Horses positive for Meth. Trainers held blameless

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

When it comes to this game "almost certainly" can never be counted on...

Had I said "absolutely, positively had nothing to do with anything the trainer did" I'd have lost all credibility.

[cj]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

Had I said "absolutely, positively had nothing to do with anything the trainer did" I'd have lost all credibility.

The problem people have with this stuff is that nobody ever gets in any real trouble for drugging horses. Therefore, fans probably go overboard in wanting to condemn even the slightest overages. I can't blame them.

[GatetoWire]

Accidental contamination is always blamed on stable employees etc but I've always believed that many of these contaminations come because trainers are using illegal substances that are produced by the same labs that produce other street drugs.

Balco showed us that lots of unique drugs can be created by independent labs. If a lab was producing street drugs and PED's they could easily get cross contaminated and result in horses testing positive for Meth or other street drugs in small amounts.

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

The New York absolute insurer rule is one of the few that has been changed to allow trainers a positive defense for positives where they can prove neither they nor any employee was responsible for the positive.

Exactly how does one prove that someone didn't do something? That, literally, would be proving a negative.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

Exactly how does one prove that someone didn't do something? That, literally, would be proving a negative.

For example by showing security video that shows an unauthorized person accessing a stall.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by cj

The problem people have with this stuff is that nobody ever gets in any real trouble for drugging horses. Therefore, fans probably go overboard in wanting to condemn even the slightest overages. I can't blame them.

I think the larger problem is that very few people understand the difference between PEDs and legal therapeutic drugs. A small picogram overage of flunixin is not the same as a significant overage of an anabolic steroid or a heart/lung performance enhancer. Although all drugs are classified (1 through 5) based on medical uses among other things, most fans both don't know and don't care if the overage is for omeprazole (the active ingredient in Prilosec), stanozolol or benzedrine. A flunixin overage gets a fairly small fine ($500) the first time and gets increasingly worse for subsequent violations. There are quite a few trainers who have gotten significant suspensions for Clenbuterol, including Kirk Zadie, Ramon Preciado and Jose de la Torre.

Another thing most people don't know is that for certain drugs, cocaine for example, the testing is for a metabolite of the drug and not the drug itself. Concentrations are extrapolated based on the measurement of the metabolite.When you are talking about 20 picograms of cocaine based on the concentration of a metabolite, things are less clear.

The other thing people might not take into account is once a trainer is stained with a Class 1 or 2 violation, it often becomes harder for them to attract clients. The punishment often continues beyond what was handed down by the Commission.

I've got first hand knowledge of trainers who were told that even though the Commission knew they took no illegal action that might cause an overage, they were getting a small fine anyway, and often that fine seems to give support to the concern that nobody is really getting punished severely for the violation. Generally that part of the story doesn't get out to the public.

I don't blame the fans. I mostly blame two groups. The trainers who clearly tried to gain an edge, which is not most of the violations, and the people running horse racing for having poorly designed enforcement programs and minimal investigation into alleged violations.

Racing needs to focus on the chronic cheats, and the Class 1 and 2 violations that clearly show an intent to cheat.

[foregoforever]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

For example by showing security video that shows an unauthorized person accessing a stall.

Here's the regulation:

The trainer shall be held responsible for any positive test unless the trainer can show by substantial evidence that neither the trainer nor any employee nor agent was responsible for the administration of the drug or other restricted substance. Every trainer must guard each horse trained by him or her in such manner and for such period of time prior to racing the horse so as to prevent any person, whether or not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer, from administering any drug or other restricted substance to such horse contrary to this Part.

The second part would seem to exclude the "unauthorized person" defense. I don't disagree with the points you're making, but I find this language curious.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by foregoforever

The second part would seem to exclude the "unauthorized person" defense. I don't disagree with the points you're making, but I find this language curious.

If you review absolute insurer (or trainer responsibility) rules for most of the states, NY is one of the few (if not the only) to give trainers a chance to provide a defense. In most states the trainer is presumed guilty after a positive and usually the only way to beat the rap is to prove sampling was bad, or the chain of custody was violated or the confirmatory sample showed no violation.

A very well known trainer in NY wanted to install security cameras at his barns but NYRA dawdled in providing the necessary wiring. Meanwhile the trainer had a positive, swore it wasn't him, but had no video to support his cause. Another trainer in another state had a system that recycled the video every 30 days. He had a positive but wasn't sent a notice for three months, long after he could have gotten any help from his video. His story was that an assistant who had worked for his vet but had been fired, spiked a horse at 3 in the morning in an effort to get revenge. Could have been total BS, but if the Commission had informed the trainer within, say, 10 days, the video would have been available. But the question is, should the Commission have a responsibility to be more timely with its notifications? Of course the speculation was that the Commission knew exactly what it was doing.

You're right. The language is curious. It would be like saying a bank was the guilty party if a robber happened to defeat the security. "I'd have never robbed the bank if I wasn't able to defeat the alarm system, so punish the bank not me." The NY language seems to suggest that the trainer is guilty if he or one of his people are at fault, and he is guilty if he didn't stop someone who wanted to tamper with a horse. I might ask Karen Murphy for a clearer interpretation.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by betovernetcapper

With today's testing, a horse (or person) can test positive for an amount of a drug that will have no effect. The amount of Meth to affect a human's performance might be the size of a baby aspirin. A 10th of that might not affect a humans performance, but still would show up as positive. You could pick up a trace amount from food or drink. You could conceivably test positive for alcohol after eating a salad or a teaspoon of cough syrup.
Given that a horse is substantially larger than a person, it would require a higher amount to effect his performance, but trace amounts can show up & such trace amounts may be from someone taking the drug & having some residue on their hands when giving the horse food or water.
I think some common sense should be applied in determining guilt or innocence in this kind of thing.

Hence the reason for zero tolerance. The PED's and illegal substances should not be anywhere near the barns in the first place.
It doesn't matter. Banned means just that. BANNED. Break that rule and pay the consequences. No exceptions.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by SuperPickle

So a couple points on this..

1. There have been a lot of stories about horses testing positive for street drugs going back almost 50 years including a high profile one back in the 80's in which D. Wayne Lukas had some cocaine positives. In almost all cases it was surmised these were inadvertent contaminations versus people drugging horses to win races. As we all know in the 80's everyone was on coke and some of the coke ended up in horses.

2. Given the positives were across multiple barns its a pretty valid theory that it was contamination versus an attempt to gain an edge.

3. Street drugs like coke and meth are barely performance enhancers. You can argue because they are uppers they could stimulate a horse to generate more energy and ran faster however a vet or chemist would tell you there's literally dozens of things that you could given them that would be both more effective and would carry much smaller penalties. It's unlikely anyone is trying to improve a horse's performance with coke or meth.

On the surface this looks like something but there really isn't anything here.

I respectfully disagree. There is no possible rationalization for drug violations.
Illegal is illegal.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by Donttellmeshowme

What track? Which trainers?m Need more info.....

..I forgot to post the darn link. I read it on paulickreport.com

[betovernetcapper]

Originally Posted by thespaah

Hence the reason for zero tolerance. The PED's and illegal substances should not be anywhere near the barns in the first place.
It doesn't matter. Banned means just that. BANNED. Break that rule and pay the consequences. No exceptions.

The problem I have with zero tolerance laws is that it tends to lead to an excessive obedience to the letter of the law and not the spirit. In China the gun laws are so strict that someone can be executed for possession of a bullet. In the UK you can get 3 years for carrying a locking Swiss Army knife. I forget the state but a few years ago a young man got 20 years for possession of a felony amount of LSD. The amount was determined by weight & the kid had put the blotter acid on bond paper. If he had used rice paper, he would have gotten 6 months. In Saudi Arabia, the religious police decided that the laws about women being uncovered, led to 14 young women being pushed back into a burning school building to their deaths.

IMO if a person is proven to have used drugs or a battery or any other illegal method to alter a race, throw the book at him. Give him a couple of years in prison, but there should be a certainty of the persons guilt.

[betovernetcapper]

It occurred to me that testing after the race may not be the optimal choice. I know this would require some lab equipment, but wouldn't it be better to take a blood test two hours before the race & keep the horse under supervision until the race? That way if the horse was positive, he could be scratched & no harm would be done to the players.

After a horse has raced a few times at a track, his normal blood work should be evident & if it showed some major change, the matter could be addressed before the race, even if he's not showing positive for a banned substance. The change might be due to a substance not yet banned. People are always attempting new things to beat the system. If the horse isn't scratched, the announcer could say in race three, #1A has irregular blood work. Players could adjust their bets accordingly.

Tests could still be done after the race & if the blood work is different, it would be easier to determine the culprit.

IMO if something could be done along these lines, it would pretty much stop any illegal drug use.

[onefast99]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

I think the larger problem is that very few people understand the difference between PEDs and legal therapeutic drugs. A small picogram overage of flunixin is not the same as a significant overage of an anabolic steroid or a heart/lung performance enhancer. Although all drugs are classified (1 through 5) based on medical uses among other things, most fans both don't know and don't care if the overage is for omeprazole (the active ingredient in Prilosec), stanozolol or benzedrine. A flunixin overage gets a fairly small fine ($500) the first time and gets increasingly worse for subsequent violations. There are quite a few trainers who have gotten significant suspensions for Clenbuterol, including Kirk Zadie, Ramon Preciado and Jose de la Torre.

Another thing most people don't know is that for certain drugs, cocaine for example, the testing is for a metabolite of the drug and not the drug itself. Concentrations are extrapolated based on the measurement of the metabolite.When you are talking about 20 picograms of cocaine based on the concentration of a metabolite, things are less clear.

The other thing people might not take into account is once a trainer is stained with a Class 1 or 2 violation, it often becomes harder for them to attract clients. The punishment often continues beyond what was handed down by the Commission.

I've got first hand knowledge of trainers who were told that even though the Commission knew they took no illegal action that might cause an overage, they were getting a small fine anyway, and often that fine seems to give support to the concern that nobody is really getting punished severely for the violation. Generally that part of the story doesn't get out to the public.

I don't blame the fans. I mostly blame two groups. The trainers who clearly tried to gain an edge, which is not most of the violations, and the people running horse racing for having poorly designed enforcement programs and minimal investigation into alleged violations.

Racing needs to focus on the chronic cheats, and the Class 1 and 2 violations that clearly show an intent to cheat.

I have always looked at the drug issue as one that can be stopped by those who run the facility, in many cases a known offender or cheat that is given a new lease on life at a different venue will most certainly behave themselves until no one is looking at them under a microscope anymore, case in point is some of the individuals you previously mentioned. The other issue here is the cost associated with discovering new drugs using the old outdated lab tests gives the cheater a distinct advantage. Tracks cannot afford the costs associated with these needed tests.

[thespaah]

Originally Posted by betovernetcapper

The problem I have with zero tolerance laws is that it tends to lead to an excessive obedience to the letter of the law and not the spirit. In China the gun laws are so strict that someone can be executed for possession of a bullet. In the UK you can get 3 years for carrying a locking Swiss Army knife. I forget the state but a few years ago a young man got 20 years for possession of a felony amount of LSD. The amount was determined by weight & the kid had put the blotter acid on bond paper. If he had used rice paper, he would have gotten 6 months. In Saudi Arabia, the religious police decided that the laws about women being uncovered, led to 14 young women being pushed back into a burning school building to their deaths.

IMO if a person is proven to have used drugs or a battery or any other illegal method to alter a race, throw the book at him. Give him a couple of years in prison, but there should be a certainty of the persons guilt.

The issue at hand is this. Too many trainers are being slapped on the wirst with a stern "don't ever do that again" and for the next 6 months they are one their best behavior. As soon as they get the perception that no one is looking, they start up again.
My point here is I want the crooks out of the game.
I look to the way Japan, Hong Kong racing associations operate regarding drugs and cheating. They have rules to which horsemen follow to the letter.
Here in the US, the rules are treated as "suggestions" because the penalties are so mild. Substances such as Meth and Cocaine should not be present in a horse racing barn in ANY quantity. This idea of cross contamination is absurd. Why? Because in order for that stuff to be detected, someone had to knowingly transport it into the barn. Knowingly as in deliberately violating the rules and laws.
Call me a hard ass. One of the perceptions that keeps some people away from the game is that certain so called super trainers are cheating all over the place while track managements look the other way. The average bettor gets the shaft and eventually finds the game too difficult and eventually walks away....