Let due process sort the predicament out - By Tom Krish
Posted on - 12 Jan 2011
Let due process sort the predicament out
By Tom Krish
Chennai, Wednesday, January 12, 2011
It is a jungle out there! Science is advancing rapidly and procedures in laboratories for drug-testing in horses are now detecting nano-traces of medications that, for the most part, are not intended to be performance-enhancing. This is the easy part. The not-so-easy part is the attempt to deal with medications that are clearly intended to promote the welfare of the horse but become a violation of the ‘zero tolerance’ policy.
The cases of Ocean And Beyond, Star Future and Eloise have prompted a serious debate and that is the way it should be. Boldenone is a muscle-building medication. A good muscle structure is an advantage in any competitive situation. There is no question that Boldenone was used to help the horses get better muscle tone. Such a medication confers an advantage on a runner. There is an unambiguous framework of rules that govern the administering of such medications. The million dollar question is why, in the world, would S K Sunderji, Cooji Katrak and Pesi Shroff, savvy professionals who are adept at their chosen vocations and conversant with training protocol; indulge in an act that would place disaster at their doorsteps? Conspiracy theories apart, there is always the possibility that a medical explanation exists for what happened. There is a long road to travel and the temptation to rush to judgement must be fiercely resisted.
The concept of vicarious liability comes into play. A trainer is responsible for what happens in his barn. The three trainers have had the chagrin of finding the samples come back positive. The procedure is clear-cut. A second sample, if the trainer elects to, is sent to another laboratory picked from the RWITC-approved list. If a second positive is returned, then all hell breaks loose. There is every reason to think that the three professionals will go for a second bite at the apple. It is indeed a strange coincidence that three horses tested positive for the same drug. Is there a pattern to the madness?
A situation or two in recent times will shed useful light on the RWITC predicament. Meeznah was second in a photo to Snow Fairy in the Epsom Oaks in June 2010. A post-race test revealed that there was a residue of acepromazine (a sedative) in Meeznah’s system. The British Horseracing Authority did not find the source of the drug. Trainer David Lanigan, a protégé of Sir Henry Cecil, was fined 750 pounds. It was a clear transgression of the rules. In 1989, Alisya was disqualified from first place in the Epsom Oaks for a positive. The Aga Khan, Alisya’s owner, was so incensed that he began a boycott of English racing. Noverre, a Godolphin runner, had the 2001 French 2000 Guineas taken away because of a positive. These are high profile cases and there was no escape hatch.
Last year at Arlington Park in Chicago, an inordinately high number of clenbuterol violations was reported. Clenbuterol is a bronchodilator. It expands the air passages to make breathing easy. It is an ‘innocuous’ drug and it is anything but performance-enhancing. Yet, the Illinois Racing Board held that any foreign substance in a horse’s system is walking off the fine line.
Take Todd Pletcher, the leading trainer in America. Pletcher, who broke his Kentucky Derby duck in 2010 with Super Saver, has had several brushes with the ‘drug law.’ Wait A While, a runner in the 2008 Breeders’ Cup Filly-Mare Turf, tested positive for procaine, a local anaesthetic. The pencillin was given on the advice of a veterinarian. The procaine treatment had ended 18 days before the race but that did not absolve Pletcher. Trainer Pletcher was slapped with a 10-day ban and fined 25,000 dollars.
“You literally have to hold your breath every time a horse goes to the test barn,” Pletcher said at one time. How true is this?
I feel compelled to mention two British cases that made the headlines in the recent past. Matt Gingell, a trainer who does not often send out winners, used milkshaking to help his horses go faster and longer. Milkshaking is done with a tube that goes through a horse’s nose and bicarbonate is pumped in. Gingell did not benefit from what he did and that’s a material fact. The British authorities took a dim view and banned Gingell for two years.
The other case attracted worldwide attention. It was Nicky Henderson, the Queen’s trainer, who got into hot water. Moonlit Path, owned by the Queen, was in a low-conditioned jumps race at Huntingdon in February 2009. Henderson-trained Ravello Bay, the odds on favorite, won the race while Moonlit Path was spinning wheels. A test revealed that the Queen’s runner had been given tranexamic acid, a medication intended to reduce recovery time if and when the horse bled internally. The funny thing is that tranexamic acid is a permissible medication but becomes a serious transgression if used on raceday.
Trainer Henderson’s career has spanned three decades. To say, he has a pristine record would be an understatement. He admitted that the injection (given by a vet) was in the interests of the horse’s welfare. The authorities agreed with Henderson when he stated that there was no intention to use the drug for performance-enhancement. Yes, there were mitigating circumstances but the authorities imposed a three-month ban and fined Henderson 40,000 pounds. As of this moment, the mystery has not been solved. The Queen has affirmed her support and Henderson’s royal patronage remains intact.
I spoke to Pesi Shroff. Trainer Shroff is articulate and makes his points with clarity. "I do not know where to begin. I am shocked," he said.
Asked about the option of going for sample B, Shroff said, "I need to be exonerated. Of course, I want the second sample to be tested. Here is a procedure that takes time. I need to sit down with the owners. The analyst (who steers the procedure) also gets involved. This has hit me hard."
We talked about cutting edge technology and the zero tolerance concepts and how they can co-exist. "It won't be easy. Yes, we need rules. They are important but there must be a balance. A trainer never knows what will show up in a test," Shroff averred.
If sample B returns negative, everybody will live happily ever after and a great deal of public fear about the sport’s integrity would have been allayed. I do not think any of the three trainers would have done what they are alleged to have done. They are all fully cognizant of the repercussions. Let due process go on and the let the chips fall where they may. The rules are clear.
In Vivek Jain, we have a fair-minded, objective Chairman. He is worried about the image that his club projects. I have no doubt that Mr Jain is taking the ‘public relations’ angle into account as he deals with the controversy. I take exception to the view that this problem will kill racing. Far from it and it is when such situations are sorted out, that racing gets stronger. Public confidence gets shaken now and then and that is part of the process. Restoring that confidence is what people like Vivek Jain do. Please do not throw the baby out with the bath water.
