of those drugs, if memory serves, were not used in Maryland when Bute and Lasix was in 1985.

I had not even heard of many of them

Always got a kick out of hay, oats and water stuff.

What a farce that was.yea that always made me chuckle too

[Fager Fan]

So, perception isn't reality. Isn't it about time we admit to reality and then change the perception? Instead, we have people who just assume it's all clean and pretty in Dubai and Europe.

[Spalding No!]

So, perception isn't reality. Isn't it about time we admit to reality and then change the perception? Instead, we have people who just assume it's all clean and pretty in Dubai and Europe.
There is some dubious conclusions being drawn here. Your initial post suggested that no one on this board knows what goes on in Dubai (or Europe for that matter). But after a few subsequent posts in the thread, the tune changes to those regions being dirty. The proof is sketchy.

You offered up the example of Silver Charm, the winner of the 1998 Dubai World Cup, stating he was a bonafide bleeder. I'm not sure when or where or how Silver Charm was determined to be a true bleeder (versus just a horse that ran on Lasix because every other horse does). When the horse failed in the 1999 Dubai World Cup, Bob Baffert used bleeding as his post-race excuse. It was then implied that this was proof Dubai is a sham jurisdiction and that Silver Charm must have got something back in 1998 when he won (but didn't the following year).

However, Silver Charm had run poorly before, while on Lasix (1998 San Diego), and Baffert again alluded to the horse's bleeding problem, this time suggesting he had bled worse than the minor amount seen in post-race in San Diego and declined to use that as an excuse for the horse's performance. If Silver Charm bled worse in the past, it clearly didn't stop him from performing because the San Diego, where he didn't bleed significantly, was the first time Silver Charm had finished worse than 2nd in his entire career up to that point. Silver Charm ran one more time after the 1999 DWC, performed subpar again and was quickly retired.

https://www1.drf.com/tc/preakness/2004/pps/silvercharm.pdf

Subsequent posts by a couple of other people suggested New York is or was another dirty jurisdiction with bad testing standards. You then conclude that it's time to "admit to reality" with regards to Dubai and Europe. How a presumed faulty testing system in one of the 50 United States of America proves that testing in other countries is deficient is beyond me.

As it really stands, both Dubai and Europe (at least in Britain) are essentially zero-tolerance jurisdictions. Its possible that the US has better technological standards and capacity then these other places, but since the US is also much more permissive with regards to medication use, it doesn't necessarily mean that the sport is "cleaner" here than elsewhere.

For the record, Dubai does test for Lasix. It was one of 4 positives called during the 2013-2014 season in which 356 races were conducted.

http://www.emiratesracing.com/sites/default/files/ERA_Equine_Sampling_Report.pdf

As far as international testing goes, it seems that there are more problems at the highest level than there are in the US. I guess that can be looked at 2 ways: (1) either we have cleaner racing here or (2) there is stricter regulation/enforcement over there. Testing/regulations for corticosteroids had been virtually non-existent in the US until just a couple of years ago, but its been a big no-no internationally for quite a while.

2001- Godolphin’s Noverre tests positive for corticosteroids after winning the Group 1 French 2000 Guineas. Disqualified.

2003- Juddmonte’s Tillerman tests positive for clenbuterol after placing in the Group 1 Queen Anne Stakes at Royal Ascot. Disqualified.

2003- Juddmonte’s Three Valleys tests positive for clenbuterol after winning the Group 1 Middle Park. Disqualified.

2003- American Sarafan withdrawn from Hong Kong Mile after testing positive for corticosteroids in a pre-race sample. Horse was treated in US, but prior to the Hong Kong sample he had raced in the Japan Cup. Unlikely to have been tested post-race in Japan after finishing only 17th in the race, but I suppose this could be construed as a blight on Japan's testing standards..

2006- American Brass Hat (2nd DWC) sample tests positive for corticosteroids in Dubai. Split sample utilizes Hong Kong lab which confirms positive test. Disqualified.

2006- Japanese Deep Impact (3rd Arc) sample tests for respiratory drug. Split sample confirmed by Hong Kong lab. Disqualified.

2012- RMTC proposes strict corticosteroid standards for US jurisdictions.

2014- California adopts RMTC standards. Before adoption, there were no corticosteroid thresholds in California.

2014- Princess of Sylmar tests positive for corticosteroids in the Grade 1 Delaware Handicap. Split sample confirms positive. Not disqualified.

2017- Masochistic tests positive for anabolic steroids. Horse is disqualified but is allowed to race within 6 months of the disqualification (unlike other international jurisdictions). At this point, anabolics are still not banned outright in US horse racing.

[Ruffian1]

New York allowed so many different drugs in lieu of Bute and Lasix in 1985 that I was blown away when the vet told me the list I could use for my ship in.

The vast majority of those drugs, if memory serves, were not used in Maryland when Bute and Lasix was in 1985.

I had not even heard of many of them

Always got a kick out of hay, oats and water stuff.

What a farce that was.



Just to be sure we are all on the same page, I was not saying that NY testing was bad or weak or these were illegal meds that could be used.

I did not ask but 100% assumed that these were all totally legal and widely accepted alternatives to bute and lasix.

That vet would not be telling me of any illegal drugs to give my horse. Common sense backs that up.
The list he had me write down were all legal to use.

I cannot speak to NY's testing but again by no means was I looking to slide around the testing. And the vet was not trying to help me do so.

Hope that clears that up.

[chadk66]

Just to be sure we are all on the same page, I was not saying that NY testing was bad or weak or these were illegal meds that could be used.

I did not ask but 100% assumed that these were all totally legal and widely accepted alternatives to bute and lasix.

That vet would not be telling me of any illegal drugs to give my horse. Common sense backs that up.
The list he had me write down were all legal to use.

I cannot speak to NY's testing but again by no means was I looking to slide around the testing. And the vet was not trying to help me do so.

Hope that clears that up.:ThmbUp: There's even herbal remedies that can do wonders to prevent bleeding.

[Fager Fan]

Spaulding, you list what I remember, which is a public record of a top horse being a bleeder. I had no reason to disbelieve it then nor do I now. It's not something you want to advertise in a breeding prospect. The reports are that he even bled through Lasix so that's a horse who is a real bleeder. The only remedies I know of for bleeding are significant rest (months) or meds like Lasix and Amicar.

I'm saying that none of us really know exactly what and how stringent the testing is anywhere. None do a good job at this. Maybe they think they need some secrets so as to not tip someone off, but the public would feel better if it was reported.

[Ruffian1]

:ThmbUp: There's even herbal remedies that can do wonders to prevent bleeding.


I get the feeling that the customers perception of trainers is that they are trying to find out what is not being tested for or what they can get away with.

Speaking for myself, that never crossed my mind when I was training.

I didn't give a damn. Give me the rules and guidelines that's how I will play it. And that's what I did. That's what many of us did. I was having way too much fun playing it the only way I was taught, which was within the rules. And it was working just fine more me. That lasted for a long time.

I guess that sounds laughable or holier than thou, as one poster put it, to some of you as history says that a percentage probably are trying to see what they can get away with. But that also means that a percentage are not.

I didn't care at all about testing procedures. And that's not holier than thou, that's simply concentrating on winning and playing within the rules. I realize that that mind set is lost on some trainers, owners and customers .

[chadk66]

I get the feeling that the customers perception of trainers is that they are trying to find out what is not being tested for or what they can get away with.

Speaking for myself, that never crossed my mind when I was training.

I didn't give a damn. Give me the rules and guidelines that's how I will play it. And that's what I did. That's what many of us did. I was having way too much fun playing it the only way I was taught, which was within the rules. And it was working just fine more me. That lasted for a long time.

I guess that sounds laughable or holier than thou, as one poster put it, to some of you as history says that a percentage probably are trying to see what they can get away with. But that also means that a percentage are not.

I didn't care at all about testing procedures. And that's not holier than thou, that's simply concentrating on winning and playing within the rules. I realize that that mind set is lost on some trainers, owners and customers .you operated with the same principals I did. :ThmbUp: boy have times changed. I think it would be really hard to enjoy training in this era. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe kicking their asses with clean horses would be enough thrill to get a person through it.

[dilanesp]

I get the feeling that the customers perception of trainers is that they are trying to find out what is not being tested for or what they can get away with.

Speaking for myself, that never crossed my mind when I was training.

I didn't give a damn. Give me the rules and guidelines that's how I will play it. And that's what I did. That's what many of us did. I was having way too much fun playing it the only way I was taught, which was within the rules. And it was working just fine more me. That lasted for a long time.

I guess that sounds laughable or holier than thou, as one poster put it, to some of you as history says that a percentage probably are trying to see what they can get away with. But that also means that a percentage are not.

I didn't care at all about testing procedures. And that's not holier than thou, that's simply concentrating on winning and playing within the rules. I realize that that mind set is lost on some trainers, owners and customers .

The way doping usually works, in every sport, is that a few dishonest people look to cheat, but once they find something, lots of other winning competitors hear about it and start doping. Meanwhile, there are holdouts, but they don't perform as well.

So most trainers are not "looking to cheat". It just happens that once a mechanism is discovered, people are afraid that if they don't do it too, they can't win.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

2014- Princess of Sylmar tests positive for corticosteroids in the Grade 1 Delaware Handicap. Split sample confirms positive. Not disqualified.


Betamethasone is a corticosteroid that is not a banned substance in the U.S. It is on the RMTC list of approved medications at a threshold of 10 pg/mL.

Just a clarification on Princess of Sylmar. Todd Pletcher beat a positive for Princess of Sylmar in the 2014 Delaware Handicap for betamethasone because the Deputy Attorney General advising the Delaware Racing Commission identified that the lack of published and recognized science to support the RMTC recommendations would not withstand a court challenge.

In other words, RMTC set the standard either arbitrarily or using inadequate science.

[Spalding No!]

Betamethasone is a corticosteroid that is not a banned substance in the U.S. It is on the RMTC list of approved medications at a threshold of 10 pg/mL.

Just a clarification on Princess of Sylmar. Todd Pletcher beat a positive for Princess of Sylmar in the 2014 Delaware Handicap for betamethasone because the Deputy Attorney General advising the Delaware Racing Commission identified that the lack of published and recognized science to support the RMTC recommendations would not withstand a court challenge.

In other words, RMTC set the standard either arbitrarily or using inadequate science.
The Princess of Sylmar episode highlights a couple of things. First and foremost, it illustrates the difference between regulation based on zero-tolerance policy and regulation based on threshold levels. If Delaware operated on a zero-tolerance basis and therefore used screening detection limits of laboratories to call positives, it might have stuck. I would presume it would be much harder to call the technology of the testing equipment into question than it was the science and statistics involved in calculating an adequate threshold level.

Second, it also illustrates to some extent the ability of regulators to enforce their own rules. Even if they have the best technology and testing protocols, are jurisdictions able and willing to effectively regulate?

I wonder if a few more of these embarrassing court cases regarding threshold levels will spur regulators to give up the ghost and simply drive towards a "zero-tolerance" policy in the future.

[Ruffian1]

The way doping usually works, in every sport, is that a few dishonest people look to cheat, but once they find something, lots of other winning competitors hear about it and start doping. Meanwhile, there are holdouts, but they don't perform as well.

So most trainers are not "looking to cheat". It just happens that once a mechanism is discovered, people are afraid that if they don't do it too, they can't win.


I agree .

But it was not to that extent yet in 1985, which is the time frame I was talking about in my first response. At least not in Md. or other tracks where I raced . And if it was there, I did not recognize the effects of it at all.

But by the year 2000, it had been effecting me and I had had my fill of it. And that's when I realized I had a decision to make, which I finalized shortly thereafter.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The Princess of Sylmar episode highlights a couple of things. First and foremost, it illustrates the difference between regulation based on zero-tolerance policy and regulation based on threshold levels. If Delaware operated on a zero-tolerance basis and therefore used screening detection limits of laboratories to call positives, it might have stuck. I would presume it would be much harder to call the technology of the testing equipment into question than it was the science and statistics involved in calculating an adequate threshold level.

Second, it also illustrates to some extent the ability of regulators to enforce their own rules. Even if they have the best technology and testing protocols, are jurisdictions able and willing to effectively regulate?

I wonder if a few more of these embarrassing court cases regarding threshold levels will spur regulators to give up the ghost and simply drive towards a "zero-tolerance" policy in the future.

There's an interesting question. Can a jurisdiction ban a substance (zero-tolerance) easier than it can set a standard, or do they need a scientific justification? I suspect the answer is yes. I think you are correct that banning a substance falls clearly within the powers of a racing jurisdiction, and I don't think I've read any rules that say a racing commission has to have a scientifically valid reason for doing so. On the other hand, setting a threshold requires scientific study.

Betamethasone is an interesting case because it has so many therapeutic applications. Of course, so do a number of the substances on the RMTC list.

I know Britain's list of threshold substances is quite a bit shorter than ours, although both Boldenone and Testosterone are on the list. Those steroids also have thresholds in Hong Kong, in case people were wondering.

[Spalding No!]

I know Britain's list of threshold substances is quite a bit shorter than ours, although both Boldenone and Testosterone are on the list. Those steroids also have thresholds in Hong Kong, in case people were wondering.
To be clear, those two anabolics essentially have to be regulated using thresholds because they occur naturally in intact males (and to some extent all horses in the case of testosterone).

[dilanesp]

There's an interesting question. Can a jurisdiction ban a substance (zero-tolerance) easier than it can set a standard, or do they need a scientific justification? I suspect the answer is yes. I think you are correct that banning a substance falls clearly within the powers of a racing jurisdiction, and I don't think I've read any rules that say a racing commission has to have a scientifically valid reason for doing so. On the other hand, setting a threshold requires scientific study.

Betamethasone is an interesting case because it has so many therapeutic applications. Of course, so do a number of the substances on the RMTC list.

I know Britain's list of threshold substances is quite a bit shorter than ours, although both Boldenone and Testosterone are on the list. Those steroids also have thresholds in Hong Kong, in case people were wondering.

Setting a threshold only requires science if the statutes require science.

There's no good reason why any statutory scheme should permit horsemen to make that sort of challenge. You can't defend a DUI at .08 by arguing that scientifically, you weren't drunk. Blow .08 and you are guilty.

If the racing board tells horsemen to do something, they need to do it. Any challenge to the science should be done in advance, BEFORE violating it.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Setting a threshold only requires science if the statutes require science.

There's no good reason why any statutory scheme should permit horsemen to make that sort of challenge. You can't defend a DUI at .08 by arguing that scientifically, you weren't drunk. Blow .08 and you are guilty.

If the racing board tells horsemen to do something, they need to do it. Any challenge to the science should be done in advance, BEFORE violating it.

I don't know of any jurisdiction that hasn't adopted thresholds based on scientific studies, specifically those done under the auspices of the RMTC. Based on the enabling statutes I've seen, I think the language is fairly generic - jurisdictions have the right to adopt standards - but I can't say I am recollecting the requirement to set thresholds based on scientific studies. But I could be wrong about that. This is the Delaware enabling legislation.

The Commission shall promulgate administrative regulations for effectively preventing the use of improper devices, the administration of drugs or stimulants or other improper acts for the purpose of affecting the speed or health of horses in races in which they are to participate.  The Commission is also authorized to promulgate administrative regulations for the legal drug testing of licensees.  The Commission is authorized to contract for the maintenance and operation of a testing laboratory and related facilities, for the purpose of saliva, urine or other tests for enforcement of the Commission's drug testing rules and regulations.

You'll notice nothing about needing to adhere to some scientific standard. Using your example, yes, a violation of the DUI threshold makes you presumptively guilty, just as a violation of the betamethasone threshold does. But...

There have been a myriad of studies on the effects of alcohol. .08 is defensible. However, in the hypothetical, if it was the case that every scientific study showed .08 was a level at which there was insufficient impairment for anybody, I think the state would have a hard time convicting anyone of DUI. On the other hand, if there was no scientific study and the state arbitrarily chose .08, I think you'd have a good chance of beating that in court as well.

The average lay person wouldn't have the slightest clue at what level anyone would be drunk. In the same regard, the average trainer may have no idea whether the thresholds have been set meeting the highest standards of scientific inquiry, or even if they represent a level to indicate performance enhancement, or if they were just yanked out of thin air, just that they are the numbers that have to be met.

Unless you are a pharmacologist, you would definitely be at a disadvantage fighting the level of the threshold. Considering how much research I've done into the thresholds, I can say a threshold represents either an unnatural level (in the case of TCO2) or a residual level at some time after administration. What it may or may not represent is level that will affect performance on race day. I'm not sure how much omeprazole would have to be in a horse's system to claim performance enhancement; I just know how much should be left in a horse's system after dosing 24 hours before the race. I know that because, ostensibly, there have been scientifically valid studies that showed that.

In the case of Pletcher and Princess of Sylmar, his attorney argued that there was no valid scientific basis for setting the threshold at the published level, and the state de facto agreed by declining to prosecute. Whether the RMTC had the validation and refused to turn it over, or whether they didn't have any valid scientific reason for adopting the standard, the state would have not been able to prove a violation of the threshold was significant without that information. The fact that the horsemen didn't challenge the threshold during the adoption process was logically a reflection of their lack of expertise on threshold levels. But clearly they should not have been denied a second bite of the apple once there was a violation. There is a reasonable chance the same thing may happen with Graham Motion and Methocarbamol.

[dilanesp]

I don't know of any jurisdiction that hasn't adopted thresholds based on scientific studies, specifically those done under the auspices of the RMTC. Based on the enabling statutes I've seen, I think the language is fairly generic - jurisdictions have the right to adopt standards - but I can't say I am recollecting the requirement to set thresholds based on scientific studies. But I could be wrong about that. This is the Delaware enabling legislation.

The Commission shall promulgate administrative regulations for effectively preventing the use of improper devices, the administration of drugs or stimulants or other improper acts for the purpose of affecting the speed or health of horses in races in which they are to participate.  The Commission is also authorized to promulgate administrative regulations for the legal drug testing of licensees.  The Commission is authorized to contract for the maintenance and operation of a testing laboratory and related facilities, for the purpose of saliva, urine or other tests for enforcement of the Commission's drug testing rules and regulations.

You'll notice nothing about needing to adhere to some scientific standard. Using your example, yes, a violation of the DUI threshold makes you presumptively guilty, just as a violation of the betamethasone threshold does. But...

There have been a myriad of studies on the effects of alcohol. .08 is defensible. However, in the hypothetical, if it was the case that every scientific study showed .08 was a level at which there was insufficient impairment for anybody, I think the state would have a hard time convicting anyone of DUI. On the other hand, if there was no scientific study and the state arbitrarily chose .08, I think you'd have a good chance of beating that in court as well.

The average lay person wouldn't have the slightest clue at what level anyone would be drunk. In the same regard, the average trainer may have no idea whether the thresholds have been set meeting the highest standards of scientific inquiry, or even if they represent a level to indicate performance enhancement, or if they were just yanked out of thin air, just that they are the numbers that have to be met.

Unless you are a pharmacologist, you would definitely be at a disadvantage fighting the level of the threshold. Considering how much research I've done into the thresholds, I can say a threshold represents either an unnatural level (in the case of TCO2) or a residual level at some time after administration. What it may or may not represent is level that will affect performance on race day. I'm not sure how much omeprazole would have to be in a horse's system to claim performance enhancement; I just know how much should be left in a horse's system after dosing 24 hours before the race. I know that because, ostensibly, there have been scientifically valid studies that showed that.

In the case of Pletcher and Princess of Sylmar, his attorney argued that there was no valid scientific basis for setting the threshold at the published level, and the state de facto agreed by declining to prosecute. Whether the RMTC had the validation and refused to turn it over, or whether they didn't have any valid scientific reason for adopting the standard, the state would have not been able to prove a violation of the threshold was significant without that information. The fact that the horsemen didn't challenge the threshold during the adoption process was logically a reflection of their lack of expertise on threshold levels. But clearly they should not have been denied a second bite of the apple once there was a violation. There is a reasonable chance the same thing may happen with Graham Motion and Methocarbamol.

Halv, you are dead wrong. If the horse racing board says "no more than X" and a horseman has more than X, that should be a suspension, period.

If a horseman determines the standard is wrong, lobby for a change. We do not get to violate laws simply because we disagree with them.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv, you are dead wrong. If the horse racing board says "no more than X" and a horseman has more than X, that should be a suspension, period.

If a horseman determines the standard is wrong, lobby for a change. We do not get to violate laws simply because we disagree with them.

How can I be dead wrong when Delaware refused to prosecute on the basis of insufficient scientific proof for the validity of the threshold? Which is exactly what I said and exactly what happened if you care to research it. Delaware deputy attorney general Edward Black, serving in a prosecutor role for the stewards, determined the Delaware rule for betamethasone was not subjected to the proper peer review and publication requirements and advised the case not be prosecuted.

You should be able to read between the lines on what he was saying. And what Karen Murphy, Pletcher's attorney contended, was that the threshold didn't meet the Daubert Standard (which certainly the two of us know what it means) in this case because, scientific knowledge must be demonstrated that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method. Again, Delaware de facto agreed.

The case never got to hearing and I can tell you exactly why. If they had gone to hearing and Delaware lost, which every legal mind associated with the case believed they would, it would have thrown a number of the thresholds into question since they were set based on studies that would not meet Daubert (that's not solely my opinion - some of the top equine pharmacologists in the country will back that up.)

Nobody contended the testing was invalid - Princess of Sylmar tested over the threshold. But Delaware still didn't win.

Now you can argue that dropping the case wasn't a loss for Delaware, or the RMTC for that matter. But where your point falls apart is that if the Commission says no more X, and they were arbitrary in doing so, eventually they will lose. They are required to ultimately provide scientific proof the threshold was derived from the scientific method. You can argue what you think the law should be, but you can't change how the law currently works.

[dilanesp]

Halv:

You really can't read anything into declining to prosecute, especially in a regulatory context where regulators often come from the same industry being regulated and may not be as aggressive as they should be.

I am not going to opine on what Delaware law is. But I do know what the law should be: no post-violation challenges to the testing protocol. There's no reason any horseman should be permitted to weasel out of a positive test so long as there was fair notice as to what the standard is.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv:

You really can't read anything into declining to prosecute, especially in a regulatory context where regulators often come from the same industry being regulated and may not be as aggressive as they should be.

I am not going to opine on what Delaware law is. But I do know what the law should be: no post-violation challenges to the testing protocol. There's no reason any horseman should be permitted to weasel out of a positive test so long as there was fair notice as to what the standard is.

I talked to Karen Murphy (Pletcher's attorney) and John Wayne (Executive Director of the Commission) back when the decision was made. I wasn't guessing about why they declined to prosecute.

The problem is that many of the regulators are at the mercy of the state medical director or the RMTC when it comes to adopting thresholds. Very few of them have the knowledge or the training to know which thresholds have been established through proper scientific study. Besides, a threshold is fine right up until it is violated. You can't expect horsemen to research every threshold and challenge it, especially when they have no experience with it. And in situations where horsemen have commented negatively, the Commissions still usually adopt the standard.

But, regardless of when the standard is challenged, if it is a standard that cannot be defended with proper science, it cannot be enforced as if it is.

Laws are not found to be unconstitutional before they are adopted, and if a law is unconstitutional, a conviction may be voided, or in other terms, the scofflaw may weasel out of it. The system in the case of Fletcher worked exactly as it was supposed to.

[dilanesp]

I talked to Karen Murphy (Pletcher's attorney) and John Wayne (Executive Director of the Commission) back when the decision was made. I wasn't guessing about why they declined to prosecute.

The problem is that many of the regulators are at the mercy of the state medical director or the RMTC when it comes to adopting thresholds. Very few of them have the knowledge or the training to know which thresholds have been established through proper scientific study. Besides, a threshold is fine right up until it is violated. You can't expect horsemen to research every threshold and challenge it, especially when they have no experience with it. And in situations where horsemen have commented negatively, the Commissions still usually adopt the standard.

But, regardless of when the standard is challenged, if it is a standard that cannot be defended with proper science, it cannot be enforced as if it is.

Laws are not found to be unconstitutional before they are adopted, and if a law is unconstitutional, a conviction may be voided, or in other terms, the scofflaw may weasel out of it. The system in the case of Fletcher worked exactly as it was supposed to.

Halv:

There is no constitutional right here. As long as you get faur notice and a hearing, the government can pull a trainer's license. All medication rules are constitutional.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halv:

There is no constitutional right here. As long as you get faur notice and a hearing, the government can pull a trainer's license. All medication rules are constitutional.

The medication rules may have been adopted according to the APA. That doesn't mean they can't be challenged after the fact. The constitutional reference was an analogy about timing. If you can challenge a law after it is passed in accordance with the pertinent administrative procedures, you can challenge a regulation. I wasn't contending the medication rules weren't constitutional, just that a "conviction" based on a threshold set without adhering to proper science will get overturned.

The government can pull a trainers license, and the trainer has the right to appeal. If the trainer wins the appeal, he gets his license back. This is pretty much The Law 101. I've looked at dozens of cases of trainers getting convicted of violating a threshold and dozens of times they have appealed. And sometimes they win.

I can see I shouldn't have used the constitutional analogy since it gave you a chance to head of in a different direction. Forget the Constitution here. Stick to the topic. I don't care if you noticed all your hearings properly, held them properly and made your decision properly, if you adopt a threshold that has no or an insufficient scientific basis, you're going to lose if the threshold is challenged. That was the essence of the Princess of Sylmar case.

A decision on Graham Motion's appeal on the positive for methocarbamol is due toward the end of May. If he wins, and he has a case similar to Pletcher, I'll be dying to hear how once a threshold is passed it's over for any trainer who violates.

[dilanesp]

The medication rules may have been adopted according to the APA. That doesn't mean they can't be challenged after the fact. The constitutional reference was an analogy about timing. If you can challenge a law after it is passed in accordance with the pertinent administrative procedures, you can challenge a regulation. I wasn't contending the medication rules weren't constitutional, just that a "conviction" based on a threshold set without adhering to proper science will get overturned.

The government can pull a trainers license, and the trainer has the right to appeal. If the trainer wins the appeal, he gets his license back. This is pretty much The Law 101. I've looked at dozens of cases of trainers getting convicted of violating a threshold and dozens of times they have appealed. And sometimes they win.

I can see I shouldn't have used the constitutional analogy since it gave you a chance to head of in a different direction. Forget the Constitution here. Stick to the topic. I don't care if you noticed all your hearings properly, held them properly and made your decision properly, if you adopt a threshold that has no or an insufficient scientific basis, you're going to lose if the threshold is challenged. That was the essence of the Princess of Sylmar case.

A decision on Graham Motion's appeal on the positive for methocarbamol is due toward the end of May. If he wins, and he has a case similar to Pletcher, I'll be dying to hear how once a threshold is passed it's over for any trainer who violates.

I agree that a state has the power to allow post-violation challenges.

A jurisdiction that wants horsemen to comply should not do so, and there's no constitutional requirement to allow post-violation challenges.

And the reason is if a regulation is truly wrong, there is ample opportunity to challenge it before violating it. Allowing post-violation challenges encourages doping by horsemen with expensive lawyers.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I agree that a state has the power to allow post-violation challenges.

A jurisdiction that wants horsemen to comply should not do so, and there's no constitutional requirement to allow post-violation challenges.

And the reason is if a regulation is truly wrong, there is ample opportunity to challenge it before violating it. Allowing post-violation challenges encourages doping by horsemen with expensive lawyers.

I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of the law on the topic of post-violation challenges. I do know that some challenges have been based on failure to provide due process, although in the cases I know the trainer lost.

I understand your point about post-violation challenges. I think in the case of the thresholds, right or wrong, all parties acted passively in assuming the thresholds were based on good science.

My issue is that when you have a case like Princess of Sylmar, when the RMTC essentially induces states to adopt a threshold they know to not have a proper scientific justification, that is simply wrong and needs to be fixed before anyone else is charged with a violation.

[chadk66]

as a trainer, to receive your trainers license, you have to sign off on obeying the rules and what they are. whether they are zero tolerance or threshold rules makes absolutely no difference. and whether or not there is scientific evidence to support the threshold level. those rules are what they are and you signed off on obeying them. This makes no sense to me. If you don't like the rules in a certain state then stay the hell out of there and race somewhere else where the rules work for you. :mad:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

as a trainer, to receive your trainers license, you have to sign off on obeying the rules and what they are. whether they are zero tolerance or threshold rules makes absolutely no difference. and whether or not there is scientific evidence to support the threshold level. those rules are what they are and you signed off on obeying them. This makes no sense to me. If you don't like the rules in a certain state then stay the hell out of there and race somewhere else where the rules work for you. :mad:

Just curious. When you looked at the thresholds for medication, did it ever strike you that one or another of them didn't make sense?

I think unless you had special knowledge or long experience, a trainer would have no idea whether the thresholds were scientifically set, they would just take it on faith that a racing commission wouldn't set a scientifically indefensible threshold and they would sign off on obeying them.

Suppose at some point you caught a positive for one of the medications on the list and someone came up to you and said, I know for a fact that the Commission just yanked the standard out of thin air (just assume that's true). There was no basis at all for picking that number. How would you have handled that situation? Would you just shrug, pay the fine, and figure they can pick any number they want?

I'm honestly curious what you would have done if you had dead solid proof you got screwed? Do you think most trainers would act as you would?

[dilanesp]

Just curious. When you looked at the thresholds for medication, did it ever strike you that one or another of them didn't make sense?

I think unless you had special knowledge or long experience, a trainer would have no idea whether the thresholds were scientifically set, they would just take it on faith that a racing commission wouldn't set a scientifically indefensible threshold and they would sign off on obeying them.

Suppose at some point you caught a positive for one of the medications on the list and someone came up to you and said, I know for a fact that the Commission just yanked the standard out of thin air (just assume that's true). There was no basis at all for picking that number. How would you have handled that situation? Would you just shrug, pay the fine, and figure they can pick any number they want?

I'm honestly curious what you would have done if you had dead solid proof you got screwed? Do you think most trainers would act as you would?

Your last statement is wrong.

If Caltrans posts a road at 30 miles per hour based on a faulty traffic study, and I knowingly go 45 and get a speeding ticket, I have not been screwed. I saw the sign, and I violated the limit.

Now, of course, it WOULD be correct to say "I should be allowed to go 45 there". That's true. And Caltrans should change the limit. And there should be a process whereby where an incorrect traffic study can be challenged and the limit changed.

But if there is fair notice of what the limit is, and the person violates it, the person simply has not been screwed.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Your last statement is wrong.

If Caltrans posts a road at 30 miles per hour based on a faulty traffic study, and I knowingly go 45 and get a speeding ticket, I have not been screwed. I saw the sign, and I violated the limit.

Now, of course, it WOULD be correct to say "I should be allowed to go 45 there". That's true. And Caltrans should change the limit. And there should be a process whereby where an incorrect traffic study can be challenged and the limit changed.

But if there is fair notice of what the limit is, and the person violates it, the person simply has not been screwed.

The point of the hypothetical was that you found out the standard was not science based. It was just yanked out of the air. You got screwed because the threshold could not be defended under Daubert.

This is entirely different than arbitrarily setting a speed limit at 30. As far as I know, there is no requirement to scientifically justify a speed limit as there is with a threshold. I actually agree that if the limit is 30 and you violate it, you get stuck with the ticket, even if every similar road is 45.

There was a speed trap road - what transportation planners would call a major collector - in my town, and if you lived there you knew it, but they must have made millions in fines. Eventually they changed the limit from 30 to 35, primarily based a campaign that said the mayor would never get elected again if the speed limit stayed 30. In municipalities it's the details.

But let's not take the fork in the road. Whether or not you got screwed can be a matter of perception. I simply wanted to know if Chad as a trainer would have paid the fine because he bought your argument - I knew the standard and I violated it, so I pay the piper - or if knowing it was an scientifically indefensible standard would induce him to fight the conviction.

I already knew what you would do.

[dilanesp]

The point of the hypothetical was that you found out the standard was not science based. It was just yanked out of the air. You got screwed because the threshold could not be defended under Daubert.

This is entirely different than arbitrarily setting a speed limit at 30. As far as I know, there is no requirement to scientifically justify a speed limit as there is with a threshold. I actually agree that if the limit is 30 and you violate it, you get stuck with the ticket, even if every similar road is 45.

There was a speed trap road - what transportation planners would call a major collector - in my town, and if you lived there you knew it, but they must have made millions in fines. Eventually they changed the limit from 30 to 35, primarily based a campaign that said the mayor would never get elected again if the speed limit stayed 30. In municipalities it's the details.

But let's not take the fork in the road. Whether or not you got screwed can be a matter of perception. I simply wanted to know if Chad as a trainer would have paid the fine because he bought your argument - I knew the standard and I violated it, so I pay the piper - or if knowing it was an scientifically indefensible standard would induce him to fight the conviction.

I already knew what you would do.

Daubert is a standard for the admission of expert testimony in a court case. Government actions don't have to meet the Daubert standard and are upheld so long as they have a rational basis. And government witnesses who testify as to what they actually did are percipient witnesses, not experts. Percipient testimony doesn't have to satisfy Daubert.

[chadk66]

Just curious. When you looked at the thresholds for medication, did it ever strike you that one or another of them didn't make sense?

I think unless you had special knowledge or long experience, a trainer would have no idea whether the thresholds were scientifically set, they would just take it on faith that a racing commission wouldn't set a scientifically indefensible threshold and they would sign off on obeying them.

Suppose at some point you caught a positive for one of the medications on the list and someone came up to you and said, I know for a fact that the Commission just yanked the standard out of thin air (just assume that's true). There was no basis at all for picking that number. How would you have handled that situation? Would you just shrug, pay the fine, and figure they can pick any number they want?

I'm honestly curious what you would have done if you had dead solid proof you got screwed? Do you think most trainers would act as you would?top be honest I never worried about thresholds because I had faith in my vet to not over administer. If he doesn't know how to keep under those limits he isn't my vet for long. I totally understand what your saying and the case your trying to make. And to some degree it makes sense. But the bottom line is as trainers we all know the what the thresholds are and how to stay under them. Or we have to find out. It's our responsibility as trainers to understand how to stay under thresholds. It really doesn't matter how they come to the levels they approve. It's simply what the rules are and we all know them and how to stay below them. I trained for eight years and never had a single overage of any kind. Actually had zero infractions over those eight years. It's not that hard unless your intentionally pushing the envelope to the very limits. If you do that your taking the risk and don't expect the rules to be bent when you do it. Just accept the fact you pushed too far.

[chadk66]

Your last statement is wrong.

If Caltrans posts a road at 30 miles per hour based on a faulty traffic study, and I knowingly go 45 and get a speeding ticket, I have not been screwed. I saw the sign, and I violated the limit.

Now, of course, it WOULD be correct to say "I should be allowed to go 45 there". That's true. And Caltrans should change the limit. And there should be a process whereby where an incorrect traffic study can be challenged and the limit changed.

But if there is fair notice of what the limit is, and the person violates it, the person simply has not been screwed.that's exactly how I look at it. Doesn't matter how they come up with their thresholds whether it's pulling numbers out of a hat or whatever. As trainers we know what the rules are when we accept the license. They are what they are. If we decide to stretch the limits we understand there is a price to pay if you stretch too far.

[chadk66]

The point of the hypothetical was that you found out the standard was not science based. It was just yanked out of the air. You got screwed because the threshold could not be defended under Daubert.

This is entirely different than arbitrarily setting a speed limit at 30. As far as I know, there is no requirement to scientifically justify a speed limit as there is with a threshold. I actually agree that if the limit is 30 and you violate it, you get stuck with the ticket, even if every similar road is 45.

There was a speed trap road - what transportation planners would call a major collector - in my town, and if you lived there you knew it, but they must have made millions in fines. Eventually they changed the limit from 30 to 35, primarily based a campaign that said the mayor would never get elected again if the speed limit stayed 30. In municipalities it's the details.

But let's not take the fork in the road. Whether or not you got screwed can be a matter of perception. I simply wanted to know if Chad as a trainer would have paid the fine because he bought your argument - I knew the standard and I violated it, so I pay the piper - or if knowing it was an scientifically indefensible standard would induce him to fight the conviction.

I already knew what you would do.why would they have to be science based? they can set whatever limits they want regardless of how they came to that conclusion. everybody has to play by the same limits. that's like saying you should be able to use 40cc's of lasix because 20cc's doesn't keep your horse from bleeding but 40 appears to. don't work that way.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Daubert is a standard for the admission of expert testimony in a court case. Government actions don't have to meet the Daubert standard and are upheld so long as they have a rational basis. And government witnesses who testify as to what they actually did are percipient witnesses, not experts. Percipient testimony doesn't have to satisfy Daubert.

Yes, yes, the government doesn't have to meet Daubert until a threshold is challenged in court. I wasn't arguing they had to until the case was filed. At that point someone from the RMTC or the person who actually did the study on which the threshold is based - and that person would be an expert witness, not a percipient witness - would have to testify that the threshold was the product of sound scientific methodology.

In the Daubert case, seven justices agreed that scientific knowledge equals scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.

The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:
o Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
o Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
o Whether it can be and has been tested;
o Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and
o Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.

You're taking the fork in the road again. If they asked John Wayne, yes, he would have been a percipient witness. But Karen Murphy asked the RMTC and not John Wayne, and the RMTC couldn't meet the Daubert standard. I'm not filing a motion here. The legal analogies and minutiae are not the point. I just wanted to know, if a trainer gets convicted of violation a known BS standard, even if it was adopted legally, does he fight or pay the fine?

[chadk66]

Yes, yes, the government doesn't have to meet Daubert until a threshold is challenged in court. I wasn't arguing they had to until the case was filed. At that point someone from the RMTC or the person who actually did the study on which the threshold is based - and that person would be an expert witness, not a percipient witness - would have to testify that the threshold was the product of sound scientific methodology.

In the Daubert case, seven justices agreed that scientific knowledge equals scientific method/methodology: A conclusion will qualify as scientific knowledge if the proponent can demonstrate that it is the product of sound "scientific methodology" derived from the scientific method.

The Court defined "scientific methodology" as the process of formulating hypotheses and then conducting experiments to prove or falsify the hypothesis, and provided a set of illustrative factors (i.e., not a "test") in determining whether these criteria are met:
o Whether the theory or technique employed by the expert is generally accepted in the scientific community;
o Whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication;
o Whether it can be and has been tested;
o Whether the known or potential rate of error is acceptable; and
o Whether the research was conducted independent of the particular litigation or dependent on an intention to provide the proposed testimony.

You're taking the fork in the road again. If they asked John Wayne, yes, he would have been a percipient witness. But Karen Murphy asked the RMTC and not John Wayne, and the RMTC couldn't meet the Daubert standard. I'm not filing a motion here. The legal analogies and minutiae are not the point. I just wanted to know, if a trainer gets convicted of violation a known BS standard, even if it was adopted legally, does he fight or pay the fine?how can one challenge a threshold in court when you know full well what the threshold is and how to stay under it?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

top be honest I never worried about thresholds because I had faith in my vet to not over administer. If he doesn't know how to keep under those limits he isn't my vet for long. I totally understand what your saying and the case your trying to make. And to some degree it makes sense. But the bottom line is as trainers we all know the what the thresholds are and how to stay under them. Or we have to find out. It's our responsibility as trainers to understand how to stay under thresholds. It really doesn't matter how they come to the levels they approve. It's simply what the rules are and we all know them and how to stay below them. I trained for eight years and never had a single overage of any kind. Actually had zero infractions over those eight years. It's not that hard unless your intentionally pushing the envelope to the very limits. If you do that your taking the risk and don't expect the rules to be bent when you do it. Just accept the fact you pushed too far.

One of the fascinating things about the Graham Motion case was that he said he wouldn't fight a positive, just take his punishment and move on. Of course, that's not what happened once he decided the study on which the standard was based was BS.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

how can one challenge a threshold in court when you know full well what the threshold is and how to stay under it?

That was the point of the Motion case. The vet gave the horse the recommended therapeutic dose, and withdrew the medication seven days before the race - the recommended withdrawal time was 48 hours so they ostensibly were conservative in withdrawing the medication. But when you reviewed the study on which the threshold was based, and the meeting where the adoption occurred, the adoption smells like three-day old fish. If you did everything "right" and you still violated, something is wrong, and even if you have to pay the piper, the threshold should ultimately be fixed. Motion's belief is that the threshold was not adopted in a scientifically valid way. We'll find out soon if the court buys it.

[chadk66]

That was the point of the Motion case. The vet gave the horse the recommended therapeutic dose, and withdrew the medication seven days before the race - the recommended withdrawal time was 48 hours so they ostensibly were conservative in withdrawing the medication. But when you reviewed the study on which the threshold was based, and the meeting where the adoption occurred, the adoption smells like three-day old fish. If you did everything "right" and you still violated, something is wrong, and even if you have to pay the piper, the threshold should ultimately be fixed. Motion's belief is that the threshold was not adopted in a scientifically valid way. We'll find out soon if the court buys it.first off you'd have to believe they withdrew it seven days out. I would bet my next paycheck that wasn't the case.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

first off you'd have to believe they withdrew it seven days out. I would bet my next paycheck that wasn't the case.

I have a feeling the case will turn on the legitimacy of the threshold. Given that it was Motion's first violation in his career, he'll carry a lot of credibility.

[chadk66]

I have a feeling the case will turn on the legitimacy of the threshold. Given that it was Motion's first violation in his career, he'll carry a lot of credibility.as it probably should with first time violations. but the legitimacy of the threshold shouldn't matter a bit. they all play by the same rules.

[outofthebox]

first off you'd have to believe they withdrew it seven days out. I would bet my next paycheck that wasn't the case.I agree with Chad. Motion can't be everywhere. Someone in his barn messed up, I'm sure unintentionally.

[Spalding No!]

Yes, yes, the government doesn't have to meet Daubert until a threshold is challenged in court. I wasn't arguing they had to until the case was filed. At that point someone from the RMTC or the person who actually did the study on which the threshold is based - and that person would be an expert witness, not a percipient witness - would have to testify that the threshold was the product of sound scientific methodology.
In regards to the Princess of Sylmar case, it should not be construed that the corticosteroid threshold was arbitrary or “pulled out of thin air” or based on “a faulty study”.

The problem for the RMTC was that it was bound by confidentiality agreements and could not release the actual study from which the threshold was derived to the defense. This was because it had yet to be published in a scientific journal. A summary of the results was released to the defense.

In fact, the RMTC “wished the case had moved forward to allow an opportunity to present the science behind the threshold levels and, if needed, the scientists who developed the thresholds.”

The study was already to some degree “peer-reviewed” by the RMTC Scientific Advisory Committee when it recommended the threshold, a diverse panel of experts many of whom have conducted similar studies in the past themselves.

The decision by the deputy attorney general to not prosecute was likely multifactorial: (1) the study was not published and therefore could not be released, (2) there was a conspicuous delay (~10 months) in actually testing the horse’s sample because the contracted laboratory was faltering under too heavy a workload, and (3) it appeared that the Delaware Racing Commission was trying to cover-up the whole mess or was "playing favorites" as there was no mention of the positive in its public records until nearly a year after the fact, whereas a similar positive for Murray Rojas on the same day (July 12) as Princess of Sylmar was announced and decided within 3 months.

To me, it sounds like Delaware was going to look bad, not necessarily the RMTC, which was confident it could back up its findings.

But Karen Murphy asked the RMTC and not John Wayne, and the RMTC couldn't meet the Daubert standard.
As for the Daubert criteria you listed, those factors are not exclusive nor are they some sort of checklist. They do not need to be met individually in all cases, depending on the circumstances:

"The Supreme Court emphasized in Daubert that these factors are neither exclusive nor entirely dispositive of whether or not the testimony at issue should be admitted. Subsequent decisions have recognized that not all of the specific Daubert factors can apply to every form of expert testimony. For instance, lack of peer review or publication is deemed unimportant where the opinion is supported by "widely accepted scientific knowledge."

[HalvOnHorseracing]

In regards to the Princess of Sylmar case, it should not be construed that the corticosteroid threshold was arbitrary or “pulled out of thin air” or based on “a faulty study”.

The problem for the RMTC was that it was bound by confidentiality agreements and could not release the actual study from which the threshold was derived to the defense. This was because it had yet to be published in a scientific journal. A summary of the results was released to the defense.

In fact, the RMTC “wished the case had moved forward to allow an opportunity to present the science behind the threshold levels and, if needed, the scientists who developed the thresholds.”

The study was already to some degree “peer-reviewed” by the RMTC Scientific Advisory Committee when it recommended the threshold, a diverse panel of experts many of whom have conducted similar studies in the past themselves.

The decision by the deputy attorney general to not prosecute was likely multifactorial: (1) the study was not published and therefore could not be released, (2) there was a conspicuous delay (~10 months) in actually testing the horse’s sample because the contracted laboratory was faltering under too heavy a workload, and (3) it appeared that the Delaware Racing Commission was trying to cover-up the whole mess or was "playing favorites" as there was no mention of the positive in its public records until nearly a year after the fact, whereas a similar positive for Murray Rojas on the same day (July 12) as Princess of Sylmar was announced and decided within 3 months.

To me, it sounds like Delaware was going to look bad, not necessarily the RMTC, which was confident it could back up its findings.

As for the Daubert criteria you listed, those factors are not exclusive nor are they some sort of checklist. They do not need to be met individually in all cases, depending on the circumstances:

"The Supreme Court emphasized in Daubert that these factors are neither exclusive nor entirely dispositive of whether or not the testimony at issue should be admitted. Subsequent decisions have recognized that not all of the specific Daubert factors can apply to every form of expert testimony. For instance, lack of peer review or publication is deemed unimportant where the opinion is supported by "widely accepted scientific knowledge."

I remember talking to Karen Murphy about it, and it had a ring of "I can't release my tax returns because I'm under audit." RMTC has a habit of publishing thresholds before studies are published - they did the same thing with methocarbamol.

Even if the RMTC couldn't testify regarding the study, the study's author(s) could have. And regardless, the RMTC could have testified regarding how the threshold was adopted.

In any case, the RMTC maintains the standard in the current Mediation list. Have you seen the study that was used to adopt the threshold? It's been two and a half years since Princess of Sylmar ran second in the Delaware Handicap. I'd figure that was long enough to make the science public. What Alan Foreman, vice-chair of the RMTC said at the time Delaware decided to drop the case was, "The RMTC recommendations regarding corticosteroids came from a conference of scientific experts that was put together for that purpose [of developing corticosteroids rules].” I don't know how that sounds to you, but it sounds to me like there never was a study, just scientists in a room debating the issue, perhaps with some scientific papers to reference, but apparently not a valid equine study. If it was just a conference, why was there a confidentiality issue and why did they refuse to hand over anything to Delaware and Pletcher?

Interesting that you speculate Delaware was covering-up or playing favorites. No one had an explanation for why the positive didn't appear in the daily stewards reports. It is at least an example of how big guys with money and a top lawyer do a lot better in court than small guys with a public defender. I don't think I buy the looking-bad hypothesis - the only way they really look bad is either (1) they let Pletcher off the hook arbitrarily or (2) prosecuting him when they didn't have a threshold that could be defended. I think they did the only thing that made sense.

I don't believe you are quite correct about the testing being delayed eight months. The sample was returned as a positive in October, three months after the race, although after the end of the Delaware meeting. The so-called litigation package - that's essentially the full report - did not arrive until May 2015.

Just to be clear, Murray Rojas was a positive for dexamethasone and Pletcher was betamethosone. Different corticosteroids, so yes, similar substances, but different standards. Doesn't change your point, but just being accurate.

Interesting trainer, Murray Rojas. She was indicted by the feds a year after the positive at Delaware on charges of instructing veterinarians to illegally treat 11 horses on race day and back dating treatment and billing records. The indictment has since been modified to 47 horses.

What I believe the Supreme Court was saying is that if you are arguing the earth is spherical and not flat, you don't really need an expert to testify to that fact. On the other hand, equine corticosteroid thresholds don't fall into the category of "widely accepted scientific knowledge." I don't think Delaware was getting away with not justifying the science.

[Spalding No!]

Even if the RMTC couldn't testify regarding the study, the study's author(s) could have. And regardless, the RMTC could have testified regarding how the threshold was adopted.
Right, but they were willing to do that. That was why I put the quote (3rd paragraph) in my post.

In any case, the RMTC maintains the standard in the current Mediation list. Have you seen the study that was used to adopt the threshold? It's been two and a half years since Princess of Sylmar ran second in the Delaware Handicap. I'd figure that was long enough to make the science public.
I thought the same. The best I can find is on the RMTC corticosteroid position paper, where for betamethasone, a 2012 study on 20 Thoroughbreds was conducted:

Intra-articular (fetlock) administration of 9 mg of a mixture of betamethasone sodium phosphate and betamethasone acetate to twenty Thoroughbred horses was investigated at the University of Florida and HFL Sport Sciences, Inc. in 2012.

Can't find it as a publication. Sounds like there can be very long delays with publishing and peer-reviews, which in the case of racehorse medications thresholds, gives unscrupulous trainers a "grace period" to run rampant with medication.

What Alan Foreman, vice-chair of the RMTC said at the time Delaware decided to drop the case was, "The RMTC recommendations regarding corticosteroids came from a conference of scientific experts that was put together for that purpose [of developing corticosteroids rules].” I don't know how that sounds to you, but it sounds to me like there never was a study, just scientists in a room debating the issue, perhaps with some scientific papers to reference, but apparently not a valid equine study.
If there was no study then they would lose all credibility. It sounds like they simply "count" their advisory committee as essentially a valid peer-review, so that they don't need to wait for publication to implement the threshold. In my opinion, this seems like an acceptable--if somewhat questionable--way of expediting the process (there are already numerous delays in getting regulations passed to begin with).

I don't think I buy the looking-bad hypothesis - the only way they really look bad is either (1) they let Pletcher off the hook arbitrarily or (2) prosecuting him when they didn't have a threshold that could be defended. I think they did the only thing that made sense.
I meant it looked bad in the sense of "death by a thousand cuts". The case seemed to have some conspicuous holes that individually didn't ring the death knell, but taken together just looked like a giant headache. I think the RMTC threshold science problem was probably non-existent beyond the confidentiality issue.

What I believe the Supreme Court was saying is that if you are arguing the earth is spherical and not flat, you don't really need an expert to testify to that fact. On the other hand, equine corticosteroid thresholds don't fall into the category of "widely accepted scientific knowledge." I don't think Delaware was getting away with not justifying the science.
I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I'm off base here, but I would apply the Daubert standard to the methodology of how thresholds are determined in general, not by the specific equine betamethasone threshold. If it was applied to the betamethasone threshold specifically, then the applicable scientific community in which it is significant is obviously very narrow, and the phrase "widely accepted" would have to be restricted to pertain only to this group.

[dilanesp]

Seriously, there's no Daubert issue here. "I did X because [reasons]" is percipient testimony,even if the reasons are scientific.

Daubert only applies to OPINIONS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LITIGATION, i.e., expert opinion testimony. A horse racing regulator's reason for doing something is not expert testimony.

[Spalding No!]

Seriously, there's no Daubert issue here. "I did X because [reasons]" is percipient testimony,even if the reasons are scientific.

Daubert only applies to OPINIONS FORMED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LITIGATION, i.e., expert opinion testimony. A horse racing regulator's reason for doing something is not expert testimony.
So if the case went forward and was presented to a judge, it still would not involve the Daubert standard? Pletcher's defense attorney apparently invoked the Daubert standard as a means of persuading the deputy attorney general to recommend not prosecuting.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I've already agreed that the RACING COMMISSION can adopt whatever standard they want as long as they have been given enabling authority by the State and they follow the Administrative Procedures Act. In fact, they could have convicted Pletcher with nothing more than the positive test. I've also agreed that Daubert has nothing to do with the Racing Commission adopting and enforcing thresholds. We all agree that Daubert never came into play because the case never got to court. In the case of Pletcher and betamethasone, the facts of what happened are the facts.

But Karen Murphy, who is one of a small handful of go-to attorneys for trainer medication cases, referenced Daubert, essentially saying after the case went through the Stewards hearing and the appeal to the Racing Commission, it would have been appealed to the court and she was going to argue that the state could not produce an expert witness to defend the threshold under the Daubert Standard. You can disagree all you want, but that is what happened.

Murphy had discussed her intentions with the State Assistant AG before any hearing and ultimately he determined the Delaware rule for betamethasone had not been subjected to proper peer review and publication requirements. So if your argument is that Daubert never came into play, yes, you are right. But it eventually would have if Delaware had pursued the case. Again, that's not opinion, that's fact.

So if you interpret what the AG was saying, Delaware avoided the issue of whether the standard had a scientifically sound basis by in essence voiding it on administrative grounds.

We'll never know if Pletcher would have ultimately won, or on what grounds he'd have prevailed if he did win. But at some point the case would have gone to court, and if you believe the RMTC would not have had to meet the Daubert Standard in providing a scientific basis for the threshold, you may not be percipient, but you would have to be prescient.

It's going to come up again in the Graham Motion case. We'll see if it works in a couple of months.

[dilanesp]

So if the case went forward and was presented to a judge, it still would not involve the Daubert standard? Pletcher's defense attorney apparently invoked the Daubert standard as a means of persuading the deputy attorney general to recommend not prosecuting.

If either side HIRED an expert to opine on the scientific basis of the standard, that would only be admissible if it met the Daubert standard.

But the horse racing commissioner's testimony- "this is what we did and this is the scientific basis for it"-- is percipient testimony, not expert opinion.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

If either side HIRED an expert to opine on the scientific basis of the standard, that would only be admissible if it met the Daubert standard.

But the horse racing commissioner's testimony- "this is what we did and this is the scientific basis for it"-- is percipient testimony, not expert opinion.

I agreed with that all along. I'm not sure why that didn't come through. I clearly said, the Racing Commission could set the standard they wanted as long as it was within the enabling authority they had been granted in the state legislation and they followed the APA. I said all along the expert witness would have been someone from the RMTC or the scientist who did the study (if there was one) once the case got to court.