On Monday, August 8, the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency announced that the legitimate use of human prescription drugs by people handling racehorses can be a source of drug exposure for the horses that could, consequently, result in a positive drug test.
The CPMA release states that human urine is a proven source of drug exposure for racehorses. And although not proven at this time, exposure could also be to drugs directly, through human saliva or via unwashed hands.
The contents of the CPMA release appear below in both English and French.
Human Prescription Medications as a Potential Route of Drug Exposure for Racehorses
It has come to the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency’s (CPMA) attention that the legitimate use of human prescription drugs by people handling racehorses can be a source of drug exposure for the horses that could, consequently, result in a positive drug test.
Human urine is a proven source of drug exposure for racehorses. And although not proven at this time, exposure could also be to drugs directly, through human saliva or via unwashed hands.
In the interest of accuracy and to reduce unintended positive drug tests, the CPMA therefore strongly discourages people from urinating or spitting in horse stalls, and recommends that all people who handle racehorses wash their hands immediately after contact with, or consumption of, medications, and avoid bringing human prescription medications into barns whenever possible.
Médicaments Sur Ordonnance Pour Usage Humain : Source Potentielle D’exposition Aux Drogues Chez Les Chevaux
On a signalé à l’Agence canadienne du pari mutuel (ACPM) que les personnes prenant des médicaments sur ordonnance de façon légitime peuvent contaminer les chevaux dont elles s’occupent. Il est donc possible d’obtenir un résultat positif aux tests de dépistage de drogues.
L’urine humaine est une source avérée d’exposition aux drogues chez les chevaux de course. Ces derniers pourraient également être contaminés directement par la salive ou les mains sales des humains, quoique cela n’ait pas encore été prouvé.
Par souci d’exactitude et afin d’éviter de recevoir un résultat positif à un test de dépistage des drogues, l’ACPM déconseille vivement à quiconque d’uriner ou de cracher dans les stalles des chevaux. Elle recommande à tous ceux et celles qui s’occupent des chevaux de course de se laver les mains immédiatement après avoir touché ou pris leurs médicaments et, dans la mesure du possible, de ne pas apporter leurs médicaments sur ordonnance dans les écuries.
Bob Bowness Blair Burgess
Bob Bowness
Blair Burgess comments are bang on, No regulatory body should be fostering any form of supposition! We seem to do something quite often to shoot ourselves in the foot! In this particular case, simple if the level is high enough to enhance performance the appropriate fines and suspension should apply! Common sense goes a long way in controlling yet promoting any sport That relies on a strong fan base to prosper Yes I said sport
For the umpteenth time "PRE
For the umpteenth time "PRE RACE TESTING" is the only feasible solution!!
The CPMA does not have the
The CPMA does not have the budget for Quantitative testing on a large scale so make sure you wash your hands and urinate outside. That should severely lower the risk of a contamination positive.
Seems that the amount of drug
Seems that the amount of drug that the equine would absorb through the aforementioned socalled contamination would be minuscule and highly unlikely to affect performance in a 500kg plus athlete. To that end is it not ludicrous to be putting forth such dire warnings to trainers that would be pretty limited in their ability to control such circumstances. We as trainers can't pretend we are General Patton: "As It Was Written So It Shall Be Done". Just because you put it in print doesn't make it feasible! As difficult as it would be to monitor in our own barns, there is the additional complicating factors of shared paddocks, urine stalls and lasix stalls etc. With the availability now of very advanced testing methodology, should it not just be put to use finding minute levels of drugs that would have never intentionally been administered (thus no intent of cheating) AND instead be directed to analyse quantitatively so it determines whether the amount of drug was likely a contaminant and if the amount was small enough that IT DID NOT ENHANCE PERFORMANCE. Thus no penalty should then be applied. Maybe a warning could be given. A novel concept: cooperation between administration and participants.