"Horse racing has the most aggressive drug testing program...We test for more substances at deeper levels, and our standards are stricter than the International Olympic Committee's.
The amount of money that's spent just in the U.S. on testing in horse racing - harness racing, thoroughbred and quarter horse - dwarfs what is spent worldwide by the World Anti-Doping Agency."
On today's edition of Trot Radio, Norm Borg goes one-on-one with the President of Racing Commissioners International Ed Martin. RCI recently modified its some of its rules, most notably rules to prohibit veterinarians and/or veterinarian technicians who work privately with participating licensees from administering race-day furosemide, which officials believe will lead to increased protection of the betting public.
"One of the things the sport has struggled with is public perception, and the public perception of having a veterinarian in the stall on race day has been a troubling one," stated Martin. "There are some jurisdictions - Minnesota, for instance has a practice where the private vets that adminster Lasix only do so under the supervision of the state racing commission personnel."
Whether or not this is a move to phase out the use of Lasix, Martin offered that the "jury is still out" and that RCI is revisiting the policy.
"There is a concern that the use of Lasix on race day - and this is more of a concern in thoroughbred racing - is done more so to put everybody on an even footing in a race than it is to deal with a potential health issue of the horse - EIPH."
Martin noted that some people position the use of Lasix in horse racing as proof that racing has a serious drug problem.
"There are elected officials in the U.S. peddling the use of Lasix as an indication that horse racing is rampant with performance-enhancing drugs. That's an issue that's potentially very damaging to the sport and to the image of the sport among perspective fans."
Data collected by RCI shows that not only does racing have an extremely strict testing regimen, in his estimation the number of blatant rulebreakers remains miniscule.
"99 and a half percent of [the samples tested for performance-enhancing drugs] come back clean, and of that other one-half a percent about 70 percent of those are for otherwise legal, therapeutic substances - somebody screwed up."
Newly adopted changes to the Model Rules also stress the importance of all racing officials to report to the Stewards or Judges “any perceived issues” with a horse that may significantly affect the running of the race.
"We believe there is a responsibility shared by racing officials, whether you are an employee of the track, or an employee of the commission, that if you see something that concerns you or you think may potentially endanger a horse running in that race, you need to tell somebody and you need to tell the stewards."
Other Model Rules amendments were made that include alternations to the Superfecta wager, something that horseplayers could see affecting Canadian harness racing in 2012.
"What we basically did was at the request of the Canadian Pari-Mutuel Agency, Woodbine had expressed a desire to offer to new configurations on some wagers, and our position is that if there's not an integrity concern that we would try to accommodate that [change]...We want to encourage creativity in the sport."
To listen to the full interview with Borg and Martin, click the play button below.
Episode 243 – RCI's Ed Martin
Audio Format: MP3 audio
Host: Norm Borg
Please note that the opinions expressed in the featured interview are those of the participants and do not necessarily reflect Rideau Carleton Raceway and/or Standardbred Canada.
Don't be patting yourself on
Don't be patting yourself on the back to hard... You might hurt yourself....I believe the 99% that you mention...but that percent can be changed by, what horse you test(what trainer)... These big trainers didn't get there because they know how to train horses alone...I have raced for over 50 yrs, a very small stable , and we seem to be the guys they test most...the little guy with a couple of horses, not doing that well, just hanging on because we love the sport.
To me if you have more then 3 positive tests in your life time...you should be banned for life....quite often you will read about someone getting caught, and they get a stiff penalty, only to be reduced later on to a slap on the wrist.
I have had owners tell me when they get their bill from their trainer, there is a heading called "pre race" any where from a $100 to $300...I wonder what that is for?
HAPPY NEW YEAR everyone and good luck with your racing
Jenna, I agree with most of
Jenna, I agree with most of your comment. You suggested stiff penalties for trainers who administer and owners who probably know about it, but what about the drug pushers themselves, That is, the unscrupulous vets that you mention. They should receive the stiffest penalty such as suspension of their vet license and entry onto the backstretch of any racetrack. Wouldn't you agree?
Mr.Robinski, the race game
Mr.Robinski, the race game struggles when it comes to dealing with the truth, always has always will but years ago when they were the only game in town they got away with it. They no longer can. They resent having the truth pointed out to them at all levels and that includes the good folks at standardbred canada. It is not an industry that does well dealing with the realities that face them and that is why in 20 or 30 years time the industry will have pretty much disappeared.
If you tell a lie enough
If you tell a lie enough times, then you people begin to believe it; nevertheless, why is there no testing for ITTP and other known chemicals when we have one person who can spend more than $800K for one yearling?
An article which subjects the reader to believe the comments stated is a disservice for the many good people involved with horse racing. Be honest, tell the truth, and we will overcome the negative image of harness racing.
What a sad joke nothing
What a sad joke nothing could be further from the truth!!
Prohibiting private
Prohibiting private veterinarians from administering race-day Salix won't do much to protect the betting public. It will begin the slow process of repairing the reputations of ethical private veterinarians who are not responsible for drugging problems on the backstretch. As a former private veterinarian who now works as a regulatory racing veterinarian, I support this measure for this reason. Most of the serious drugging issues I observed during my years in practice were as a result of trainers administering banned medications, not veterinarians. The trainers often purchased their medications from unscrupulous veterinarians who weren't even present on race-day; they'd sell their wares then move on.
Quarantine barns with trained guards and camera surveillance are the way to go, along with out-of-competition testing and stiff penalties for trainers and owners whose horses test positive for banned substances. Why punish the owners? Owners often select trainers on the basis of a winning record, and don't ask potentially damning questions. Of course, mine is an expensive and punitive plan, but if racing doesn't clean up its act soon it won't matter - racing won't continue to exist, and we'll all be out of jobs anyhow.
For the most part I agree
For the most part I agree with what you say. It seems that some of the public think that Salix covers up some performance enhancing drugs which results in misconceptions. However, there is little or no transparency as to what happens to the blood/urine tests AFTER they are collected in the drug testing barn. The chain of command and/or process should be made public because ,thus far, this inquiry is met with strong opposition and one would have to wonder why.