Masochistic DQed from BC Sprint

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Given what may be Ellis' long term use of stanozolol, I'm sure he was familiar with the withdrawal guideline. But I know from talking to trainers they often look at the standards and withdrawal guidelines as either/or, but in fact only the standard determines a violation. I'm just telling you whether or not these trainers are grasping at straws, it's more common than you'd think.

As for Ellis, I'm tempted to interview him, although I think he's already accepted his guilt. I'm not sure what I would add. Ellis is taking advantage of a rule (or lack thereof) and I'm inclined to split the blame here. If you're not going to make stanozolol illegal, then my recommendation is to limit it's use to post surgery or when failure to thrive has been documented independently by the state medical director.

I agree with you. I just don't like him getting painted as a saint and "great guy" when anyone with common sense can figure out what he was trying to accomplish.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

The tough part about these threads, at least for me, is that there is always two discussions going on. One is the drugs are bad and why can't we be Hong Kong discussion. The other is, you have legal, therapeutic medications where the trainer seemingly tried to do the right thing, but there is a violation at a trivial level. And it is often difficult to have the second discussion without the first. My position is that as long as the medications are legal, the first discussion is a different thread. My bias is that there are standards that have been set poorly and are in fact wrong, that there are medications that can have absolutely no performance enhancing effect at picogram levels, that racing commissions are poor at dealing with environmental contamination cases, that the violation prevention programs are all but absent, meaning horseplayers get screwed because nothing is found out until AFTER the result is official, and that the investigations are often amateurish if they are done at all. There are trainers abusing the rules who need to be dealt with, there are guys who simply screw up, and there are guys trying to do the right thing who get caught up in the technical violations. But in my opinion, the standard setters and the standard enforcement people are a part of the problem. Every violation makes racing look bad. The first priority of racing should be to prevent as many violations as possible. The second is to make sure they aren't "gotcha" violations.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The tough part about these threads, at least for me, is that there is always two discussions going on. One is the drugs are bad and why can't we be Hong Kong discussion. The other is, you have legal, therapeutic medications where the trainer seemingly tried to do the right thing, but there is a violation at a trivial level. And it is often difficult to have the second discussion without the first. My position is that as long as the medications are legal, the first discussion is a different thread. My bias is that there are standards that have been set poorly and are in fact wrong, that there are medications that can have absolutely no performance enhancing effect at picogram levels, that racing commissions are poor at dealing with environmental contamination cases, that the violation prevention programs are all but absent, meaning horseplayers get screwed because nothing is found out until AFTER the result is official, and that the investigations are often amateurish if they are done at all. There are trainers abusing the rules who need to be dealt with, there are guys who simply screw up, and there are guys trying to do the right thing who get caught up in the technical violations. But in my opinion, the standard setters and the standard enforcement people are a part of the problem. Every violation makes racing look bad. The first priority of racing should be to prevent as many violations as possible. The second is to make sure they aren't "gotcha" violations.

There is also the problem that trainers are using therapeutic meds for non-therapeutic reasons, so the two tend to run together for me. I don't see any way this horse was on this steroid for medical reasons. The pieces just don't add up.

[Robert Fischer]

The 'picogram' argument seems weak.

Yes, it's a small number.

Looking at a blood sample, requires using small measurements. Not going to be measuring it in 'grams'.

The rule is "no more than x picograms on raceday".

The story goes that the vet gave Masochistic some tiny therapeutic dose, once, 68 days before the race.
And apparently the reason he still wasn't clean on race day is that he was a slow metabolizer, or it got in his fat cells, or whatever...

Even if you buy that story, when you get up to raceday, if you have more than x picograms in your sample, you shall be disqualified.

The fact that a picogram happens to be small, doesn't make much difference.

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I was quoting the RMTC guidelines, and I've clearly said, for those jurisdictions that have adopted those guidelines. If you're talking about the footnotes on the RMTC schedule, they say

No, not the footnotes. The guidelines were adopted by the Mid-Atlantic states last year in August. The first two rules are:

1. Salix® (furosemide), pursuant to Commission supervised administration, is the only medication that can be administered to a horse within 24 hours of its race.
2. The administration of any adjunct medication within 24 hours of a horse’s race is strictly forbidden.

NY does specify both the withdrawal time and the blood plasma standard. They use 48 hours for all the NSAIDS. Of course jurisdictions can adopt whatever rules they want. I use the RMTC schedule because it is the most common in the states. But I carefully say that is what I am quoting.

I understand your focus is on withdrawal times and threshold levels. Nevertheless, there are rules in place that limit the administration of most substances within specified time periods prior to an entered horse's race. If the withdrawal time for aspirin is 6 hours, that doesn't mean it's legal to give aspirin the morning of the race.

No, I was the one who said that the RMTC withdrawal guideline for flunixin was changed from 24 to 32 hours, and I explained why it was changed. Apparently you didn't read that. And you didn't read that the RMTC's own study recommended a standard of 49 ng/ml. And you didn't read that when they published a 20 ng/ml standard with a 24 hour withdrawal guideline they were seeing up to 25% violations, so they changed the withdrawal time to 32 hours.

Well, what you apparently didn't read was that in fact CA did adopt the 50 ng/ml level for flunixin after the study was reported (i.e., they raised the threshold from 20 ng to 50 ng). However, in the interim, fatalities were at unacceptable levels.

One of the strategies to reduce breakdowns was to lower the thresholds for authorized anti-inflammatories so that pre-race examining veterinarians could get a better assessment of the horses entered to race. Keep in mind that in that respect, the levels of anti-inflammatories are in fact likely still having analgesic effects since the examinations are performed several hours prior to post time.

Of course they are going to increase the withdrawal guideline? Sure, especially considering they set a standard less than half of what their study recommended. The standard was wrong given the purpose of giving a horse flunixin. As I said, this was really a back door attempt to get trainers away from using the medication.

Again, in CA they actually raised the threshold to the recommended level for a few years (between 2007 and 2012).

Great, there weren't any Banamine positives. The problem? We had a bunch of breakdowns.

Which do you prefer?

Unless you are bouncing back to CA, the RMTC withdrawal guidelines for Phenylbutazone and Ketoprofen haven't changed from 24 hours for at least the last three years

The threshold levels have changed. Read up.

You know the answer to the question of why the horse was entered to race as well as I do, especially if the horse was a bottom level claimer. Treatment with NSAIDS allows a horse with inflammation to race comfortably.

Laughable. Yes, NSAIDS are indicated when a horse is suffering from arthritis in an acute fashion.

However, do you realize what is probably not indicated? Entering said horse and running him. Again, this is the mentality that needs to be broken...especially when it comes to low level claimers.

Something like acepromazine allows trainers to perform necessary services - horseshoeing or certain grooming activities - on high strung animals.

How about a dose of horsemanship?

[lamboguy]

i doubt it makes to much of a difference whether you allow a steroid to be used during the race or not. the horse already has developed a big powerful rear end prior to the day of the race and he is ready to fire over the top of his game. for that matter all other drugs. i know that you can't administer omeprazole 1 week before a race, but they allow a certain amount of the stuff in the body of the horse before they call it an infraction. i think the stuff will still block the acid from coming up even if you stop giving it a week before the race. as far as i know the olympics don't allow any type of antacid's in the system. there are people that stay up late nights figuring out how to beat those olympic tests as well.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

The 'picogram' argument seems weak.

Yes, it's a small number.

Looking at a blood sample, requires using small measurements. Not going to be measuring it in 'grams'.

The rule is "no more than x picograms on raceday".

The story goes that the vet gave Masochistic some tiny therapeutic dose, once, 68 days before the race.
And apparently the reason he still wasn't clean on race day is that he was a slow metabolizer, or it got in his fat cells, or whatever...

Even if you buy that story, when you get up to raceday, if you have more than x picograms in your sample, you shall be disqualified.

The fact that a picogram happens to be small, doesn't make much difference.

A trillion picograms is a gram. Just as a point of reference, if picograms (trillionths) were seconds, a trillion seconds is 31,700 years. 200 picograms would be the equivalent of three and a half minutes. Three and a half minutes in 31,700 years.

I'll use one other example. If you are at the track and you handle money, it's entirely possible you'd test positive for cocaine at a picogram level. You wouldn't be high on cocaine, and for most employers if you were tested you wouldn't be guilty because the National Institute of Drug Abuse says anything below 300 ng/ml would be de minimis. However, if your horse tested 300 picograms - 1,000 times less than 300 ng - you're guilty.

The argument that the drug has already had its effect is moot since the substance is legal. The question is, should a residual amount that cannot be performance enhancing on raceday, be enough to disqualify? Should there be de minims levels for legal drugs? Zero tolerance for completely illegal substances may make sense, although there have been clear cases of cross-contamination. In my mind it isn't that clear cut for legal substances.

[Robert Fischer]

you aren't going to find kilograms in a blood sample


either going to be looking for nanograms or picograms

[Tom]

The only amounts that matter are what is allowed and what was there.
Fair or not is not the issue.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by lamboguy

i doubt it makes to much of a difference whether you allow a steroid to be used during the race or not. the horse already has developed a big powerful rear end prior to the day of the race and he is ready to fire over the top of his game. for that matter all other drugs. i know that you can't administer omeprazole 1 week before a race, but they allow a certain amount of the stuff in the body of the horse before they call it an infraction. i think the stuff will still block the acid from coming up even if you stop giving it a week before the race. as far as i know the olympics don't allow any type of antacid's in the system. there are people that stay up late nights figuring out how to beat those olympic tests as well.

You actually point out one of the problems with standards - they vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The RMTC withdrawal guideline for omeprezole is 24 hours, and the standard is 10 ng/ml. You're right - Omeprazole is a proton pump inhibitor and essentially suppresses stomach acid secretion. I didn't see it on the WADA list of prohited substances. I also didn't see anything about antacids, but I looked pretty quickly.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Robert Fischer

you aren't going to find kilograms in a blood sample


either going to be looking for nanograms or picograms

Right, but there are levels below which the drug is not having any additional effect. My point is the same. There should be de minims levels for legal therapeutics, and those levels should represent an amount where the substance is no longer efficacious. The jurisdiction allows you to use the substance, so no big surprise there may be residual amounts. I simply don't agree with zero tolerance for legal substances, especially considering other sports have de minims levels for illegal substances. Look up what MLB or the NFL do.

[lamboguy]

then why not ban the use of all drugs whether in or out of competition. this way people can watch real horses run around the track and bettors can make their decisions based strictly on the horses and not on how good a trainer might be fooling drug labs?

[johnhannibalsmith]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

...I simply don't agree with zero tolerance for legal substances...

Amen.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

No, not the footnotes. The guidelines were adopted by the Mid-Atlantic states last year in August.

Standards vary between jurisdictions. That is why when I cite guidelines I cite the RMTC guidelines because they are most common within jurisdictions. I'm not a mind reader. Unless you specify I have no idea where 1 and 2 come from.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

I understand your focus is on withdrawal times and threshold levels. Nevertheless, there are rules in place that limit the administration of most substances within specified time periods prior to an entered horse's race. If the withdrawal time for aspirin is 6 hours, that doesn't mean it's legal to give aspirin the morning of the race.

Actually, in a lot of jurisdictions the withdrawal guidelines are just that - guidelines. They are not enforceable standards. I can tell you I know of cases where trainers have administered substances outside the withdrawal time. If their horse doesn't test positive, they are not cited. The entire world is not California.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Well, what you apparently didn't read was that in fact CA did adopt the 50 ng/ml level for flunixin after the study was reported (i.e., they raised the threshold from 20 ng to 50 ng).

Great, there weren't any Banamine positives. The problem? We had a bunch of breakdowns.

Which do you prefer?

You are seriously going to tell me that a standard of 50 ng/ml as opposed to 20 ng/ml is the difference between lots of breakdowns and minimal breakdowns? 30 billionths of a gram is the tipping point? There are a lot of reasons for breakdowns, most commonly injury that exacerbates over time. That's bad training, not banamine.

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

The threshold levels have changed. Read up.

Again, I don't know which thresholds you are talking about, but the latest RMTC guidelines set Flunixin at 20 ng/ml, and the RMTC guidelines have been there for years. How far back do I need to go to make the point that the current standard is 20 ng/ml? You can see all of them at
http://rmtc.wpengine.com/wp-content/...-2-25-2016.pdf

Originally Posted by Spalding No!

Laughable. Yes, NSAIDS are indicated when a horse is suffering from arthritis in an acute fashion.

However, do you realize what is probably not indicated? Entering said horse and running him. Again, this is the mentality that needs to be broken...especially when it comes to low level claimers.

How about a dose of horsemanship?

I did serious article about banamine. I can tell you know more than the average bear, but I'll still bet you haven't dug into it as deeply as I have. Read the article and tell me where it falls down.
http://halveyonhorseracing.com/?p=1351

[lamboguy]

after listening and watching all this, maybe my solution is ass'd backwards, maybe instead of banning all the guys that use these substances, they should get rid of everyone that doesn't instead. there would be a lot less that fit into this category and a lot easier to do because most of those people have very few horses and they won't be missed on the race track.