Mary Scollay | Horse Racing Free Tips

Horse Sales And HISA, The Overlap

With the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Integrity Act's (HISA) anti-doping and medication control program set for launch Monday–pending approval by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC)–the inevitable focus will be on the spider web of post-race and out-of-competition testing set to blanket most of the nation.

But with it has come this other question: What do buyers now need to be aware of when purchasing a horse at the sales or privately?

The question has gained added currency since a recent the Southern California horsemen by representatives from the Horseracing Integrity & Welfare Unit (HIWU), the arm of HISA charged with rolling-out and managing its anti-doping and medication control (ADMC) program.

At that presentation, Mary Scollay, HIWU's chief of science, explained that under the new medication regime, bisphosophonates–a controversial group of drugs used in older horses to tackle issues like navicular disease but also used in younger horses to treat things like sore shins–will be banned from administration in what HISA terms “covered horses.”

(It should be noted that a Thoroughbred becomes a “covered horse” only when it completes its first officially timed and published workout)

“My last two weeks has pretty much been a deep dive into bisphosphonates and how to navigate this stuff,” said Joe Miller, a racing manager and bloodstock advisor, who leans heavily on Europe when scouting for new talent destined for the U.S.

“I actually skipped going to the OBS March sale because I'm so focused on how we're going to be moving forward in navigating these purchases,” Miller added.

For all sorts of reasons, bisphosphonates pose a slippery set of problems for regulators and horsemen alike. Once administered, they can stay in a horse's system for years. Horses given a bisphosphonate won't necessarily test positive for the drug consistently over time either, with a positive finding more likely during periods of bone remodeling, which would release the drug into the horse's system.

Punitive consequences for a positive bisphosphonate finding can be steep. A trainer faces a possible two-year suspension for a first-time bisphosphonate violation, while the horse could be subject to lifetime ineligibility from competition.

Joe Miller | Tattersalls

HIWU published a notice to the industry on March 10 regarding the use of bisphosphonates under the ADMC program, explaining how only proven administration of a bisphosphonate to a covered horse after the March 27th implementation date would be deemed an actionable violation. Furthermore, HIWU explained that it would not pursue disciplinary action for a positive bisphosphonate finding against a covered horse and its connections, provided those connections can share with HIWU documentation–such as medical records or a positive test result–proving administration or presence of bisphosphonates prior to the ADMC program implementation date.

“In accordance with HISA's requirements for Covered Horses, all medical records, including any relevant test results, must be uploaded to the HISA portal. Additionally, due to the variability of bisphosphonate detection through laboratory analysis, all bisphosphonate findings detected under the ADMC Program will undergo thorough review regardless of the alleged timing of administration,” the notice added.

This still leaves some worrying holes for trainers and owners to potentially fall through.

A fear among buyers is that because of the longevity with which bisphosphonates can stay in the system, a recently purchased horse administered bisphosphonates prior to the ADMC launch date–and unbeknownst to the new connections–could still land them in regulatory hot water.

Furthermore, buyers like Miller are concerned about purchasing horses from international jurisdictions where bisphosphonates are still permitted.

“Since private sales are subject to individual contracts, it is up to the buyer and seller to formalize provisions for bisphosphonates testing and conditions of sale to protect all parties,” wrote Scollay, in response to a list of questions.

Miller hasn't made any international purchases since last October, he said, but he expects that to change in the next few weeks. When Miller does once again plunder foreign shores, “we can definitely do a blood screen for Osphos and Tildren,” he said, singling out two of the more commonly-used bisphosphonates. “I'm hoping we can do a urine screening as well.”

Indeed, urine samples are deemed more accurate than blood screens at detecting bisphosphonates administered longer in advance due to typically higher concentrations in urine of most substances than in the blood.

Though HIWU has stated it will conduct a thorough review in the event of a bisphosphonate positive, “If you come up with a trace amount of bisphosphonate in a post-race urine sample, how is that going to be dealt with?” asked Miller. “Is a horse going to be able to compete while the review is being conducted?”

According to HIWU spokesperson, Alexa Ravit, “HIWU will not just automatically issue a suspension for a Covered Horse or Covered Person upon receiving a positive finding for bisphosphonates.”

Fasig-Tipton is one of the major U.S. sales companies to have taken steps in recent years to limit drug use in the horses that pass through their rings, including offering bisphosphonate testing as a condition of sale for horses younger than four.

If the sale horse tests positive for bisphosphonates, a buyer has the right, within 24 hours of notification, to rescind the sale. In Fasig-Tipton's case, a bisphosphonates test costs $500.

“As with all these drug tests that have come along, it's usually because there has been a shift in the market,” said Bayne Welker, executive vice president of Fasig-Tipton. “That's usually what drives us to make these offerings.”

And as a result of HISA, “I'll probably take the limitations off of the racing age horses,” explained Welker, pointing to the condition of sale bisphosphonate test.

Indeed, Scollay stressed how “buyers should consult sales companies, as applicable, to verify the bisphosphonates testing available as well as the conditions of sale should a purchased horse test positive for bisphosphonates.”

Which leads to concerns over the use of other potentially problematic drugs, especially in horses-in-training purchases.

Major sales companies have moved in recent years to restrict the use in sales horses of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), corticosteroids and bronchodilators, including Clenbuterol. Welker explained that HISA's new ADMC program won't change what condition of sale tests Fasig-Tipton offers for these particular substances.

Perhaps the biggest concern, explained Scollay, would be if the horse has been administered a banned substance that may linger in the horse for an extended period and show up in testing conducted under HISA, with anabolic steroids singled out for concern alongside bisphosphonates.

Scollay recommends that both buyers and sellers refer to HIWU's “Banned List,” which are the substances not permitted to be in a horse at any time once it falls under HISA's jurisdiction.

According to Miller, none of the drugs listed on HIWU's banned substances list cause him particular concern. “I only buy horses off people that we trust,” he said.

Furthermore, Miller said he will continue his current practice of performing a full blood screening of a horse pre-purchase.

Dr. Mary Scollay | The Jockey Club

“We typically test for steroids, any non-steroidal anti-inflammatories,” said Miller. “We just want to make sure when we do a soundness exam on a horse, we want to make sure they haven't been given anything.”

In regards private testing, however, there is an important distinction for stakeholders moving forward.

HIWU has contracted six labs around the country to conduct its testing program:

The Ohio Department of Agriculture's Analytical Toxicology Laboratory; the Animal Forensic Toxicology Laboratory at the University of Illinois-Chicago; Industrial Laboratories in Denver, Colo.; Kenneth L. Maddy Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory at the University of California-Davis; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's Pennsylvania Equine Toxicology and Research Laboratory; and University of Kentucky Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory.

Trainers and owners can ask HIWU to conduct clearance testing on a horse–for a fee–provided there is a reported administration history of a particular substance. Clearance testing though HIWU will be conducted at these six labs.

But these same HIWU-affiliated labs are prohibited by contract from testing any covered racehorses from private clients, explained Jeff Blea, California Horse Racing Board equine medical director.

And does Blea have any broader advice for industry stakeholders looking to close a sale after Monday?

“Any purchase of a horse as a buyer, you should have a conversation with your veterinarian as to what your concerns are and what your risk tolerance is relative to drug testing as a condition of sale,” Blea replied.

The post Horse Sales And HISA, The Overlap appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HIWU’s Scollay: New Medication Rules ‘Your New Bible’

Despite all the legal jockeying these past few weeks and months, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act's (HISA) anti-doping and medication control program still appears set for launch on Jan. 1 in the vast majority of states that conduct pari-mutuel wagering.

This means on the first day of 2023, thousands of trainers, veterinarians and other backstretch workers must grapple with a new set of rules guiding how and when to administer a set of everyday medications–the list of which can be found here–to avoid falling foul of a post-race and out-of-competition positive.

Is there much of a difference between the Association of Racing Commissioners International (ACRI)'s current therapeutic medication schedule and that as outlined by the Horseracing Integrity and Welfare Unit (HIWU)?

Turns out there is–one that, in short, boils down to the differences between the current world of withdrawal guidelines and thresholds, and the looming system of detection times and screening limits.

“There is a substantial difference and if the terms are used interchangeably, there is a profound risk of a medication violation,” warned Mary Scollay, chief of science at HIWU, established by Drug Free Sport International.

Some of the key points as Jan. 1 looms large:

Detection times do not necessarily provide an accurate medication withdrawal guide;

New screening limits will require different administration protocols;

There will be no enforcement “grace period” for stakeholders to adjust.

This different medication schedule will require adjustments well before Jan. 1;

Withdrawal Guidelines vs. Detection Times

Traditionally, withdrawal guidelines are based on administration studies with a “statistically derived margin of safety built in,” said Scollay.

“The idea is that if you follow the administration protocol described in the study–dose, route of administration–and you comply with the withdrawal guidance,” said Scollay, “you should have a high degree of confidence that you will not have a medication violation.”

In other words, withdrawal guidelines provide a reliable cut-off point to administer a medication to avoid post-race positives.

This is in contrast to detection times under HISA, calculated through studies on a group of horses administered a certain medication.

These horses are then tested to determine the earliest time the drug is eliminated from all the horses' systems–a level below either the lowest concentration identified by the laboratory or below a defined screening limit.

This means that detection times “do not have any margin of safety calculated in,” warned Scollay. “It is the starting point for determining a withdrawal interval. So, the burden for establishing an appropriate withdrawal interval for medication now lies exclusively with the horses' connections.”

In any of these given studies, for example, the horses may metabolize drugs at different speeds–and potentially quicker than a racehorse given the same drug at the same dose.

Studies with a very small cohort of horses–like hydroxyzine, with a detection time of 96 hours from a study with only two horses–provide another reason why detection times can provide a very thin margin of error.

Imagine a study testing a doorframe set at six feet, explained one regulatory veterinarian. If the study participants are all under six foot, no problem. But what about all the six-foot plus individuals not studied?

For practicing veterinarians accustomed to concrete withdrawal times, therefore, this constitutes a sea-change in the way medications can be safely prescribed and administered to avoid costly post-race positives.

“There's no easy answer to this,” admitted Scollay. “I fully understand what a philosophical change this is, and yes, I understand that the vets can feel like they're flying blind right now.”

Aim of Schedule

Aside from a select few substances–like electrolytes, orally administered vitamins and anti-ulcer medications which can be administered up to 24-hours before a race–there is a mandatory 48-hour restricted administration time for all controlled medications.

For a number of these routine controlled medications, the dosage, withdrawal time and stipulated threshold in the current ARCI schedule are the same as the dosage, detection time and screening limits outlined by HIWU.

But where these differ, the differences might be subtle, easily over-looked. The ARCI's phenylbutazone threshold is 0.3 micrograms per millimeter, but is 0.2 micrograms per millimeter under HISA, for example–a small change with significant implications when it comes to its use in the days prior to a race. What's more, Scollay is unable to provide veterinarians and horsemen with specific withdrawal numbers. “HIWU and HISA are not in a position to provide withdrawal guidance,” she said. “I cannot say, 'I think you're going to be fine if you back out to 82 hours.'”

Things can get even trickier when HIWU provides zero dosage, detection time and screening limit guidance on a drug listed on the controlled medication list. But that doesn't necessarily mean veterinarians and trainers are indeed “flying blind.”

The corticosteroid betamethasone has no dosage or detection time listed, but it comes with a Restricted Administration Time (RAT) to race of 14 days (7 days for a work).

The Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID) diclofenac–commonly found in a topical ointment to treat swelling and inflammation–similarly has no listed dosage and detection time.

As Scollay explains, that's because the process of calculating elimination times in an ointment–and therefore, one routinely applied in wildly different amounts to different parts of the body–is extremely difficult.

But this underscores, she said, the overarching aim of the new medication schedule–to foster a more conservative approach to veterinary medicine.

If diclofenac is used to treat a problematic joint, said Scollay, “from my perspective, once you've got that joint quieted down, I think you'd still want to assess that horse's response to treatment and assess the horse's recovery by breezing him.

“And so, you're not talking about ceasing treatment on a specific joint that has been inflamed and problematic going into a race in three days.”

In other words, if a topical diclofenac ointment is being used to treat certain musculoskeletal problems, then racing probably shouldn't be on the horse's imminent agenda, said Scollay.

Clearance Testing

More broadly, there's a very rough rule-of-thumb when it comes to calculating withdrawal times. One is that a short detection time is typically indicative of fast elimination from the system, said Scollay.

“But if something takes 96 hours to clear, I would be more conservative because I know it clears slowly,” said Scollay, speculating that “if I add just 24 hours onto that, I may not have allowed enough time for it to clear.”

But perhaps the most accurate guide for veterinarians and trainers concerned about a positive test, said Scollay, would be to conduct “clearance testing” well before race-day–a service provided through HIWU.

“We'll collect the sample from the horse, and then send it to the laboratory that's doing the testing. The trainer would have to provide information about the treatment, the drug, the dose, the frequency–when it was halted,” said Scollay.

It's not a free service, however.

“I don't know what that fee is yet,” Scollay added. “That would be paid for by the horse's connections.”

Importantly, the new controlled medication rules are primarily germane to post-race testing, not HISA's out-of-competition testing program, which is largely focused on banned substances.

That said, the new rules prohibit the presence of more than one NSAID or corticosteroid in both post-race and post-work samples–a prohibition designed to nix the practice of “stacking.”

HIWU's new common controlled medication list provides secondary detection times for three common NSAIDS, to help avoid a stacking offense.

Enforcement

Though the new drug rules might prove a marked change from the current status-quo, don't expect an enforcement grace period for stakeholders to acclimatize to their new regulatory expectations.

“The regulations don't provide for it,” said Scollay, categorically.

So, what are some of the implications for a positive of a controlled substance? An outline of the sanctions can be found here.

The majority of post-race positives are for everyday therapeutic medications–like phenylbutazone, a class C controlled drug, a first time positive for which would result in a fine of up to $500 and the automatic disqualification of the horse.

Which leads to another question: Who will be held responsible in the event of a positive?

The ultimate-insurer rule places the burden of responsibility on the shoulders of the trainer. But in the language of the law, there appears to be room for the veterinarian (and perhaps others) to be similarly held culpable.

As Scollay describes it, such a scenario would be case-specific. “The facts of the case would have to determine who else might be complicit,” she said. “To be fair, if it's an overage of a medication one would say, 'well, the vet didn't administer that without the trainer's knowledge and consent.'”

And so, when should veterinarians, trainers and others start applying these new controlled medication rules?

Given the 14-day stand down on all intra-articular injections–along with a 15-day detection time for the NSAID firocoxib–Scollay recommends familiarization with, and application of, the new rules as soon as possible, to avoid regulatory consequences come Jan. 1.

In other words, if trainers and veterinarians are deciding on withdrawal decisions after a horse is entered to race after Jan. 1, “they've waited too long,” said Scollay.

“I think more important is for veterinarians and trainers to review the document together and develop a shared approach to interpreting detection times,” she said. “And there is no time like the present for that.”

Education

Between now and Jan. 1, HIWU will apparently be releasing educational materials aimed towards regulatory and practicing veterinarians, and the trainers themselves.

Another intended event, said Scollay, is a webinar with a noted European veterinarian to explain how detection times and screening limits translate in Europe, where they've been in effect for much longer. Scollay was unable to provide details about then that might be, however.

The Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC) can act as an information intermediary, said Scollay, who added that industry stakeholders can contact her directly with any drug-related questions.

She also recommends printing off HIWU's controlled medication list—once again linked to here–before laminating and pinning it to the barn wall.

“I've been using the 'L' word every chance I can get. Laminate it, put it on your clipboard. Give them to your staff. That's your new bible,” Scollay said.

“There's no easy answer to this other than be more conservative and be more cautious of medication than you have been,” she said. “And ask yourself, 'does this horse really need it?'”

The post HIWU’s Scollay: New Medication Rules ‘Your New Bible’ appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

Q&A: Mary Scollay on Drug Testing Protocols & Baffert Otomax Explanation

Since Sunday morning, horse racing has largely been a one-issue sport. That morning, of course, trainer Bob Baffert announced that GI Kentucky Derby winner Medina Spirit (Protonico) had tested positive for 21 picograms per milliliter of betamethasone in a post-race sample.

Betamethasone is a regulated corticosteroid commonly used in horse racing as an intra-articular joint injection. In Kentucky as of last year, a detection of betamethasone at any level is deemed a violation. The previous threshold was 10 picograms per milliliter. A split sample will now go for confirmation testing.

On Tuesday morning, Baffert released a statement explaining that following the GI Runhappy Santa Anita Derby, Medina Spirit had developed dermatitis on his hind end and that his veterinarian had recommended daily use of an anti-fungal ointment called Otomax.

“Yesterday, I was informed that one of the substances in Otomax is betamethasone,” the statement reads. “I have been told by equine pharmacology experts that this could explain the test results.”

Prior to Tuesday's announcement, Baffert had conducted a series of national interviews in which he maintained his innocence and insisted that he and his team have never administered betamethasone to Medina Spirit. During these interviews, Baffert cast serious doubts on drug testing protocols currently in use in horse racing, arguing how, among other things, the hyper-sensitivity of modern testing technologies leaves horses susceptible to positives through cross-contamination.

In Tuesday's statement, Baffert repeated those accusations, arguing that “horse racing must address its regulatory problem when it comes to substances which can innocuously find their way into a horse's system at the picogram (which is a trillionth of a gram) level.”

To discuss some of the issues that Baffert has raised in his interviews, the TDN spoke with Mary Scollay, executive director and chief operating officer of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC). Scollay was recently appointed to the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Standing Committee arm of the Horseracing integrity and Safety Authority.

The TDN spoke with Scollay both prior to, and after, Baffert released his statement Tuesday. In her first interview, Scollay raised the possibility that the positive could be the result of exposure through use of a topical product that contains betamethasone.

The two interviews have been spliced into the following, which has been edited for brevity and clarity.

In his statement, Baffert claims that the positive finding could be the result of use of a betamethasone-containing anti-fungal ointment called Otomax, which was used to treat dermatitis. Does this seem plausible?

It's plausible–the horse was exposed to betamethasone, so, that's beyond where we were a day ago when the horse had never been exposed to betamethasone.

In the scenario you presented in our first interview, the horse who tested positive for betamethasone after topical treatment of an ointment had also ingested the ointment. A scenario of double exposure. Would the levels of betamethasone detected in Medina Spirit also have required him to have ingested the topical ointment?

No way to know. I don't know that there's any pharmacokinetic data on concentrations of betamethasone following topical treatment. And again–because I never make anything easy, right–that would depend on the condition of the skin, too. Intact skin would likely absorb less into the blood stream than inflamed skin, or an open wound where there's more direct contact between the blood and the blood vessels and the medication.

The skin's a pretty good barrier–it's intended to prevent you from absorbing lots of stuff. If you could absorb lots of toxins and noxious substances through your skin, you'd be in trouble. Intact skin is a fairly effective barrier, so, again this is where an assessment of the horse's physical condition would be helpful. I don't know. Was the skin disease noted by the commission veterinarians in any of their contact with the horse? Don't know.

To be fair, it's not part of your routine inspection to lift the tail and look underneath. But, if the horse is jogging away from you and it's got irritated skin on the perineum, that's not something you'd notice–perhaps.

How common is Otomax?

It's a very common veterinary drug–I've used it on my Cocker Spaniels for years because they're inclined to get ear infections, and it is very useful in treating ear infections. It has a lot of use in small animal medicine. It wouldn't surprise me if it is used in equine veterinary medicine for different types of skin disease, especially the diagnosis of fungal diseases which has been referenced here, because some of the other topical medications of corticosteroids don't have an anti-fungal component, and Otomax does.

So, from what you're saying, Otomax could be a fairly ubiquitous medication on the backstretch. If so, why hasn't there been a rash–pardon the pun–of prior betamethasone positives subsequent to Otomax usage?

I don't know if it is commonly used [on the backstretch]. It wouldn't surprise me. It has extensive use in small animal medicine, and I would say that this is where I am most familiar with it as a client. You'd have to talk to practitioners on the backside to see how extensively they use it or if they carry it in their practice. A lot of topical medications come down to personal preference of the practitioner.

Again, I don't know the frequency with which it's used on the backside–nor do I know how it's used in proximity to a race. Are other people using it but withdrawing use of it within 72 hours? Because horses get bathed often, I would not expect there to be much carry over from day-to-day in terms of what's on the surface of the skin. You'd have to apply it a couple times a day–I think in this case, they said they were applying it once a day.

But again, what's the skin condition on which it's used? If it's on the girth or an area where the tack is inclined to rub, you probably are not planning on running the horse until it's resolved because that chaffing and discomfort could cause the horse to not provide maximum effort as it's uncomfortable. So, maybe most of its use is outside the context of a race, and so, it's not an issue.

These are questions I can't answer because I'm not on the backside prescribing it, and I would think if you want more information on the use of Otomax, you need to talk to some veterinarians who are attending to racehorses on a daily basis.

Taken from interview prior to Tuesday's statement:

Baffert has claimed that he's the victim of a systemic drug testing problem within the industry, and seems to have suggested he might be the subject of more deliberate efforts to tarnish his name. How likely is it that a sample was tampered with or that a testing error, deliberate or otherwise, was made?

I'm going to say highly improbable–very, very slim. There are multiple people in the test barn at any one time, and there are multiple people in the sample processing area at any one time. So, the thought that somebody would be able to successfully introduce something into a blood or urine sample without being detected, that I think is most unlikely.

Secondly, sort of as an aside, the RMTC has what's called an external quality assurance program where a couple of times a year we send sets of samples to each laboratory, and we pay another laboratory–one that's certified to do this–to put specific concentrations of substances into these blood and urine samples.

We may instruct 0.5 micrograms of [phenylbutazone, or bute] in a blood sample. Well, that requires very precise measurements and instrumentation–it's not like you just take a drop of injectable bute and plunk it into the test tube and say, 'there it is.' Doing something like that would result in extraordinarily high concentrations that would raise eyebrows and lead people to question the validity of the sample right there and then.

To tamper a sample with the addition of 21 picograms per milliliter? Say there's 6 milliliters of serum in that tube–what's that, 126 picograms of betamethasone? That's not easy to do. It's just not. There would be a large margin of error.

One of the first things you'd do if you saw a sample that high is look at the urine sample, and if there wasn't a corresponding concentration in the urine, you'd say, 'well, something's wrong here, this is not an accurate representation of what's in the horse. We need to notify the commission and decide how best to proceed.'

So, it would require two samples to be tampered with, and tampered with in such a way that concentrations of the substance present in such a way that would be complementary of each. And that to me would be tremendously difficult.

Baffert has also suggested that the finding could be a result of inadvertent cross-contamination. In a two-part TDN series last year, you voiced scepticism about the likelihood in certain circumstances of a positive being legitimately attributable to environmental contamination. What do you think of the likelihood of cross contamination in this case?

It still seems to me highly improbable. I mean, this horse, as I understand it, lived and was managed in Southern California until it came here for the Kentucky Derby. So, it's my understanding that in both circumstances, the stalls were under control of the trainer.

He has advised that this horse was never treated with betamethasone, so, I'm assuming that no betamethasone was introduced into the horse's stall in California through urine or feces or whatever. And it's also my understanding that the stalls at Churchill are unoccupied until the horses return in the spring. So, that's fresh bedding that's put down–again, it's hard for me to imagine that there was sufficient exposure in those stalls to result in a detection.

It is absolutely clear that there are substances that can be detected when you do swabs on the wall or you analyze clumps of dirt from the floor of the stall. But, again, you put clean bedding over those. The horse who is urinating over the bedding is reported never to have been treated [with betamethasone]. So, if the concentrations that had been detected in the flooring–you'd have to paw through and gnaw with your teeth in order to get some up to eat–were present in the milligram or nanogram concentrations, how much of that dirt would the horse have to eat in order to have a detectable concentration in its blood? To me the math doesn't add up.

Now, there are other ways unintended exposure can occur. We have dealt with a situation with a topical product that contains both antibiotics and betamethasone. It's used to treat wounds, and apparently, a horse had been treated topically with it, and the horse also seemed to like to lick its wounds. So, there was double exposure there through the wound as well as ingestion of the betamethasone. We attributed the finding to that level of exposure–we did not determine that the horse had been injected or that there was any nefarious activity. But the horse was exposed two ways. Clearly that was not an intended exposure.

There are certainly ways that unintended exposure can occur. But you're going to have a hard time convincing me a horse has licked enough of a stall wall to ingest a sufficient amount of betamethasone to result in a detectable finding.

Are there other ways betamethasone be found in the sample? Could it be a metabolite, for example, derived from another substance?

No, I don't believe so. I believe betamethasone is a unique medication, unique molecule. It is very similar to dexamethasone. It is the same molecular weight as dexamethasone, but the labs are able to discern the difference between the two. And again, when they report a finding for dexamethasone or betamethasone, they have unequivocally identified that molecule to the exclusion of all others.

Twenty-one picograms of betamethasone is described by some as insignificant. Can what appears such a relatively small amount of betamethasone be a performance enhancer?

You sort of ask two questions there, and so, I need to answer them separately.

First of all, we're not talking about the sum total of 21 picograms in the entire horse's body, it's 21 picograms per milliliter of blood. The horse has an awful amount of blood, probably in excess of 50,000 milliliters. That also doesn't measure the medication that has left the blood stream and entered the tissue. So, it's not 21 picograms in the entire horse–it's 21 picograms in one milliliter of blood. That's a different math problem right there.

Secondly, picogram is a measurement of weight and not potency. And so, my best way to explain this is to compare a pound of celery to a pound of Godiva chocolate. They both weigh a pound, so they have the same weight measurement, but in terms of potency–and let's say that's caloric content–they are hugely different, right? So, when you talk about a picogram of something, all you're really talking about is a measurement of weight.

Betamethasone is a potent corticosteroid administered at fairly low doses–nine milligrams or less in a single joint. Compare that to phenylbutazone which is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory. It's not a particularly potent drug–it's administered in gram doses. And so, we don't worry about picogram doses of phenylbutazone. We regulate phenylbutazone at the microgram level, which is one-millionth of a gram, and that's again because the drug disperses throughout the entire body.

So, you have to consider the potency of the drug, and because betamethasone is administered in low milligram doses, picogram concentrations are highly relevant.

Now, do I know what effect 21 picograms has on a horse? No, I do not. But I do know that, based on the administration studies that were funded by the RMTC, 21 picograms is consistent with the intra-articular administration of nine milligrams into a single fetlock joint at less than 72 hours prior to sampling.

Now, I'm not saying the horse in question received an intra-articular injection of betamethasone. It's clear that at the moment, no one knows how it got into the horse, and I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm just saying that drug at that dose by that route of administration would result in that concentration within administration at less than 72 hours to a race.

Our regulation of corticosteroids is really based on racing safety and equine welfare. When I think of performance enhancing drugs, I think of EPO, doping, amphetamines, that sort of thing. The classic hop that we talk about. Whereas corticosteroids could allow a horse that is unsound to feel better and race better than he otherwise would. And so, that's a safety and welfare concern. I don't consider that to be a performance enhancing problem.

At the end of April, the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission formally agreed to end its contract with Industrial Laboratories in Wheat Ridge, Colorado, and begin using instead the University of Kentucky Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory as its official testing institution. The switch is expected to occur in June. Is this something that concerns you about the validity of the findings?

Absolutely not. When I worked for the commission, we were extremely satisfied with the service from Industrial Laboratories, and I don't think the switch has anything to do with dissatisfaction or lack of confidence in the services provided. I think the decision was based on local availability and supporting the home team, as it were.

I think the commission will continue to use Industrial Laboratories for split samples and maintain a good working relationship with the lab because they did their work well, and Petra Hartmann, who oversees the equine racing and testing component end of the program has been immensely helpful to the commission all along.

The post Q&A: Mary Scollay on Drug Testing Protocols & Baffert Otomax Explanation appeared first on TDN | Thoroughbred Daily News | Horse Racing News, Results and Video | Thoroughbred Breeding and Auctions.

Source of original post

HISA: Committee Announces Board, Standing Members Of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority

The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's (the “Authority”) nominating committee announced today members of its board of directors and standing committees. The process was led by Nancy Cox, University of Kentucky vice president for land-grant engagement and dean of the College of Agriculture, Food and Environment, and Leonard Coleman, former president of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs.

The 2020 Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act (“HISA”) created the Authority as the independent governing structure charged with proposing and enforcing health-and-safety standards subject to consideration and adoption by the Federal Trade Commission over Thoroughbred racing in the United States. The independent nominating committee reviewed more than 160 nominations, evaluating nominees from within and outside of the industry. In addition to ensuring a diversity of professional backgrounds, the committee took into consideration geographic, racial and gender diversity.

Under the authority and oversight of the Federal Trade Commission, the Authority board and standing committee members are responsible for developing, implementing and enforcing a series of uniform anti-doping, medication control, racetrack safety and operational rules to enhance equine safety and protect the integrity of the sport.

Board of Directors

The nine-person board includes five members from outside of the Thoroughbred industry and four industry representatives. The two chairs of the Authority's standing committees serve on the board of directors, and the board is expected to select the board chair at its first meeting. The board of directors includes:

Steve Beshear is an independent director from Kentucky. He served two terms as the 61st governor of Kentucky. An attorney by trade, Beshear has an extensive background in public service in Kentucky, including terms as Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General and a member of the Kentucky House of Representatives.
Adolpho Birch is an independent director from Tennessee who will chair the Anti-Doping and Medication Control Standing Committee of the Authority. Birch is senior vice president of business affairs and chief legal officer for the Tennessee Titans. Prior to joining the Titans, he spent 23 years at the National Football League's headquarters, with responsibilities that included administration and enforcement of the NFL's policies related to the integrity of the game, substance abuse, performance-enhancing drugs, gambling and criminal misconduct.
Leonard Coleman is an independent director from Florida. Coleman is the former president of the National League of Professional Baseball Clubs. He joined Major League Baseball in 1992 as the executive director of market development. Previously, Coleman was a municipal finance banker for Kidder, Peabody and Company and served as commissioner of both the New Jersey Department of Community Affairs and Department of Energy. Coleman is also a former board member of Churchill Downs.
Ellen McClain is an independent director from New York. McClain serves as the chief financial officer for Year UP, a nonprofit organization dedicated to closing the opportunity divide by ensuring that young adults gain the skills, experience and support that will empower them through careers and higher education. From 2009-2013, she served in various leadership roles with the New York Racing Association (NYRA), including as its president.
Charles Scheeler is an independent director from Maryland. Scheeler is a retired partner at DLA Piper. He has an extensive legal career in the private and public sector. Prior to joining DLA Piper, Scheeler was a federal prosecutor in the US Attorney's Office and served as lead counsel to former Senator George Mitchell in his investigation of performance-enhancing substance use in Major League Baseball. Scheeler also has extensive experience investigating and monitoring Division I athletics programs' compliance with the National College Athletics Association.
Joseph De Francis is an industry director from Maryland. De Francis is the managing partner of Gainesville Associates, LLC. Prior to this role, he was a senior executive for various Thoroughbred racing entities including the Maryland Jockey Club and Magna Entertainment Corporation. De Francis has served on several industry and charitable organization boards, including the National Thoroughbred Racing Association (“NTRA”) and the Johns Hopkins Heart Institute, among others.
Susan Stover is an industry director from California, and she will chair the Racetrack Safety Standing Committee of the Authority. Stover is a professor of surgical and radiological science and the University of California, Davis and an expert in clinical equine surgery and lameness. Her research investigates the prevalence, distribution and morphology of equine stress fractures, risk factors and injury prevention, as well as the impact of equine injuries on human welfare.
Bill Thomason is an industry director from Kentucky. Thomason is the immediate past president of Keeneland, a role he served in from 2012 to 2020. Throughout his career, Thomason has been engaged with several industry organizations, including the NTRA and American Horse Council, as well as several civic and corporate boards, including the Kentucky Chamber of Commerce and the University of Kentucky Gluck Equine Research Foundation.
DG Van Clief is an industry director from Virginia. Van Clief retired in 2006 from serving as president of the Breeders' Cup since 1996. A long-time racing executive, Van Clief was chairman of the Fasig-Tipton Company and a trustee of the Jockey Club Foundation. For several generations, his family operated Nydrie Stud in Virginia, and his grandmother bred 1947 Kentucky Derby winner Jet Pilot.

“Over the past several months, the nominating committee carefully reviewed each nominee with a deep and enduring understanding of the important responsibility entrusted to them in selecting the inaugural board and standing committees of this essential entity charged with standardizing safety in the industry” said nominating committee co-chair Nancy Cox. “Thanks to the time and effort of the committee, we have a diverse board and standing committees with broad expertise who will bring the thoughtfulness and skill needed in implementing the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act.”

Anti-Doping and Medication Control Standing Committee

The committee is comprised of four independent members and three industry members:

Adolpho Birch, chair (Tennessee, independent director) – see above
Jeff Novitzky is an independent member from Nevada. Novitzky is Ultimate Fighting Championship's (UFC) vice president of athlete health and performance. In this role, he partnered with the United States Anti-Doping Agency to implement UFC's anti-doping program. Prior to UFC, Novitzky was a federal agent for the Food and Drug Administration and an investigator for the Internal Revenue Service.
Kathleen Stroia is an independent member from Florida. Stroia is senior vice president of sport sciences and medicine and transitions for the Women's Tennis Association (WTA) and the WTA's representative on the board of the Society for Tennis Medicine and Science. Stroia has served on various committees related to her sport, including the International Tennis Federation Medical Commission, the Tennis Anti-doping Committee and the U.S. Tennis Association Sport Science Committee, among others.
Jerry Yon is an independent member from Florida. Yon is a retired gastroenterologist and previous member of the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission (“KHRC”), where he helped establish the Kentucky Equine Medical Director position, and is a past chair of the Equine Drug Research Council, which advises the KHRC on drug testing, regulations and penalties.
Jeff Blea is an industry member from California. Blea is equine medical director at the University of California, Davis School of Veterinary Medicine. He is also a partner/owner in Von Bluecher, Blea, Hunkin, Inc., an equine veterinary medicine and surgery practice. Blea has served on and led several equine industry organizations including the American Association of Equine Practitioners (“AAEP”), Southern California Equine Foundation and the NTRA's Safety and Integrity Alliance.
Mary Scollay is an industry member from Kentucky. Scollay is the executive director and chief operating officer of the Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (RMTC), one of the industry's foremost scientific authorities on performance enhancing drugs, therapeutic medications and laboratory testing. She has served as a racing regulator since 1987 and is an active member in several industry and professional practice organizations including the AAEP and the International Group of Specialist Racing Veterinarians.
Scott Stanley is an industry member from Kentucky. Stanley is a professor of analytical chemistry at the University of Kentucky's Maxwell H. Gluck Equine Research Center and director of the Equine Analytical Chemistry Laboratory. A research scientist with more than 30 years of regulatory drug testing experience, his work focuses on developing new anti-doping approaches and the establishment of the Equine Biological Passport project.

Racetrack Safety Standing Committee

The committee is comprised of four independent members and three industry members:

Susan Stover, chair (California, industry director) – see above
Lisa Fortier is an independent member from New York. Fortier is the James Law Professor of Surgery, Equine Park Faculty Director and associate chair for Graduate Education and Research at the Cornell University College of Veterinary Medicine. Her primary clinical and translational research interests are in equine orthopedic surgery, tendonitis, arthritis and regenerative medicine.
Peter Hester is an independent member from Kentucky. Hester is an orthopedic surgeon specializing in sports medicine and previously worked for equine veterinary surgeon William Reed at Belmont Park. While in medical school, he was a night watchman at Ballindaggin Farm and has maintained a passion for the sport and rider safety.
Paul Lunn is an independent member from North Carolina. Lunn is dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at North Carolina State University. Previously he was a professor and administrator at Colorado State University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Lunn's scholarly interests are in equine immunology and infectious disease.
Carl Mattacola is an independent member from North Carolina. Mattacola is dean of the University of North Carolina, Greensboro School of Health and Human Sciences. Prior to this, he was associate dean of academic and faculty affairs for the College of Health Sciences at the University of Kentucky. Mattacola's research has focused on neuromuscular, postural and functional considerations in the treatment and rehabilitation of lower extremity injury.
Glen Kozak is an industry member from New York. Kozak is senior vice president of operations and capital projects for the New York Racing Association's (NYRA) facility and track operations, which include Belmont Park, Saratoga Race Course, Aqueduct Racetrack and others. Prior to joining NYRA, Kozak worked for the Maryland Jockey Club as vice president of facilities and racing surfaces.
John Velazquez is an industry member from New York. Velazquez is one of the most accomplished and respected jockeys in the history of horse racing, having won almost 6,250 races. He is North America's all-time leading money-earning jockey and holds the record for most graded stakes wins. He is a board member of the Permanently Disabled Jockeys' Fund and co-chairman of the Jockeys' Guild. He was inducted into the National Museum of Racing and Hall of Fame in 2012.

“The overwhelming response to the call for nominees is a clear example of the industry's interest in and commitment to addressing the safety needs in this sport,” said Leonard Coleman, co-chair of the nominating committee and incoming board member. “The members of the Authority's two standing committees bring extraordinary knowledge to the process of developing uniform standards in anti-doping and medication control and racetrack safety—a critical need for the horseracing industry.”

Members of the board of directors and standing committees underwent a comprehensive screening process, and the members of the board of directors and any independent member of a standing committee are subject to HISA's strict conflict of interest restrictions to ensure the Authority's independence and integrity.

“On behalf of the Authority, we want to thank the lawmakers who sponsored and supported this legislation in Congress, as well as the members of the nominating committee for their time, effort and professionalism,” said Cox.

Today's announcement received praise and support from Congressional leaders who shepherded the passage of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act last December.

“The official formation of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority is the critical next step in safeguarding this cherished sport. I'm grateful to University of Kentucky Vice President Nancy Cox, and the other members of the nominating committee for their diligence in selecting respected individuals to serve on thoroughbred racing's independent governing body, said U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who introduced the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act in the Senate and led it to enactment. “With uniform, national standards for medication-use and track safety, we can address the challenges facing horse racing and preserve one of Kentucky's signature industries for generations to come. Along with all horse racing fans, I look forward to the Authority's work to protect horses and jockeys and to give every competitor a fair shot at the winner's circle.”

“Today, the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority Nominating Committee put forward an impressive slate of individuals that will lead the Thoroughbred racing industry forward,” said Congressman Andy Barr (R-KY-06). “This group of regionally and professionally diverse individuals will guide the implementation of uniform standards of safety and competition. I want to thank each member for volunteering their time and talents to serving this vital industry. The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act is a historic reform that will strengthen Kentucky's signature industry for generations to come.”

“Reforming the noble sport of horse racing—and implementing the high standards we established in our Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act—will require a deft, experienced and compassionate group of hands that can balance the historic and geographically diverse character of this sport's past with a resounding and ethical vision for its bright future. The group of leaders advanced by the nominating committee today has what it takes to meet that challenge, and I look forward to working with them to ensure they get the job done for the sake of our equine athletes and the many people and communities who depend on them,” said Representative Paul Tonko (D-NY-20).

Additional information on HISA can be found at hisaus.org.

The post HISA: Committee Announces Board, Standing Members Of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority appeared first on Horse Racing News | Paulick Report.

Source of original post