A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

sarcsm1 — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 01:14:40 GMT

I am a small trainer and I speak for many other good, smaller trainers whose livelihood is affected every day by cheaters. We don't get positives, but we don't have tons of wins either. I've been in horseracing since the 70's and I have seen cheaters come and go, mostly to the detriment of honest trainers, owners and the game itself.

The choice of cheat or starve has DEFINITELY pushed many a good horseman to push the envelope.

Until you get rid of the cheaters, you are merely rewarding them and hurting the honest ones.

Asmussen:: 23 positives? Are you serious? How many times do you have to be caught and given a pass until the last few good horsemen quit? Zero tolerance. If some trainers can manage it, then they all can. A trace of any painkiller is too much. Period.

After 10 positves, throw them out. Everyone will be better off in the long run

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

smoke — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 03:18:57 GMT

Yes, Dan, and in a "perfect world", Assmussen would win at a rate of 12-15% like all other mortal trainers since racing began...

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Scott — Tue, 28 Jul 2009 02:39:12 GMT

Ask Dr. Corrine Sweeney, University of Pa--New Bolton Cemter. They did the study. As for your steeplechasers. Ask your trainer for the truth. Just because you don't use lasix, does not mean ky red, amacar, or something else is not used. Is this in humae or not using it. By the way, long distance runners also experience EIPH.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Beth — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 23:21:48 GMT

This only goes to show the need for uniform drug policies across the the country's tracks for dosing horses.

The legal limit should be NONE.

Going after a high-profile trainer like Steve Ammussen was absolutely the correct thing to do.

He should get no prefential treatment becuse he trained once Curlin and now has Rachel Alexander in his barn.

If Mine That Bird's trainer Chuck Wooley was bagged for drugging his horse before a race, the snobs of the racing world would be clucking their tongues and "tsk tsking" to themselves.

They would say "such low characters from bush-league Quarter Horse tracks! What else could one expect?

If you are going after the little guys you have to go after the big guys too!

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Cgriff — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:24:44 GMT

Dan,

SHAME ON YOU! The executive editor of the premier racing and breeding magazine in the country - and you purport to allow for wiggle room in medication laws to allow for acceptable levels to allegedly prevent contaminated and/or false positives??

Your recommendation and attitude is just exactly what is wrong with the industry and ruins the public's perception of the sport as a whole.

There is no "wiggle room" in European laws on meds, nor is there in Dubai or elsewhere where they run on a "no medication" format.

If you are not allowed to use any type of performance enhancing drug anytime, anywhere, then the need for "wiggle room" is nonexistent. And while you brought up the poppy seed and jimsonweed defences of the past - I would bet the farm that those are extremely rare occurances, if not outright legal strategies that just happened to convince the jury or judge.

Your own lead writer, Steve Haskin, just mentioned in his latest column about Europe having it all over the USA in terms of the "purity of the sport."

If your outlook is the predominent one within the industry leadership, we have just moved further away from closing that integrity gap.

Feel free to print this as a letter to the editor, should you desire.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

noholme — Mon, 27 Jul 2009 02:42:38 GMT

from an article in the irish independent newspaper on a drug positive there for the queen's trainer:

'If we wish to see what racing's Dorian Gray drug-fuelled picture-in-the-attic might look like, we only have to look across the water. In horseracing, the US, compared with this side of the Atlantic, has played fast and loose with drugs with different States applying different rules for what substance is or isn't permissible. It is one of the reasons why horseracing hardly registers at all on the nation's sporting radar in terms of media coverage or public interest. It was reinforced this April when on the eve of the Kentucky Derby (when racing might be inclined to gain some coverage) only three of the 20 contenders' connections were prepared when asked to share with the

New York Times the details of their horse's veterinary records. The 17 who declined were described by the paper as "a who's who of thoroughbred racing".

Things have descended so far in the States that Hall of Fame trainer Jack Van Berg told a congressional subcommittee in June last year that training horses had become "chemical warfare". Arthur Hancock, a fourth generation owner/breeder, said that after routinely receiving medical bills for more than $1,000 per horse he told his vet to give his horses drugs only when they were sick. "You want to win races, don't you, Arthur?" Hancock said the vet replied.

Let Henderson be a warning shot, or else admission prices will be the least of our worries in getting people to go racing -- unless it's to Steepledowns.'

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Horseguy — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 23:44:12 GMT

75% of all horses are bleeders? Nonsense. Where exactly did that number come from? And if came from someone with a PHD they are just guessing. Either that or we are just lucky. None of my steeplechase horses have bled, none run on lasix. And these are horses that run at race speed for 3 to 4 miles. So, pleeease lets work with real numbers. And there is no CONCLUSIVE study that can says with authority that 75% of all horses are bleeders. Fact not fiction. Again, the majority of horses run on lasix as a matter of course because they can. Fact no BS.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Ranagulzion — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 20:43:20 GMT

Dan,

Your column together with the comments by bloggers has been excellent. The level and intensity of the debate on this topic has been very engaging and of a high standard but what will the conclusion of the matter be? Having thoroughbreds race exclussively on hay, oats and water is a wonderful ideal but where in the world is this the norm? needler in Virginia's suggestion of a "Racing dictator"(my terminology)to bring all states under one rule and one standard is a bit extreme and desperate since absolute power will corrupt/make corruptable any well meaning human authority. A happy medium surely can be found.

This is another teaching moment for horse handlers. Also will Steve Asmussen learn his lesson?

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

needler in Virginia — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 16:14:06 GMT

Eliz, I still think the solution is no drugs EVER. If a horse needs drugs it should go home to rest and recuperate; if it needs drugs to prevent bleeding, maybe it shouldn't be racing anyway. We require that of human athletes, so why not equine (and for that matter, canine!) ? That way we can all pee in a bottle and not be worried about the outcome, and YES! I know all about the poppy seed thing. Cuts no ice. No drugs. If drugs are required they should be administered off track for therapeutic purposes ONLY. I'll repeat "if ya don't use drugs on your horses, ya won't need to worry about a positive test result". All the rest is a string of "yes, buts........" which allows wiggle room for the rule breakers.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

eliz — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:55:36 GMT

Bottom line...

Where is the solution to this topic?

Anyone?

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Scott — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 02:13:29 GMT

Bleeding is nothing new. We did not discover bleeding till the endoscopic age. Why, because 75% of horses bleed, but not out the nose. Only 3% actually bleed out the nose. So the problem was there, just not diagnosed well. Can anyone tell me, why milkshaking is wrong? No drugs in there. Only feedsuffs. And has absolutely no adverse effects. Yet you can't do it.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

tvnewsbadge — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 23:49:33 GMT

With Steve Asmussen training Rachel Alexandra, I just hope they monitor her very carefully.

You'd hate to see her brilliant career called into question because of allegation she was drugged.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

needler in Virginia — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 22:10:43 GMT

Apropos of absolutely NOTHING and Mr Liebman has my permission to either delete, edit or move to a more appropriate blog, the following:

Have any of you seen the VOGUE "photo shoot" of Rachel Alexandra done right after the Preakness (or was it The Oaks)? YE GODS AND LITTLE FISHES!!! If I owned that horse, I would sue for defamation of appearance. Never mind that only one photo was used, but it has been "cut out" like a kid would do for a first grade show and tell (actually a first grader would have done it better!) AND the picture itself really sucks. She appears to have no body worth mentioning, a useless motor, and a scrawny neck. What an insult to ugly horses the pic is, and not really what we had been led to expect. But then ALL the models - human and equine - look the same way so maybe I was looking for a picture of reality in an unreal venue.

My apologies to all for the off-topic post; I just couldn't believe it and had to raise Cain with someone!

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Edward — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:58:42 GMT

The presence of psychoactive stimulatory drugs in raw waters used for drinking water production and in finished drinking water was evaluated in a Spanish drinking water treatment plant (DWTP). Contamination of the river basin which provides raw water to this DWTP was also studied. In surface waters, illicit drugs such as cocaine, benzoylecgonine (cocaine metabolite), amphetamine, methamphetamine, MDMA (ecstasy), and MDA were detected at mean concentrations ranging from 4 to 350 ng/L.

It's really not out of the norm that Asmussens horse could have ingested such a minuscule amount of lidocaine from the environment. In fact, at such a nano scale of trace, it is actually the most probable cause.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Edward — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 19:53:51 GMT

If you have any doubts about ingesting substances that you have never taken and would show up on a test at 73 billionths of a gram(understanding a number like this is impossible for most people, hence the comparison between .080 and .081: clue: that is one thousandth, you need a lot more zeroes to get to 73 billionths), you should stop worrying about horses and check your own drinking water. Even when it is filtered, the number of pharmaceuticals in your water would blow your mind.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Hawkeye — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 16:40:07 GMT

I think that some of you need to delve into the medical books. Today we have the availability of high tech testing that results in a difinitive answer no matter how one tries to mask an illegal substance. Furosemide (Lasix) is a diuretic. It has many uses in various medical conditions. Essentially, a hypertensive situation in the lung causes edema (swelling) reducing the ability of the lung to take in enough oxygen. (by the way, oxygen is also considered a drug) This places pressure on the circulatory system. Small blood vessels can and do break open causing the bleeding we are talking about. There are many other mechanisms involved but this is not intended to be a medical school lecture. The lungs begin to contain blood and we see it as a "nose bleed" in the racing horse. Lasix aids in relieving edema thus allowing the horse to breathe as normal. Oxygen depravation is a dangerous situation in a horse running full out especially at the end of a race. Safety is the issue. Should the horse collapse it could endanger others in the race. Years ago a horse that bled 3 times was banned from racing. Perhaps some of you would not see many of your favorite horses run. What many of you don't seem to know or understand is that a horse can bleed little enough that it is not seen. How many times do you all notice a bruise on an arm or leg etc. and don't recall any trauma occuring? You broke some small blood vessels and didn't even know. Now that we have easy access to portable x-ray equipment we can have diagnostic tests done on "minor" swellings in a horse's leg. This enhances safety also. So, we use Lasix not to enhance performance but to prevent injury to the horse. Life is not black and white. It is always shaded. Nothing is absolute. Too many are "horse lovers" and "animal rights activitsts" who don't comprehend reality. Sure there are always those who try to beat the system. Those few rotten apples always seem to make the whole look bad. And I am not speaking of the well known trainers who value their reputations and horses on the same level. Just a reminder to the doubters, Lasix does not cause a horse to "run enhanced" but run to his natural ability.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Brigitte — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:32:10 GMT

Professor Michael Davis, quoted by Tim G above, has drawn the wrong conclusion from the Lasix study. If Lasix/Salix/Furosemide works that is a good reason to ban it. It reduces bleeding, it enhances performance. Incidentally, it makes other medications harder to detect.

The argument that a huge number of horses bleed after exercise, so Salix/Lasix enhances safety is a poor argument unless it can be shown that the tendency to bleed enough to reduce performance is not heritable. In that case drugging bleeders so they race well and contribute to the breeding pool does no harm. If bleeding is heritable, it's another reason to ban Lasix.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Hawkeye — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 04:30:09 GMT

In the real world any positive screen should always be further tested as a confirmation of the exact amount of chemical or the lack thereof due to an interfering non-drug type substance. Results showing such small amounts that it stretches to the very lower limit of detection would negate the presumption that a drug was administered. The racing commissions are setting themselves up for some big time law suits. They have made a knee jerk decision without knowing how medications are metabolized nor are they aware that there are false positives. By refusing to perform a blood test or confirmatory testing on the urine they have left wide open the question of a false positive. Although their intentions are on the right track their ignorance astounds me. Their stupidity has created not only stress but a waste of finances that no one needs at this time. The money they waste could be used more productively rather than nit picking at trainers. I am just so sick and tired of fingers being pointed. I have seen fasle positives caused by anything from a slight metabolic disorder to over the counter cold medications that mimic amphetamines. Thank heavens humans in the medical world are intelligent enough to run more sensitve tests that can exhibit the difference between legal and not legal. We can't afford to loose patrons at the tracks because of this constant drama. Hopefully the Texas commission will forget about saving face and stop this nonsense.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

noholme — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:11:10 GMT

tim: legal drugs mask illegal drugs. legal drugs mask injury and infirmity.

the results in this country are irrefutable.

people are turning off this sport in droves because of the cheating and inhumane treatment of the animal, breakdowns, injuries and killings.

as an insider, i am just as repulsed as the average fan. i know of what i speak: i am one of the lucky ones who has claimed two horses with slab fractures of the knee and in both cases the trainers knew of this condition or should have known. one trainer, a leading one at that, admitted as much to me when i confronted him later. 'walk him round the barn, stand him in ice and run him again in a couple of weeks,' was his advice. i had to walk away or i would have decked him.

when are we going to wake up to the fact that these drugs are placing the entire industry in jeopardy? what effect is this having on the breed? will foreign buyers want our horses if they cannot run without drugs? or are all these studies demonstrating increasing soundness in the breed misleading?

something has to be done and quoting studies to justify the use of drugs that hide even more drugs is just plain misguided, in my opinion.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Tim G — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 20:00:08 GMT

needler, like Shawn said, noholme pulled out the specific comment that supported her premise only.

The comments I quoted were from the UNIVERSITY who performed the tests. The AAEP which is pressing for all the certification and changes. Plus the SAME guy she quoted and THEY all agree that it's in the best interest of the horse to administer Salix or Lasix and that there is a HUGE number of horses with EIPH.

I'm getting more convinced that some of these blog comment sections harbor activists and oooh cutie patootie horsey lovers and NOT THOROUGHBRED HORSE RACING AND BREEDING FANS.

Time to change the mission statement of the magazine?

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

needler in Virginia — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:55:16 GMT

TimG, thanks for the clarification and the explanation, as well. I must agree on the zero tolerance and the "can't stand Texans" part, too.....but I WILL NOT go into that, as there still exists a Texas hit squad with my name on its' list!!

Sorry for the grumpy rant at you; there are many folks who ask the same questions that you did and their answers seem to come straight out of THE BLACK STALLION!

And just so you know....GO RED SOX!!

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

eliz — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 19:35:47 GMT

Needler,

That is my point exactly, EVERYONE in the industry needs to follow the same rules and regulations. No matter how "in the spotlight" they are or not!

Again, not only trainers but all of the connections you mentioned Needler.

We need to start somewhere....

No and's if's or but's!

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

needler in Virginia — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:58:41 GMT

Thanks for that, noholme! AGAIN, well said and well researched. I've really had it with all the "yes, but......." excuses and obfuscations. SHEEEESH!! What will it take? Obviously catastrophic breakdowns won't do it; a barn full of dead horses won't do it. Maybe the Fed getting sick and tired of complaints (along with film at 11, as well as all over the 'net) from animal rights groups will get them into racing and I GUARANTEE we won't like what they do or how they do it! One would think that a group of "adults" with "racing's best interests at heart" (REALLY???) could come to a consensus that racing has been most successful at shooting itself in the foot and had better begin to take aim at itself in a more creative and positive area. This blog, along with the MANY others, have just about burned me out. Sidebars, options, justifications are yesterday's oatmeal. A ruthless bastard, ethically based, mean-as-a-stepped-on-snake, KNOWLEDGEABLE racing commissioner MUST be found RIGHT NOW and given the authority to bring racing in all states under the same umbrella. ALL tracks follow the same rules or they don't get certified, ALL trainers follow the same rules or THEY don't get certified, ALL vets follow the same rules or THEY don't get certified, same with jockeys and exercise riders and hot walkers, and YES!! even grooms. Everyone works toward one goal.......to keep racing alive and well, 'cause if we don't, we're done. Now is that so damned hard????????

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Shawn P — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:48:12 GMT

noholme, breeder and owner of what?

TB racehorses?

Davis didn't do the study, Dr. Kenneth Hinchcliff, professor and dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science, The University of Melbourne, and co-author with Professor Paul Morley, Colorado State University, and Professor Alan Guthrie, University of Pretoria in South Africa, Did.

You had to search that whole other article to dredge up that one comment, because Davis said much more to support the use of Salix/Lasix.

re: A Little Tolerance - By Dan Liebman

Tim G — Fri, 24 Jul 2009 16:43:24 GMT

nholme, not a bogus figure. The results of the study were published worldwide, including THIS publication.

My day job is as a medical professional and I've done several research papers and clinical trials as well, so with that scientific mind I'm of a prove it to me mindset.

"This should pretty much stop the efforts to restrict the use of furosemide dead in its tracks," said Michael Davis, a physiological sciences professor and Oxley Endowed Chair in Equine Sports Medicine at Oklahoma State University's Centre for Veterinary Health Sciences "Extremely well designed, and conducted by investigators with impeccable integrity, the study was designed to honestly investigate furosemide, not to come up one way or another.

"Had it shown no benefit to using furosemide, then the racing jurisdictions would have started outlawing the drug. If it had shown no benefit, that would have been equally defensible. Bottom line, the conduct of the study demonstrates in deed and not just talk that the racing industry is, in fact, trying to improve the conditions of the sport."

The study, which will be published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (JAVMA) on July 1, 2009, is the first to draw a definitive link between use of the medication furosemide (also known as frusemide, Lasix or Salix) and the prevention of exercise-induced pulmonary hemorrhage (EIPH).

"EIPH is a very common disorder, in which race horses bleed into the lungs while racing. The disorder affects up to '75 PERCENT' of thoroughbreds around the world and has a detrimental effect on the performance of affected horses. Within the US, $35 million is spent annually on use of furosemide to treat the condition.

However, furosemide is banned for use on race-day by most countries, including Australia. Only the US, some South American countries, including Brazil, and some tracks in Canada, allow the medication to be used on race day.

Professor Ken Hinchcliff, Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Science at the University of Melbourne and co-author of the study with Professor Paul Morley, Colorado State University, and Professor Alan Guthrie, University of Pretoria in South Africa, says the study provides the most reliable information to guide the highly politicized debate over use of furosemide in horses" Published in part in the JAVMA, the rest from the University of Melbourne, where the tests were conducted.

From the JAVMA and the recommendations of the AAEP PRIOR to the results of the study, which they and the RMTC recommended and helped fund:

Universal adoption in all racing jurisdictions of the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ARCI) model rules, as proposed by the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), including no race-day medication EXCEPT furosemide (Salix®).

All medication treatment programs should be based upon the safety and welfare of the horse."

THESE are part of the group that are certifying the tracks.

I don't just pull this stuff out of the clear blue, I'm a DR I deal in CLINICAL information.

On the contamination da3hoss?

Do you not put feed into individual buckets? Hang hay bags?

Do you have a roboic arm to do it, similar to the new robotic pharmacist?

NO a guy that WORKS for you and is 'screened' by the state racing commission sticks his hand in there, I'll guarantee it. Big question and maybe TMI for some? WHERE has that hand BEEN?