DRF: Motion ruling could impact absolute-insurer statute

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In talking with Motion, I don't remember him ever suggesting trashing the AI rule. He clearly admitted he had dosed the horse with methocarbamol, but that something must be wrong with the standard if seven days wasn't enough to meet an RMTC standard that was supposedly based on a 48 hour clearance time.

So, isn't that the same argument that Ellis could've used on his sprinter?

Isn't that the same argument that any trainer could make? Sure, I gave it to him, but I gave it on X date so he should be clear by now. That's a problem. How do we know with absolute surety that the drug was given on X date? Because the vet and/or trainer say so? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, maybe he was but they gave another dose later.

Unless it's a third party vet who reports all meds daily to a track's central med record-keeping system, then this is quite flawed as I see it. What proof exists for when a dose was given and the exact measurements of that dose?

[Andy Asaro]

Legal Docs Attachment

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

So, isn't that the same argument that Ellis could've used on his sprinter?

That is one of two related arguments that trainers have made. Very simply, if the RMTC sets a threshold, aren't they telling the trainers, if you follow this guideline you should not have a problem with the post race test? In my opinion the standard was poorly set anyway. If you read the history, it was recommended by the people who did the testing at 20 ng/mL. But because Pennsylvania had already adopted 1 ng/mL and 48 hours, the Science Advisory Committee discarded the recommendations of the scientists. The whole thing was a cluster.

In Ellis' case, he KNEW his horse was still testing positive three days before the race and ran him anyway. But in the sense that the had a level of stanozolol that would have no impact on raceday there were similarities. That was the other trainer argument. Set the threshold at a level where anything above the threshold is going to have a performance enhancing effect. 2.9ng/mL of methocarbamol would have had no real performance enhancing effect.

Originally Posted by Fager Fan

Isn't that the same argument that any trainer could make? Sure, I gave it to him, but I gave it on X date so he should be clear by now. That's a problem. How do we know with absolute surety that the drug was given on X date? Because the vet and/or trainer say so? Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't, maybe he was but they gave another dose later.

Unless it's a third party vet who reports all meds daily to a track's central med record-keeping system, then this is quite flawed as I see it. What proof exists for when a dose was given and the exact measurements of that dose?

In this case the vet was Jeff Blea, one of the most highly respected equine veterinarians. His records were used to determine when the last dose was given before the race, and it was seven days prior to the start. Blea is no second rate vet. Unless someone snuck in and stuck the horse (which no one contended), Blea's records were the best information available, and no one contended they had been falsified.

The bottom line is simple. There is no way Motion's horse should have tested positive if it was given the recommended dose and seven days to clear the system if the RMTC standard was right. The whole situation stunk and from my perspective, RMTC was a lot more to blame than Motion.

[Fager Fan]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

That is one of two related arguments that trainers have made. Very simply, if the RMTC sets a threshold, aren't they telling the trainers, if you follow this guideline you should not have a problem with the post race test? In my opinion the standard was poorly set anyway. If you read the history, it was recommended by the people who did the testing at 20 ng/mL. But because Pennsylvania had already adopted 1 ng/mL and 48 hours, the Science Advisory Committee discarded the recommendations of the scientists. The whole thing was a cluster.

No, a threshold is an allowance being made other than zero tolerance, but the guideline is just that, a guideline. Everyone knows that humans and animals all react different to medications so there is a risk when you give meds, how you go about being as careful as possible to not test positive is up to the trainer.

In Ellis' case, he KNEW his horse was still testing positive three days before the race and ran him anyway. But in the sense that the had a level of stanozolol that would have no impact on raceday there were similarities. That was the other trainer argument. Set the threshold at a level where anything above the threshold is going to have a performance enhancing effect. 2.9ng/mL of methocarbamol would have had no real performance enhancing effect.

A positive is a positive. We can't now allow trainers to say, well, it was a positive but it had no effect. Particularly after they're busted. Change the threshold level beforehand if need be.

In this case the vet was Jeff Blea, one of the most highly respected equine veterinarians. His records were used to determine when the last dose was given before the race, and it was seven days prior to the start. Blea is no second rate vet. Unless someone snuck in and stuck the horse (which no one contended), Blea's records were the best information available, and no one contended they had been falsified.

How would anyone be able to prove they were falsified? This shouldn't be about one's reputation. The rules of what is a positive should be applied equally to all. Racing can't just decide that they'll believe Blea's records but not another vet's records. It's a broken system of proof when we are relying on when a vet says he gave the horse a medicine. That's far from proof.

The bottom line is simple. There is no way Motion's horse should have tested positive if it was given the recommended dose and seven days to clear the system if the RMTC standard was right. The whole situation stunk and from my perspective, RMTC was a lot more to blame than Motion.

Maybe, maybe not. I like Motion, and think he's a straight arrow, but we shouldn't be issuing guilt and innocence on someone based on our opinion of the person. The horse tested positive. We have no proof that the horse was dosed 7 days out or its specific dosage.

I don't agree with letting Motion off the hook. It is what it is. Even a straight arrow can get some minor drug positives.

[carterista]

I can only hope that Jorge Navarro moves his 'stuff' to Laurel---that should make Motion happy.

[thespaah]

This is not a good situation.
Some one MUST be the the person where the buck stops.
Wiht this ruling, any trainer or other licensed individual questioned or accused could simply use the "I didn't know" defense and leave any racing jurisdiction powerless to suspend, revoke or otherwise discipline unscrupulous individuals.
Yes, "absolute" may seem draconian, but IMO someone has to have the responsibility of "Captain of the boat"..

[Spalding No!]

Originally Posted by HalvOnHorseracing

In my opinion the standard was poorly set anyway. If you read the history, it was recommended by the people who did the testing at 20 ng/mL. But because Pennsylvania had already adopted 1 ng/mL and 48 hours, the Science Advisory Committee discarded the recommendations of the scientists. The whole thing was a cluster.

The 20 ng/mL threshold was for a 24 hour withdrawal. That would have gone against most jurisdictions' rules regarded the medicating of entered horses (the "48 hour rule"). Basically, by adopting that standard, Robaxin would have become a permitted raceday medication ala Bute and Lasix.

In this case the vet was Jeff Blea, one of the most highly respected equine veterinarians. His records were used to determine when the last dose was given before the race, and it was seven days prior to the start. Blea is no second rate vet. Unless someone snuck in and stuck the horse (which no one contended), Blea's records were the best information available, and no one contended they had been falsified.

That's a California veterinarian. The horse was training in Maryland and racing in Kentucky. The last time the horse was in California at the time of the Bewitched Stakes was something like 4 or 5 months. It seems unlikely that he was even in a position to dispense the medication never mind actually examine the filly in person.

The bottom line is simple. There is no way Motion's horse should have tested positive if it was given the recommended dose and seven days to clear the system if the RMTC standard was right. The whole situation stunk and from my perspective, RMTC was a lot more to blame than Motion.

This ignores the possibility that Motion is incorrect in asserting that his horse did not receive Robaxin within his arbitrary 7-day cutoff. How could this possibly be verified?

[dilanesp]

Fager is right.

If a drug testing agency says "no more than 10 units of cheatazol", they aren't actually saying "go ahead and use cheatazol, but just don't use an amount that will cause more than 10 units to show up on the test".

Rather, they are saying "no matter what you do, if more then 10 units show up, you're toast".

And trainers are pretending not to understand that.

[Fager Fan]

Spaulding, I wondered about Blea too, as I knew he is a CA vet.

[Andy Asaro]

Twitter

[dilanesp]

Originally Posted by Andy Asaro

https://twitter.com/racetrackandy/st...42586903060481

From Andy's linked story:

“There’s case law in nearly every state, going back decades,” said Alan Foreman, the chairman and chief executive for the Thoroughbred Horsemen’s Associations and an expert on racing law. “You’d have to litigate in each one of those jurisdictions. You’d have to re-litigate the question each time.”

The more I look at this, the more I think this case is the analogue of Jack Weinstein's decision a few years ago that would have exempted online poker from the federal illegal gambling statute. It got a big buzz, but it was going against literally decades of cases going the other way, and it quickly got reversed with little fanfare.

Courts that get out on this particular limb (50 years of cases are all wrong and I'm right) don't tend to see their decisions upheld very often.