RCI Recommends Pulling Back On Bute

The Association of Racing Commissioners International (RCI) Model Rules Committee voted unanimously today to recommend lowering the threshold of the non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug phenylbutazone

.

The committee acted on recommendations from the RCI Regulatory Veterinarians Committee, the RCI Drug Testing Standards and Practices Committee, the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, the Jockey Club’s Thoroughbred Safety Committee, the Jockey’s Guild, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association and the American Association of Equine Practitioners.

The model rule change was not without controversy as the National HBPA, the Thoroughbred Owners of California, and the California Thoroughbred Trainers submitted statements urging RCI not to approve the proposal. Some proposed additional research.

The proposed change will result in a lowered allowance of 2 micrograms of phenylbutazone per milliliter of plasma or serum, down from 5 micrograms as currently stated in the RCI Model Rules.

The lowered threshold is not a new idea as Maryland and Pennsylvania currently have the 2 microgram threshold in place.

Although the decision by the Model Rules Committee is a major step towards a lower threshold, the change will not be fully adopted as a Model Rule until it is approved by the RCI Board of Directors, which is expected to convene in early October.

For a link to the ARCI Model Rules, please visit the RCI website.

Below is a statement by RCI President Ed Martin.

Statement of: Edward Martin, President Association of Racing Commissioners International

The RCI Model Rules Committee has received valuable input on the proposed rule change lowering the allowed threshold of phenylbutazone from 5 micrograms per milliliter serum or plasma to 2 micrograms per milliliter serum or plasma. We sincerely thank all individuals and organizations that have submitted information to us. That information has been reviewed and considered and we appreciate those who have taken the time to research this matter, particularly Dr Shields, Dr. Soma, The National HBPA, The Jockey Club’s Health and Welfare Committee, the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium, and the American Association of Equine Practitioners. We also thank the Jockeys Guild, the Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association, Thoroughbred Owners of California, and California Thoroughbred Trainers.

It is clear that a debate exists on the science. The scientific review process within the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium was developed to address such matters. It is unfortunate and troubling that some now question the thoroughness of that review. The RMTC process is necessary to ensure that the omnipresent scientific debate is structured so regulators, horsemen, owners, and fans can understand and rely on recommendations that reflect the preponderant scientific view, if not a consensus, of the best advisors we have at our disposal.

RCI, on the recommendation of the Regulatory Veterinarians Committee, requested the RMTC conduct a review of the use of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications. The committee members expressed a concern that current recommended policy may jeopardize the integrity of pre-race equine examinations. We appreciate the willingness of the RMTC to commit resources to this review as well as the review we have requested pertaining to the use of corticosteroids.

At no point during the Model Rules Committee’s deliberate review process did opponents of this policy change present an argument as to why the administration of phenylbutazone close enough to race time to trigger a 5 microgram threshold was absolutely necessary to the health of the horse. The unanswered question by those in opposition to the proposed policy change is why a horse in pain requiring an administration of phenylbutazone at their suggested level should be racing.

Phenylbutazone treats muscular sprains, tendonitis, acute joint injury, and arthritic conditions. There are clear warnings that’s its overuse could seriously jeopardize equine health. The misuse of of this drug may be hurtful to our horses, causing ulcers or hemorrhages in the esophagus and gastrointestinal tract, diarrhea, low white blood cell count, anemia, and intestinal, kidney, and liver disease.

Because our horses cannot speak, we believe there is no other choice but to be cautious. Even if we were to agree - and we are not - with those who claim that the process by which the science was assessed was flawed, the prudent course for public policy makers would be to err on the side of caution in the interest of the horse and rider.

Absent a compelling and convincing medical reason to the contrary, the RCI Model Rules committee has concluded that it is in the interest of the horse that the proposed change be adopted. The committee approved this change primarily to address the concerns raised by the regulatory veterinarians.

We believe the administration of any medication should be determined by a licensed veterinarian acting in the best interest of the horse. The fact that the American Association of Equine Practitioners is supportive of the proposed change speaks volumes as to the merit of the proposal.

Concerns have been expressed that some horsemen may have become overly reliant on NSAIDs. If this is so we question the extent to which such over reliance may contribute to the high level of gastronic ulcers in racehorses. We question the extent that the chronic use of phenylbutazone in horses with joint problems might be causing more problems than it's preventing. We question whether attention is being paid to the strong recommendation from researchers at Louisiana State University that hematologic (blood) tests be conducted as early as three to five days after initiating treatment with phenylbutazone. We question whether those who rely on phenylbutazone as part of a horses’s normal training regime are aware that the National Toxicology Program has identified this drug as a potential carcinogen.

The Model Rules Committee recommends that implementation of this change by racing commissions should be done in consultation with the horsemen and we encourage commissions to deploy a transition or grace period prior to full enforcement of the rule change.

(RCI)