Day At The Track

Medication & testing consortium out of control?

08:00 AM 06 Oct 2016 NZDT
Comment (...) Tweet Share Email Print
Out Of Control.jpg
Harness racing followers should be interested in this.
It follows a litany of other cases where trainers have been burned based upon arbitrary thresholds and no one stands up against the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium and guidelines not science based.
There is but one organization that has withdrawn funding for RMTC and correctly so as it seeks to do independent research that can be peer reviewed.
That entity is the United States Trotting Association

Commissions calling false positives does not help individuals who follow published rules and is that very harmful to the individuals and industry itself.

The RMTC data used to formulate the withdrawal times and threshold levels established for the substance Betamethasone and Dexamethasone by either the American Racing Commission‘s International and/or the National Uniform Medication Program that many, but not all, US Racing Commissions have  adopted,  and are promulgated,are  based upon allegedly data which has not been made available to scientific publications or  Peer Reviewed.

Consider the Delaware Ruling regarding Todd Pletcher for the therapeutic medication - Betamethasone.

Click here: Uncertainty as Delaware Drops Pletcher Case |

RMTC not only has failed to correct  for the erroneous data that it has reported in any timely fashion before horsemen were penalized but has done so long after the erroneous  threshold and withdrawal times led many Commissions to mete out penalties to trainers who followed administration guidelines including days, fines, loss of purse as well as damage to their reputations.

By way of additional documented examples, in 2013, RMTC adopted a threshold for Xylazine (Rompun) that was too low. That reportedly resulted in the disqualification and penalization of over thirty (30) horses and trainers.  In 2016, after those horsemen were penalized, RMTC increased the threshold 20 times higher than that used as the basis to penalize innocent horsemen and tarnish the sport. Little  good that did for those Florida horsemen who saw a spike in drug positives or for the sport. 

Florida was one of twenty states adopting the much heralded National Uniform Medication Program. 

Uniform rule recommendations not based upon scientific fact present a horrible scenario for individual horsemen, as well as for the industry. 

Just this year, two more threshold changes occurred; one for the analgesic detomidine, the other for omeprazole (ulcer medicine).  

The originally published RMTC thresholds are apparently not based on actual science at all, tantamount to perhaps being pulled out of a hat. 

Lastly, the New York State Gaming Commission  considered  that the RMTC recommended threshold and withdrawal guidelines for Flunixin ( Banamine)  were erroneous and refused to adopt them and also the faulty withdrawal time for use of Clenbuteral in the harness industry. Had NY not done its homework the RMTC erroneous withdrawal times would have caused unnecessary or false positives in an estimated twenty (20%) of the race horses on that medication.

The most recent evidence of the damage bad science can lead to is reprinted here with the kind permission of the Thoroughbred Daily News.

Motion Responds to KHRC Ruling

By Graham Motion

Editor’s Note: Trainer H. Graham Motion has penned the following response to a KHRC ruling Tuesday fining him for a Robaxin positive with last year’s GIII Bewitch S. winner Kitten’s Point (Kitten’s Joy). Click here to read a TDN article on his initial appeal to the suspension and fine.

After over 11,000 starters and more than 2,000 winners over the course of more than 20 years, [Tuesday] I was fined by the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission for the first positive in my career and Kitten’s Point was disqualified from her win in the 2015 GIII Bewitch S. at Keeneland. This hearing took place in a meeting where I was denied the opportunity to address the commission. Of course I wanted to defend myself, but moreover I wanted to address some of my concerns with this medication and how it was handled. The entire process has been extremely disappointing and troubling to me.

I always felt that if the day ever came where, by some unforeseen circumstance, I was charged with a drug violation I would not lawyer up to defend myself, but rather would take my punishment and move on. It would upset me to see trainers go to such great lengths to defend themselves. But, when I found myself in that position I felt differently. I felt that my staff and I had gone to extraordinary lengths to protect myself and my clients. When I was made aware of a withdrawal time I would add plenty of cushion as was the case with Kittens Point. The last time she was treated with Robaxin was seven days before the race, more than double a recommended withdrawal guideline published by the KHRC. After all, if we as trainers can not rely on the guidelines that are given to us, how on earth can we be expected to operate within the rules?

More over, I was troubled to learn that the current threshold for Robaxin as set by the RMTC and adopted by the KHRC was not supported by good science, including going completely against the recommendation set by the head of the KHRC’s testing lab Dr. Sams. Unfortunately in my case I was not allowed to defend myself based on the science, including a recently approved paper published by Heather Knych which clearly states that the RMTC guidelines for Robaxin are misguided. In my opinion this is information that should be turned over to horseman as quickly as possible. Surely the KHRC are not looking to trip up horseman with unsupported thresholds and guidelines? In a time of ever changing restrictions on certain medications it should be imperative that horsemen are kept informed.

Equally as important to me is the way in which our samples are handled. I strongly believe that it is a good thing that post race testing has become increasingly more sensitive, but shouldn’t there be a responsibility with the commission that our samples are handled with the utmost of care. We are now being tested for nanograms, that is a billionth of a gram. It is disturbing to me that the samples are frequently collected and handled in unsecure environments, very little has changed with regard to this process over the years considering the technology and sensitivity of the testing process.

So there, I have said it.

All I was asking for was two minutes, it didn’t seem like an unreasonable demand. By all means we need to keep our game honest, but at what cost to the guys that are trying to play by the rules. Ends

Harnesslink Media

Comment (...) Tweet Share Email Print

Read More News About...

Stallion Name

Next article: