NEWS
Kentucky approves out-of-competition testing
Posted: Tuesday, September 07, 2010 8:02 PM
by Frank Angst
Kentucky will meet Breeders’ Cup World Championships standards after regulators approved out-of-competition testing as an emergency regulation.
On Tuesday the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission approved out-of-competition testing, which targets performance-enhancing substances such as Erythropoietin (EPO) and tactics such as blood-doping that fail to show up in post-race testing. Meeting at the site of this fall’s Breeders’ Cup, Churchill Downs, the KHRC passed the rule as an emergency regulation, which means it goes into effect immediately.
The commission fast-tracked the rule in time for this year’s Breeders’ Cup but Ned Bonnie, who headed the joint committee that shaped the rule, added that the rule should be passed as an emergency regulation because of concerns about equine welfare and safety as well as for the protection of the betting public.
The biggest debate about the rule centered on the level of punishment. In the final rule adopted on Tuesday, the commission recommended a five-to-ten year license suspension for the owner and/or trainer of the horse, a fine of up to $50,000, and a forfeiture of purse money. Commissioner Alan Leavitt had hoped for a minimum ten-year suspension because of the severity of the infraction, the difficulty and expense in testing, and the potential as a deterrent.
“These substances are totally in a higher category than anything else you can give a horse,” Leavitt said.
But Leavitt conceded that healthy debate had been conducted at joint and separate meetings of the Kentucky Equine Drug Council and the commission’s rules committee. He did not oppose the final rule.
Bonnie pointed out that any person suspended for five-to-ten years would not be allowed to return to Kentucky without first appearing before the licensing committee, where they could be denied. Bonnie was concerned that a ten-year suspension would be seen as a life sentence by court review. He said such a punishment would be less likely to be upheld.
With the Breeders’ Cup scheduled for this fall, Bonnie said commission staff will have to meet with event officials and Churchill Downs to make sure that language about out-of-competition testing is included in various stall application and entry documents.
Besides out-of-competition testing, the commission also adopted the “McKinsey” testing procedure for its post-race testing. The plan calls for stewards to collect a sample from the winner plus at least one other horse from each race, even though they will not necessarily test all samples. The stewards will designate at least one sample as “gold,” which means it has a 100% chance of being tested, and others as “red,” which means they will have a 50% chance of being tested.
In stakes races, at least the top three finishers will be collected, with at least one sample being designated as gold and the remaining samples being listed as red.
The testing method allows stewards some discretion to target horses based on factors like being a longshot winner, a favorite who runs poorly, a trainer or horse who has enjoyed a turnaround in form, or a horse that wins or places after odd pari-mutuel activity. The policy is based on the recommendations of the McKinsey Report of 1991.
The new testing method should help the state reduce post-race drug-testing costs, which are paid by racetracks, without sacrificing effectiveness. The Equine Drug Research Council unanimously recommended the change.
Also Tuesday, former commissioner Frank Kling returned to the KHRC, replacing Thomas Gaines, who stepped down at the end of his term.
Frank Angst is a Thoroughbred Times senior staff writer
READER COMMENTS
|
|
|
Posted by: Sandra Beale, Louisville, KY on September 16, 2010 at 09:18 AM
Are we led to beleive that these substances are commonly used in racing. I highly doubt that most of our trainers would give an injection that has proved to be fatal to a horse, in their charge. Are there numbers to support this particular drug abuse? In the equine athlete what if any is the science that supports the use of this substance to without question improve a horses ability? Are we parading horse welfare as a way to control an outcome of a race? When all the milk shake hype came out I looked at all the scientific evidence. There was none to prove in the horse that it improved their performance at all. In fact the study said that it only showed improvement marginally in longer distances - 2miles for which we don't write any races for the most part.
I have to conclude that this is a pure marketing ploy, and a way to keep our politicians and lawyers in a job at the tax payers expense and the discomfort of the horse, whos is now subject to pre-race and post race collection of blood as determined by a bureacrat. Allowing state vet staff to be able to randomly walk in a barn and collect blood is a slippery slope. I would not authorize some bungling bureaucrat to touch my horse before a race.
I also did looked into the whole steroid abuse nonsense while I am on a roll here.
Most of the steroid use in this country is used in gyms across the country not in fact in the racehorse as they would have you beleive! Do you homework don't take anything at face value, question everything you hear.
Report Abuse 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted by: Bellwether, Chesapeake, VA on September 09, 2010 at 04:15 AM
CLEAN N THEIR ACT UP...WONDER FULL...TY...
Report Abuse
|
|
|
|
|
|
